evidence the district court erred in denying kitchener's an evidentiary hearing on the issue of acquittal tolling a conflict in this case was not just a matter of credibility although the conflict over credibility is make a difference well the very fact that there were such contested evidence means that the court below could have held an evidentiary hearing at which the parties w examine the witnesses the most important witnesses who supplied the affidavit concerning the conditions at the library in arizona and the so called research by mail one telephone system that exist those affidavits so we see that most prominently in the albert roy case where the court did not supply additional reasons in denying the petitions but said here's what petitioners say respondent comes circumstances he's confronted with at this privately run facility in arizona he writes on page two ninety four of the excerpt i am in process of post conviction and being denied to adequately pursue it further first shared one typewriter with a number of other all the other prisoners who sought to use that library in arizona later on at best had a couple of typewriters to share to him and no and in the additional information that we supplied by virtue of affidavit in the in both cases we supplied the affidavits of the prisoner's witnesses who also filing deadline was posted that's not enough and that's not simply a deficiency in this particular law library the deficiency is the failure of the state of oregon to provide adequate legal we have to allow for that evidence that it's not only recently burden to require to dinners to articulate in these types of cases because it's their own story all they would need to do is come forward and explain what steps they taught well while they were incarcerated to try to figure out when the et a deadline is and what steps they talk to try to make their timely file and i don't think that they did that here federal petition and so they still in your work are those of that fact they still have an obligation in support of their claim of more equitable calling on which they care the burden of proof to come forward with evidence day after right you just answer that question there was no evidence that in oregon they would have been able to find what they needed is there now that there was no there's been no assertion that the oregon prison i guess i'd like to make one other point and we refused to rebut a very significant point in their opening brief and then they said that all prisoners that were sent to arizona failed to make timely filings and the problem with that is the opening brief indicates that there filing and that's a far cry from showing knight all the titian are stewards that arizona had this problem there's no evidence on the record as to the total total amount of people who were sent there there are there were  have some reserved time this court has addressed if likeability of willem hunt and i believe that that case is very much on point i would turn the court especially to page eleven forty eight of this court's decision deciding to that a remained was required for determination of whether there were impediments to time trialing faced by the petitioner in that case the court explicitly stated that it did not agree with the district court that there were no vision and declaration under which they would have been entitled to a finding of an impediment under twenty two forty four that pointed out the specific plea that the court there the district court never gave the petitioner an opportunity to expand on his declaration given that there were circumstances consistent with their declarations that would have entitle them to such a finding that's the case here you there are circumstances and systems refusing showing that petitioners did come forward within the district court that would entitle them to equitable coaling they documented how they were working on their state post conviction cases at that time an absolute prerequisite to bringing the types of collateral challenges in federal court that they were or were seeking to do and that information was corroborated by the petitioners first hand evidence and disputed by the respondents affidavits under which the lower court relied you want to sing about judge wakens findings with respect to the library a lack of firsthand knowledge that rendered his information incompetent as we argued and i did cases to support that proposition but at best even if some of his information are any number of requests that were refill filled by the oregon clerks or inmates in response to requests from arizona prisoners that's the kind of thing that should have been subject to the crucible of cross examination what kind of requests from who that kind of thing and that's why in this clash of conflicting evidence the court should have held a hearing to allow fact development on that your hon thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for a decision and we