also obvious from the verdict floor on page seven hundred and thirty six asserted on the street of record that is signed by the jurors were person instructions at the top are that only ten out of twelve need to find individual guilty core but if there had been if it had been unanimous and we knew it was unanimous you would agree that that would be different case it would be a yes or a yes absolutely if we had all to all twelve of case my point is we go by the record that we have and the record indicates here that all we can see is that there are ten to twelve but does so is that a requirement  for i mean you you mentioned the one of the differences is bieber taishan it seems to me that that's part of the part of the difference that that mean it may hurt your client here because there isn't a requirement that it's unanimous or there's no requirement that it's a unanimous verdict there just has to be a at least under th circuit law a formal judgement of guilt and so it seems to me that whether there's ten votes or eleven votes or twelve we know one of those three things to a categorical match with federal law oregon statute when sixty three point one nine because under the oregon stanchions words are enough in order to convict under the statute under the federal law it's need to have some kind of force involved my arguments are that force and words are not equivalent for example if i saw also trading speeding after you and you're standing force going to hurt you but i don't understand i mean you say words are enough into the oregon statute but words would be enough theoretically i mean under the federal statute to if you lurching like a train coming at you that is going to be enough to apply to the organ statue but it's not under the federal law because it's not me doing the force it's going to hurt you and i know there's references to the ethnic group which apparently you know your client is that isn't food is part of but i'm trying to figure out is there anything persecution in a particular country for a shift of government to show that the whole country is safer there is a place that you could relocate to and you don't think the government shown that there's a place that they could relocate to here i think even and so these documents continue to be generator and current in the press are almost every day about the bad situation ethiopia everywhere in the country you know the prime minister's role and he's being attacked you may want to reserve some time pre buttal but i wanted to ask you quickly about the due process claims because to me that seemed to be one of the stronger argument as i understand it there's some evidence and you've maybe alluded to some of that here about the evidence when he presented to you know i know it doesn't technically matter for us but i'm interested in what evidence he would present and whether it was potentially relevant  verdict on all counts of conviction why doesn't that for close your ramos argument argue that those are words that were perhaps inadvertently misused by counsel the supreme court alluded to the sort of things in does it matter whether his case might be and he doesn't need to exactly proper what evidence he would have to base on our case law so i'm just trying to figure out on the  something they actually looked at the written evidence and so this doesn't amount to hardship so it seems a little internally inconsistent there and i don't know why we don't just have this remanded to the i j have a hearing now that i'm understanding not i have some suspicion about that but seems to me that our case law doesn't allow us to go down that that if that was if he was allowed to present it that he should be given an opportunity