this case is not a crossword or obliquely case but there is there is important language in those two cases that set forth policy that the jury might might not probably would not believe that he could have conceivably driven from their home investor up to lake arrowhead and committed the burglaries and on the act and that therefore it was harmless error i don't believe  even before crawford and blakely and certainly now that they can if the court can make that kind of speculation and other than that i don't think there's really anything to add to the briefs unless the court has some question in their declaration to receive one whether their statements were enough because they didn't say we specifically we saw him every moment of the period he was here correct let's put that aside for the moment let's assume they are really alibi witnesses and then what is your response to that i understand your case basically it's that the evidence is so strong paris france and we saw him every day during this period he could not have gotten to big bear our head and commit a burglary then one then we have an entirely different case that i know never did but one of the one of the glaring ok last hour i find another issue well is whether under california law you are required to specifically ask for a hearing or you are under under under robbins you others in his file then perhaps he would have created enough of a record in state court none of that happened but the problem i mean you know what's what's lovingly missing here is to simply call an alibi witnesses i mean that's point a rabbit out of a hat these are alibi witnesses there's nothing in the declaration of suggest they are they just said he was living with me  during the period of time of these burglars he's found there two days later when he was supposedly working with those folks not that they did not say he was living with him that well two days later to go after they said he was living right p his petition in the in the state trial court through his hades petition even in the california supreme court that any of this information particularly this concludes restatement that he couldn't possibly committed these crimes because he was with us during this entire period of talk twenty four hours or two weeks or whatever period this time was none of that was before the state courts none of that was shown to be in counsel's file that's the that's a look good in the in the evidence for showing here that's why he's not entitled to relief that's it wasn't an unreasonable application of clearly established united states supreme court present he did make an adequate showing he doesn't mean it had a good showing here this is insufficient even if we were starting afresh as a vs matter to show that these were affidavit which was offered for the first time six years after the crime in the california supreme court never operatives for court level one evidence we're hearing could have been heard is insufficient to qualify him for evidence or appearing in the first instance hardly support for that claim in the federal district court which is why that court rejected just a couple of fine points for the court first of all it's true that that mr stated positions were bare bones but he did make the allegation that there were witnesses that were not call but i can't find that case at the moment you have any work to do i don't have the authority but i think your honour's correct in fact i think i have several cases where i need need to exhaust federal issues and i file directly in the california supreme court wait for them the authority for it in front of me the other thing i wanted to to mention is that we have really strong circumstantial evidence in this case that mr wade trial counsel just didn't want to be bothered with trying this  painted car with orange over white i think it was was the school colors or something of a nature and they spotted them leaving the promises after the house was broken into and you know address when they found the car again same color involved another one they also found  i shouldn't say that but i have nothing further unless the court has more questions thank you very much ok just very good will be submitted