determining that pis section two thousand two hundred and fifty four petition was filed sixty eight days after the d p a statue imitations based on its time calculations derived without obtaining the state court record dollars it is very common for courts to use or in judges to use hyperlinks to documents outside of a court record it's very common and it is it's replete both that the supreme court level in a some courts of appeals and even a trial courts however we have a problem this problem is known as link rotten hyperlinks to documents outside of a court record  not static there are times where they get broken they change things happen indeed the d c circuit in july of two thousand and fifteen stated in a press release quote this circuit opinions frequently contain citations to web pages unfortunately after a period of time some of those web pages cease to exist or become altered making citation inaccessible or in discernible likewise united states supreme court starting the october session to two thousand and fifteen created a address link rupp problem and has now portions of court opinions that are systems i'm just in florida it's a sixty seven counties at county court level i believe there are sixty seven but then some of the counties are merged for the circuit level some counties have a circuit so the let the numbers last i wan thousand circuits might my question is you know how how reliable are the dockets across the the state into i mean is it pretty consistent in terms of practices i mean if i worry state public defender i only practice in in one county one circuit broward county fort lauderdale so i haven't had a whole lot of experience statewide but what i can tell you is that at least in my experience the especially a federal trial judge is going to rely upon a docket sheet of the state court and rely upon the documentations without drilling down into the underlying document itself i think we have a problem to that and have sea away i don't believe that was in my purview in order to to address that i don't i mean one of the things that worries me about the is that you know the time to finish is you know if this is too late is an affirmative defense and so what we're dealing with this where a court has basically asserted affirmative defense on behalf of the government you would what are your thoughts about well i personally believe that's problematic given that the supreme court is very clear that a from a defense is claimed process of the rules not a threshold jurisdictional under ho fifty four time bar so we have this confluence of outs so to speak for seek or petition or that would allow them to get around the one year time bar is so when you add all these things in together i personally find a problematic for not only trying to raise a swiss spondee assume they could but then not directing the parties themselves to drill down into it and i would submit that the best practice would be for a state  for if federal district court to order the state to provide an appendix which in my experience before this court and two thousand and fifty four hours is a common practice for the state to provide an appendix full of the state court documents then becomes outside of a court is problematic i would suggest that if a court trial court wants to do that or even if this court i granted i've looked at this court's general rules are general orders also look at the th circuits and it seems to me that the d c circuit is at this time the only one that district court's record which thank you all go up to discourse for a view and this is especially important for purposes of dockets because dockets grow dockets change there are the possibilities that years after the fact you might have a ceiling order you might have done dockets that are placed in the archives which are then no longer available for for public view you typically see that context of newspaper articles where they might be available for thirty days but after a certain amount of time they're place behind a firewall and you don't have access to them or you have other possibilities where the the state docket might just get moved to different part of the website so they a u r l the chapter for it when you click on it it doesn't lead you anywhere so this  would prevent that which is why i believe the supreme court in the d c circuit found that not only providing that the hyperlinks provide the underlying documents really be the best practice what i would submit this court should take the lead and adopt that rule not only i would knows including your client what's being relied on exactly a very simple print to p d f and then there's do some type of filing that supports the the trial courts or the are as opinion and then we all know what he's looking must these issues it's a minor standing that the ability of a state court every state prisoner in florida apartment of corrections to access the internet is limited and then becomes part of the record and then we all know and then it can go to the petitioner himself where he can look and say something is wrong something is not right which is actually what happened in this case after the r n r came out  client filed an objection to the our in our and into the objection the our in our contest of the actual factual assertions in the our in our which tended to resolve unfortunately against my client but i would submit that when you it committee producing are taking judicial notice of certain facts which then my client contested i don't believe that on a cold record a just record can resolve that i will leave that were just in general the your brother in this case has proposed this idea that there should be a p d f of the of the documents the magistrate judge relied on and then everybody knows exactly everybody's relying on the same facts i mean that seems like a reasonable proposition if you were making a rule would you object to that being the rule  of do you know if the records are kept fairly consistently across the nineteen judicial circuit and florida on the docket  it's what about my concern about allowing the magistrate judge to a certain affirmative defense on behalf of the government that worries me a little bit does it w court kicks it out without the government ever knowing about it then the you know the government's ability to waive the statue of limitations defense is gone and it is an affirmative defense well  was interrupted just a nd to answer your question my understanding in this case is that the magistrate judge took it upon himself or herself to go in to raise the defense to go and research record gather the records and then make a determination my question would be less suppose we said this is ok good i magistrate then direct the government to raise the defense and tell the government i want i'm ordering you to racis i'm ordering you to go get all the records and report back to me what the weather whether or not there's been a violation of the statute of limitations in the good imagine it does do  that i think that the the issue that's doctored up limitations yeah they do have the time to do all this but want to check in so he tells a government you do the work i'm telling you go do the work and then suppose a government says i don't want to raise this defense it's an affirmative defense for whatever reason i don't want to raise it then you get into a big problem because you've got a magistrate wanting to do it the government doesn't want to as an affirmative defense and then you get the big brouhaha over who's got to go do this if anybody into it well what you another thing that worries me is how a magistrate judge or a district judge for that matter looking at a cold docket how are they going to go about things like the mailbox rule how they're not going to be able to tell from the docket when the prisoner gave the filing to prison authorities for mailing in sometimes these calculations come down to just a couple of days so that seems like a problem to me as well does it to you and met it and another case th affirmative defense because for example the state of florida might determined they don't want to raise that they bared difficult calculation they just might have a very good argument that it's not an unreasonable application of supreme court law and the path of least resistance for the state might be let me get a merits based term nation not have to go down this rabbit hole of a procedural so i think you know asking the your question just rats i think that's problematic and you answer that question a lot of court to actually dismiss a petition it is apparent on its face that it lacks merit or some procedural obstacle i just don't see how the how rule for could ever applied to a claim of actual innocence i think a claim of actual innocence i don't know how that on to the docket you can see the documentaries and what they are but you are unable to click on the actual document itself in it naturally view it so so again this leads back to the probably have you have the a docket sheet and we have a d hyperlinks i can understand where the concerns are someone you know minimized or you have a dr she by itself and you don't actually get to view or drill down into the actual underlying court filing i find that to be highly problematic and i would hope that that court or this understand that to date nothing has actually been said by this court as to what the record needs to be and what particular format but i would urge this court to say that going forward that the