why recognize that there is no case on file that i can find regarding the failure of an attorney to provide his client with documents however it appears in this particular case mr paddles w grave let me start out by responding to the question about why this case is different from harvard it's fundamentally different and harvard he filed his petition within the time period  of those claims i think involving the weak case he did not file them in a timely fashion and the court didn't say that the courts that those are untimely they'd be barred except for equitable tolling and here's clearly prepared by a jailhouse lawyer and if you refer to that my original brief i explain how within the attachments to the various documents this is battles but the mother of the defendant says we have to get this material to thi person and the fact the matter is the third person just blew it i mean he believes that such limitations are after sort of activities i was thirty didn't start until he received this material in the mail and he just missed it and that's the essence of what statute of limitations are about if you miss the deadline you missed the deadline well but isn't the problem what we don't know because the facts weren't developed and i i don't recall of government actually appeared in that he is waiting on the lawyer to send the information and let's say let's say for the moment the lawyer is regionally doing nada you know ok he's doing all kinds of evil things isn't doing it kind of like ford wanted developed well so you're there waiting for materials and you're not getting them is it conceivable that you could have that coble tolling while you're waiting for this  well yes i think there is and i think what he should have done i think and what ford supports is that what he should have done is filed a timely claim with the claims that he knew about and then just like and or the harvard he should asked the court for stay to give him time to taint the additional materials and in fact get an order from the court requiring defense and former defense counter and that's important as former defense counsel to provide him the materials and then i meant and at that point asked for equitable tolling on those amended claims showing that he did not and being able to demonstrate he couldn't have brought them since he didn't know the material previously isn't there is sort of antithetical to the whole notion of equitable tolling and the idea a claims two of which you didn't know about two years after the fact you come in and they just come to you you raise it two years after the fact and raise your other six claims which you knew about and should have done at the time and time tolling i didn't hear bowling light there's just no such things either told or it's not well but it's told her claim and not told for events i think point is you don't get to come back later and you can pick up one claim and say ok they're for and raise everything that i had available earlier and so i think the obligation of the situation at that point was to raise what you know about asked for the stay sane the material and that's and then come back i mean this petition and go forward that's essentially what that part of the problem here the records are really very well developed maybe somebody should look at the whole ball of wax and then you might decide the court might decide well there shouldn't be equitable tolling this is perfectly clear look really occurred here and it's perfectly clear he wasn't a lie and a lot of things might be perfectly clear once the facts are developed the thing developed well i think my my guess is he's going to say well i think i think we understand your position three shoot your argument today do you want to respond to things that i like to point out is number one i think the court asked her how long a delay there wasn't this particular case it was basically five days that was a mailbox rule or actually filed the documents with the mailwasher all october twelfth as opposed to october by when it was