here in front of you today i would like if i may reserve two minutes for rebuttal you know haber's we set forth for reasons why the basis for that is clear on the record and so far as the court appointed expert dr cynthia lol indicated that mr old person  decreased intellectual functioning he had a fifty seven i q or has a fifty seven i q he basically couldn't even spell the word world could it's of track three from one hundred was person and especially after she reviewed the extensive arguments and i daresay the entire appendix papers that the court has stuck to a low hat if not more person did not understand the rights he was giving up when he played guilty and of course he did not understand the circumstances and the he had less than adequate ability to assist as a charity and he had less than average ability to understand but she said that with time and with extensive meetings with mr all person he could do you have any injuries there was questions about do you suffer from any mental disease or defect but do you have any injuries that we're not aware of that we have any head injuries that we're not aware of the questioning or in his competency at the change of going on upstairs so i think that i understand the court's concern but it seems to me that when a doctor says you could make a fellow competent to stand trial if you wish this to him and spend time with him but he didn't understand what was happening at the change of a page and a paragraph long fifteen m items of information were provided and then do you understand and this real person said forty three times yes true honor and that was it by my count if i can move on to the second issue when they're all kind of related is the court probably can tell is the fact that the rule of them wasn't strictly complied with which is mandatory the basis why we say it wasn't applied with this because judge hadn't said to m old person if i'm going to accept this plea you're going to tell me in your own words what you did and then of course mr o person said that he touched the complainant over the coals which is not comply with the definition the same time he required to make sure that the person has there's a nature of the charge when he says one thing the court recognize you have to tell me no more than what you did and he doesn't do that it's not strict compliance with all the evidence i'm looking at the transcript and i see the have to tell me or your own words what you did and when you have that conflict from the from the accused on words the court is van david under rule eleven so make sure that that the the nature of the charge there was no definition of the sexual act the court didn't say these are the elements if that's obvious of these are the elements and what sexual act means and that's the problem as it goes connected to the my client's i q of fifty seven his poor reading his core skills in a myriad of ways and that's also the reason why my point three x a few seconds i guess i'm out of time  understanding of the the plea agreement she was not able to speak with mr gallagher she and she attempted to and i think he wouldn't talk with her about the scope of his representation and so we are in a circumstance where  provided to mr old person and how that correlated to the difficulty that a person with his intellectual functioning would have gained in understanding it the next item would be that i didn't  know with regard to the comments regarding this the gallows the government seems to say that the court got to see how mr all person responded to mr gallagher and vice versa but obviously well it is actually i would submit that it's it's part of the record that can be considered we were wanted to get a new trial a trial because when he pled guilty you