longer had to rely exclusively on the determination of the examining psychologist appointed himself by the board in determining whether or not mr green should be relieved the court could now pick any number of reasons i think that i would respectfully disagree that it is quite clear and i believe that the supreme court's directive in garner versus jones surprised the answer in that case the court reverse board's policy statements or memoranda saying well we originally were applying it as bodies found in two contends then a different interpretation held sway for a certain number of years and now and all he had in terms of a mental health problem was that demonstration of some degree of anti social personality disorder in the m m p i in car i have two questions one i just recorded selfhood in analyzing this found it a mystery why the board had interpreted it differently but that is exactly what it had done and  well he said that yes but again it was not before and it has to be construed in context to where you what you are doing is you who are you are taking the deal through the legislature in order to fix a problem that they perceive to be there  there are a number of facts in this case the are pretty facts found over a period of more than ten years and so without repeating what is the end in the briefing i would like to focus on a couple of important facts testify about a money laundering investigation as some later point it became apparent that not only was she a witness but she was a potential targets in that money laund investigation well as planned in fact i think the record is somewhat unclear on that because what the government is arguing in this case is well it was a different it was a different office of the department of justice that actually completed this case in the in the case was actually became a civil case and was completed in march of one nine hundred ninety nine  was a civil action being filed against mcrae alleging one count of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and in may of two thousand and may of two thousand the long settlement document that says for us the the fact that you have rights to the civil settlement one of the issues in this case and the court's question brings into focus one the eighteen minute gap year between nine hundred ninety four when ms and grace is called before the grand jury to testify in this money laundering case we know she's under investigation during this entire five year period and ability to provide conflict free confident representation to mr hart buying was compromised for the facts during the same time that she was representing him she was herself a target of a criminal she's in a position where she's only able to done well we think we think that there we think that there is there is some support for that position but as a fallback position we think without question the court should have first of know without the evidence rehearing exactly how she might have been constrained in her duty of loyal feet on like free loyalty to mr harper and he only learned of the fact that she was herself under a federal criminal investigation for money laundering after he'd been convicted i think during the process of his direct appeal in about two thousand if my memory serves me correctly if the hearing  an example and obviously i'm speculating i think the courts inviting them for example might be gives during the time that trial chancel is representing mr harper fine she is also negotiating strikingly similar in the sense fast and and the court found that it was there was especially not enough information in the records to decide whether or not there was conflict representation and whether there was prejudice now i will admit that this is the third circuit case and i will admit that this case was decided before because but think my brief as well as my f mcrae to represent him in the drug trafficking charge and during the course of that pretrial proceedings it became apparent to me through a couple informants that mistress regard had once we began to look and try to track down the money or follow the money as deaf want mr craig withdrew from the case which had been in march of ninety four she was replaced by two other lawyers and september of obligation was to get off the case and let someone else preferably another office in this case to use the name justice back in d c to face any assistance of civil attorneys in our office here in portland as well as civil attorney in our office in eugene if you we'll i became smart enough if you want to create a screen in the purpose of that was to avoid perhaps not successfully what we have here today in the interim what happened was as ms mcrae was represented by her father also a lawyer was under investigation if you will of a subject if you want to designate or target that's fine but the point was she was under investigation in that matter i was on going for five years how she would c spared the defendant need of showing probable effect upon the outcome and simply presume such effect with the assistance of counsel it's been denied entirely or during a critical stage of the proceedings when that has occurred the likelihood that the verdict is unreliable is so of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance and what i'm saying here is of course right here i'm sorry if i did i was mistaken because what i'm saying here is if you look at was lives ms mcrae did it with her pretrial i don't know that it would i think that you folks are directing questions to my colleagues and friends to beckley saying that speculation and i don't know that's what you want to enter into here but what i think you're what you're trying to address used was there's something that has been pointed to by mr harper in the record which was in the answer that is i have yet to find a job and certainly does not find it if you do not wish to take my representations of the governor's attorney here so you have to look through this rather large record you have to look about the trustworthiness of the verdict his wife testified against him after she was given a deal by the government chemists who was educated in syracuse and by the way was very well educated making meth he testified against him and got a centrifuge for one hundred eighty eight months how did her how did she perform was her performance adversely affected by this other investigation into another case involving her handling ever clients money her payments their debts somehow adversely affect how she handled  counsel and her client trying to show that there did not seem to be any shortcomings by ms mcrae for whatever was going on on the civil case you have to go our case being handled by the civil division i don't know that was being handled by the criminal is a matter of degree if i think that if you're facing a loss of your liberty as we hear sometimes defense lawyers talk that's far more significant than a lot of cash but certainly either would be a basis to claim a conflict i don't deny that potential exists but what i'm trying to knowledgeable he he had an opportunity to at least knowledgeably waive the conflict or inquire further into the potential conflict i might address one issue that i think of judge programs for her where anything denies the motion and he basically says that he he didn't make an inquiry into the allegations in the factual circumstances conflict because he didn't perceive it to be a conflict and especially i guess what that what that goes to is that no in representing thank you thank you