or proceedings provided a reasonable level of assistance in the second addressing whether it was here or to dismiss the killer's name on waiver grounds like to start talking about that first issue about counsel's representation and now we've all seen how these pows commission proceedings appointed and that becomes counsel's duty to go through that petition to see if there are claims that have merit and to prepare and present a comprehensive filing to the court not to simply gather up claims and state one together and it's unreasonable assistance to not do that when witnesses are known this is not asking counsel to go out and you know drum up claims fine people who we don't even know who they are it's work go out and talk to you for instance the fingerprint in this case i think you know it she problem in this case is block the court is presented with this petition that by the time it gets to the end has twenty claims some of them clearly have no merit you say duty to provide reasonable representation it doesn't just mean well it's easier so you don't have to be a job you still have to do your job and we only get these we get letters from our clients before we even get the i don't i don't necessarily think so because some of those claims are the claims that you know we've been dressed as they should have been supported some claims should have been withdrawn and we've set out in more detail because again it's hard to talk about each of the twenty claims individually what should ha to them but to the extent those claims needed something more needed more support needed money more you know needed to be amended to be legally sufficient neither the proper legal standards or should have been consolidated so that you know entirely right the filings continued in council didn't do what council should have done and said look yes he wants all of this i'm not moving forward with those claims certain claims can't be supported certain claims legally sufficient filing and counsel didn't do that here i mean by the time this thing was all said and done on the filing consume several volumes there are hundreds and hundreds of pages that is not in the client's best interest and it stage on a single thing and what other planes think it's ok based on the record that's before the court i think at least the claim is discussed in issue two at some length in this in the filings dealing with the witnesses from new york the jailhouse informants snitches with their statements now that you know what that more really didn't actually confess to us we knew there was some reward money we were told you know while  titian we can see was legally sufficient except for the fact it was dismissed on a waiver grounds which is problematic because they tried to raise this in the prior p c the affidavits from these witnesses were in late while that prior p c was on penticton court stated that while the post conviction counsel may conduct a broader examination of record and reason visual of issues of you he chooses there is no obligation to do so the people detailed the very lengthy history of this proceed supplemental plans and at that time interest from the capital litigation division indicated the claims were supported by the record and they were not in need of further amendment eventually the kapalua decent division stories of the motion to clearly was if izing defended that these claims were not properly brought but he would not listen he was insistent always claims are going to be brought regardless of the merits and it did not prejudiced they have been and they have these claims brought into his i'd like to just address a couple of the police accounts and the first i think talking about davis and pendleton is a little bit misleading because those are cases where on appeal the defendant was alleging counsel should have found these other  claims should have investigated and discovered that there were other claims and that you know counsel may do that the counsel's not obligated to do that to discover additional off record claims we're not talking about ending claims here what we're talking about is the obligation to go out and investigate the claims that are presented and talk to the known witnesses the people who are identified in the petition as the individuals who would support the clintons and in this for them of course you know w not going out to look at the new claims but you know doing what under johnson again the supreme court has said and the language is at a minimum counsel had an obligation to attempt to obtain other than cherry support for claims rates in the post conviction edition and that's what we're talking about here not to go out and get new claims but to get the evidence or attempt to get the evidence to support these things and again if counsel can't get it if that evidence isn't out there then take the cleaves out that's also part of your obligation as counsel to not present unsupported frivolous meritless claims to the court in terms of the timing of the air the sea complain it was june thirtieth two thousand and four that was filed and it's in the record the defendants not responsible to represent your client in the way they want to be represented that would be great for the clients i mean they would love it they wouldn't get anywhere that's why you get counsel that's why you want to have counsel because we're familiar with the law of you can amend the claims make them legally sufficient and get an investigator out there p d offices have investigators get someone out there to talk to them with this is in get what you  that they don't have anything now he's saying he didn't say that plus i knew about the forty thousand dollars and then when i came forward at trial did the reward money was brought up and johnson and snowball said yeah we we've heard about it might stand to make some money you know there's also an issue about whether the contention i guess about whether the state knew that the testimony was false at the time you know  got information from listening to the sectaries you know this is how we think you formulated what we were going to say we got our information from a detective a state actor so it's a substantial showing is what we're looking at here i mean this is  distance or is reasonable assistance resenting the claims the claim was presented i think it's part of it i think organizing into the court the state's attorney and the parties can digest it in fairly evaluate i think that's part of it doing you know presenting whatever the client wants presented is not necessarily reasonable if it can be said before it is in this has to be directed towards the county should not but part of your obligation i mean we all have an obligation to not resent frivolous you can do it under career if there's nothing to it you can get out if there's something to it though and that's what it boils down to get counsel almost got out of court said you can't you can't and so if he had your planes down what do you think is  that i don't i'm not doing your job for me the way i want you to do with it here he was in a catch twenty two situation except you're not immediately on plants that want to control the will occasionally want to control how you do things you have an obligation to provide reasonable assistance here that would have amounted to gas with trying some planes consolidate some claims having a hard conversation with the client about the need to do that but also investigating the witnesses that identified getting affidavits some of them as simple as converting a letter from an expert into a sworn affidavit that's not hard that's reasonable to expect client counsel to feel in their six plus years that counsel represented at more on this particular petition in the trial court to reasonable to expect that he go out and talk to the witnesses that are identifying viney that they're saying this is what the witness would say i mean some of that information even comes through for i am not saying it's a duty to make it easier for the court but i am saying by doing those things by presenting a comprehensive and coherent filing to the court you're doing what's in the best interests of your client as well because the it's not in the client's  to not have a filing that is legally sufficient and factually support and that's what we have here