in washington versus lampert that waivers of post fiction remedies are always the question for this case is how washington applies we disagree with the state's analysis of the remedy  once the court determines that a criminal defendant in capital proceedings cannot be required to waive as a condition of plea negotiations his right to bring post conviction or collateral additional facts you would attempt to develop if you were given the opportunity to do so what would they be well in this other than that you state the obvious there was a more culpable mr seldon's had actually lied to the state about his activities and put the blame initially on mr johnson when that deception was revealed mr johnson had already been respect for your i disagree and i believe that the arguments that we've made here and in the district court are substantially the same as the arguments that mr co you must under the washington analysis that ace it's immaterial portion of the plea agreement is invalid and i don't think that the difficulty if you take washington to it looks like it's something brand new but it's not it seems anyone could always argue that if the whole plea agreement falls due to an effective assistance then of course the waiver falls along with it that's always been available there's nothing new in magic about that so that was always there so and washington dealt with this sort of problem but the point is conflict of interest is the foreclosed by the waiver and although i agree that there is nothing novel about the proposition that one should be permitted to challenge the nature of the representation one receives when entering into an agreement  oregon courts found to the contrary and they enforced the agreement against mr johnston and did not allow him to develop any claims on their substance of merit so the question here now is once you have reviewed the ple crying his claims were that his lawyers did not affect the plea negotiation the best possible deal and that the state misled him into believing that he was getting the so what are the facts that one that you want to develop in the district or that argument that statement is in your groups but i'm curious what are the facts the facts would be testimony from the lawyers material regarding you know you could say evidentiary material from the correspondence between the prosecutor and the lawyers that talk about the essential terms of the agreement and how the agreement unfolded how much time was spent with mr johnston to explain what promises were made to him and whether his lawyers could have achieved a better result for him if they had for instance delayed sentencing in mr johnson's case until the problems associated with prosecuting the district court did not allow mr johnson to develop any of his claims either through briefing or evidentiary support because the entire case rose and fell on the validity of the plea agreement which express statement when i entered my plea i was under the impression it was exactly like what i meant it was not but he did not explain how that rendered here is decision to accept this favorable deal whole of the record in the trial for that he is statement at the time he entered this deal which again got him the lightest sentence that he possibly could have received on convictions of aggravated murder that hi the legal issue or the legal argument that there was an actual conflict or that there was necessarily a conflict of interest between petitioner and his counsel simply fails under washing the patently unreasonable or was in an unreasonable application of clearly established united states supreme court law the record shows that petitioner was aware of the conditions of the plea agreement  he was permitted to make those challenges and that's haste he failed to obtain really but that should not relieve him from the other obligations under this agreement there's no authority for that understanding of his waiver is he is simply not allowed to give up those rights because of the policies inherent and criminal justice system in our  and that goes to the validity of the waiver which was about in force against him in fact the courthouse door was closed on him when the state says that he got the lowest possible sentence that's correct for and i see my time is up if i may completely