of talking on behalf of errol thank you for your time this morning you know oftentimes when we see these in effect it is of claims it can be he said all or you know he said she said in other words the defendant says one when you take that advice and you apply it to the test set forth in cases like strickland and waufle or it can easily be said that the only reasonable well him to encourage her to go to trial in the face of overwhelming evidence against her was not a decade but but but but counsel as as the district court found she discharged her st attorney because he advised her to take a plea and she didn't want to do it and she hired mr do because he would take the case to trial and then shortly before the trial the government proffered what i consider to be a bizarre  offer bizarre conditions in the plea offer which i'll ask your friend about but nonetheless she basically said i'm not going to do this i want to go to trial let's let's go to trial i mean she got a plea offer she turned it down and she went to trial so how how is she prejudiced when it seems clear as judgment always found that she went to trial because she wanted to go to trial so you know i'll just reiterate some of the things we've pointed out in our clear to me in reading what she said that she is not adding anything to the penalty because what the lawyer did she's basing it completely on what you c said when she did now if that's true and i read it two or three times i think that's what she said piers to be that's what she means why don't we head into this case at all because there's no counsel i have a unrelated question for you you say it's your in your breeze it's forty seven that you're not asking for the normal remedy because of the overwhelming evidence against your client gave the settings and send it back for a judge to consider it on basically an alternative universe of facts that aren't really the facts that were present i think when you look at the locklear case and it's the states versus marston case it says that we're a defendant shows an effective assistance is because the rejection of the legal leading to a more severe sentence at trial the remedy must neutralize the pain of the did the government ever provide either you or to your knowledge mr du been it results of any investigation into your client's rape allegations against  agents was there anything that indicated that they in any way investigated that particular claim as opposed to their investigation of the other claimants described in mr karr a u s a cars e mail you know i'm not aware  knowledge and you know i just again you know when you read the e mails it's just you cannot say it was objective the reasonable thing hurt her to go to trial in this case to tell her that she could win all we tell her that she would get the twenty year oral sex i myself have never seen a condition like that and for accepting a plea agreement with a declaration to that effect written out by by the government what was the basis for that requirement i understand the part about agent foreigner taking the two hundred thousand dollars and mr karr as e mail laid out the investigation the government had done or as the basis of brief she's sending the e mail to mr goodman is there any way that we can enjoy our plea instead of her change her sister changing hers on friday would it not be better i really don't want to take a gamble on going to trial there's so much why would they give you anything but the maximum stem it's now and then he says there's a new player in town me we go to try out a woman you know i mean if you want think of someone up there on trial the jury advised them appropriately and they still insist that that's not what happened here we're called counselors for reason we're supposed to counsel attorneys even when they may be their own worst enemy we're supposed to advise them of the pros and cons not encourage them to do something incredibly frankly stupid he confessed there was a pall of drugs in the car there was no way they were going to win this trial it's absurd to suggest that well the best thing to do two weeks before throughout was still go to trial that's not objective only reasonable oh mr dubin you know those are  atrocious things he said about the court the things he said about the use of bernie's and it flows lately from the fact that he was prosecuted for tax fraud in the past and he's since been disbarred by the high supreme court we have to do better than you know in our profession and we cannot let this happen and all raspy is that at the very least to get the two remember who level reduction to remove that pain him telling her she would get twenty years if she pled which was not true and encouraging her to go to