i call a data point but you've got one last point from which to draw the line into says you know there were a few facts that change from this statement to the nd state a few more that change from nd to rd so you'd be in the position of having just the nd then the rd to look  case but as i said not only did he fail to understand the claims but when he went to argue the claims and i'm in the petition he failed to present them adequately to present the claims and in fact in and w you know this is a horse a record number assigned to point but i've never seen an attorney do this basically spent two thirds of a quote unquote amended post conviction for to arguing why his clien that if i don't raise all these claims i have to explain why you know if your honour's understand posts people versus kunar only pertains to cases in which an attorney feels like he has an ethical obligation to withdraw completely because all the claims are frivolous there's not even one claim in a put in a pro se petition that he can advance doesn't apply to a situation here where trace on race four separate claims one of those claims have three subparts of his claim about moving to object to hearsay so out of those four claims and three claims post convention counsel raise two claims that part in and of itself is not a violation of one c but then he went on to explain why all these other claims including the suppression claim about which we this case he went piece by piece and explained why he didn't believe these claims were good he thought they were frivolous not only that but he didn't apply the correct wall when he did it so you know he went he went to this extraordinary step of arguing against his client and he didn't even do a very good job of it for a couple reasons one going back to the st argument that when he didn't understand that trey shawn's claim was only about this one statement not all three of the statement so he was making this argument about all three of the statements were fine they should have nd he was willing to give trial counsel the benefit of the doubt by saying well this was probably you know trial strategy that he wanted these things in maybe it was but that's a thing that he could ask trial counsel in a rd say the evidence or hearing as he did on this other claim this claim about why didn't you impeach miss claims probably would have been suppressed or might not have been suppressed anyway council says well you know he was mirandized before all of these statements true you know as far as the record goes it says he was more in but we know if there's been an illegal arrest that the attenuation argument united states supreme court's decision in brown is not only were there miranda warnings but you know what was the what were the intervening circumstances that came between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statement what was the flagrant c of the police misconduct and what was the time period that passed when the arrest and the statement all three of those things would go against the state and in favor of my client in this case miranda is the only factor that would support the state and that's the only one for some reason that counsel welt on  saying well you know not only was this probably trial strategy but i don't even know if these things could have been suppressed anyway because he was mirandized if i'm writing the law which i'm not but my strong preference would be that you don't ever go through those who've of arguing against your client to begin with but if you do hit the wall right and i don't think in this case even did so he's arguing to the judge my client's claims are frivolous honor even if he's only even if he understood that claim even if he was crystal clear about that still and going through this step of arguing against the client that's wrong that's not i was told there was going to be a time on that and the time or your the time are ok well your honour's i'm all the way through my notes so i'm happy to stand here and answer analysis as to why he's not raising this issue so i'm not sure exactly which of those allegations to i'm going to dress today as far as the claim that you cannot explain why you're not raising anything i do not believe that that is supported by anything in any of the case admittedly this is the st time what usually happens is the attorney files a amended post a petition that leaves out an issue we get to appeal and the automatic claim is post conviction counsel was ineffective because he left out issue x and this court has t guess why the turn and leave out issue x so counsel did us a favor i think you did you do you i think it is perfectly consistent with the case with perry and ect a attorney is faced with a petition that he believes to be frivolous he has two choices stand on the spot on the petition and explain why consider it despite your motion saying i'm not going to raise it but we have the at the trial court has the opportunity to consider the merits of the omitted claim because of the way in which coun has filed his petition that is perfectly consistent with the obligations of counsel to consult read the record and make the women and that's necessary have made it clear that what they claim is frivolous an amendment is not necessary and counsel may not raise an issue he knows to be frivolous because if he's doing so he's violating his ethical post do he read the record there is nothing in this record to show that he did not understand of the fenice contentions he did not address the merits of whether a  should be filed or could have been filed it could as he approached it from the viewpoint of prejudice why in the heck would you want to suppress the statements to the police that is perfectly consistent with your defendant's alibi why do you want to suppress that so the thinness claim that you have to ignore prejudice is raul you have to look at prejudice in order to determine ok was potent action council reputation adequate in this place was he providing reasonable he decided i am like going to raise this issue because i do not believe it einstein's performance is being questioned that wasn't the case here not i admit the difference but i think that the type of representation there is no difference say ok this is why i'm doing something where the attorney appears at the date of the hearing as the thing as a petition should be rejected is that the defendant has not been given notice or that the attorney is going to be doing this here the defendant was given notice that his attorney was a bending these particular claims and was to the told why there was a period of time between the falling of the motion but the a illinois are not hesitant at all to write there are the courts here who are complaining about their attorneys saying he didn't consult with me he did not come to anything like that we don't have that here we don't counsel's positional was unusual but i do not think that the very fact that he filed of the petition in the way he did makes it proceed in effect or unreasonable assist then we get to the question of should he have zero omitted this as a separate issue and i think his determination was a reasonable one well where it might be arguable that there were could have been grounds to say as he says why it's a toss up for counsel in the truck or do you let it come in because it's favorable and take their lumps because he can't keep his story completely straight already suppressed want to still have the other it is it better to have three statements saying i was not there rather than the so i think that the post conviction attorneys approach to this would not allow reasonable when here saying that under six hundred and fifty one c didn't compliant with the rule and the difference in that is if you don't comply with the rule you don't get you don't get your error excused on the basis of well other than to disagree i'd the response i would say is just the same that we had in our brief which is that we were not supposed to be arguing about we're not we're not supposed to be concerned but even if we are giving the state the benefit of the doubt on that there still is prejudice and the way that the claim was evaluated was still wrong but our position is that no prejudice if you look at whether six hundred and fifty one c was complied with and if we   the circuit court on remand counsel spent some time saying well you know you could go back and forth this trial counsel saying don't let this and not let this in that's all very fertile territory to be explored on direct we can ask the people who were there counsel said that it was significant that even under being browbeaten by the police three different times my client didn't change his story in that st statement i would say that to the extent that we talking about the constitutionality of the statement coming in the browbeating the police would be one more thing to consider on the flagrante of the police misconduct i would say and your honour's know this well if i come here a great claim and you should be arguing counsel said that well that this court should encourage this kind of procedure in the future going forward for other post convict if that's the case if this is such a salutary thing for a postcondition counsel to do i don't know why we don't have every attorney do this why don't we do this in the trial court and say well your honor i thought about alibi but he really does have a girl by and i want to put on the record he told me about these three or four witnesses i think those witnesses are completely full of beans and i'm not going to put them on of course we don't do that and would it help the appellate court sure it would help the appellate court deny a claim it would help  trying to take your trial attorney down to get a new trial that's a situation that we have here where we've got a guy you know my client was nineteen years old when this when this crime was committed and he's supposed to do what he's