proceeding he always maintained his innocence he had an opportunity to seek a deal with the prosecutor's office he didn't do that he means in his innocence went to trial last paid for has never said he was not convicted he has always maintained that he was and accused him of moral impropriety based on what she believed were improper relationships that the gentlemen to have with his children's mother this court found that the court indisputably demonstrates that the judge was hostile towards m well and good with respect to the other case but in your case what can you point to as evidence that this was not a neutral fact finder if you are the diff main fact is that the judge became extremely irritated with my client when he said two things one i was convicted improperly i did not engage in that conduct i went to trial because i was not guilty i was found guilty i live with it i served three years in prison i live with it and the judge said how can you say you're not guilty if you were found guilty by a jury so what what made you be found guilty he says the dea agent in my case lied the judge became incensed when the that he still would have been the eligible for the two trials he waiver and he would not have incurred the wrath of the judge and probably would have found been found more likely to have deserved the relief not you bear the burden here don't you counsel we based upon the fact that the ita was beyond the pale as far as actions you have a burden to show that his conduct was such that your client was denied due process is that correct yes your honor and what you've described thus far is almost a standard occurrence in almost every court where someone is arguing a point of law and it may be set in a way that reading of the record and i was there when during the trial was that the judge asked them does the lawyer tell you are you saying that the lawyer tells told you the light and he said it was actually a notary advised me that if i said i was married i wouldn't get in and i was not married now he's not saying i like because he told me he's saying i was told to say i was i was unmarried but that was a very long time ago he was twenty one years old at the time of twenty two years old he's convictions in the first drug conviction he accepted full responsibility said what he did no argument in the second conviction he said i went to trial i did and i think the facts speak louder than anything else why would a person go to trial if he had an to the actions of the i j u i j looks at the record right yes the record shows the two convictions the fact that your client feels that he was innocent i mean i'm very sorry for him and if he had a  improper conviction that's the worst thing we could have in our system but the fact is that the i g has to rely on the record and based upon the record what your client was saying was nonsense you are the judge has to rely on the record my client never denied that the record shows that he was convicted he simply said i didn't do it but i recognize that i was convicted i'm not arguing the point is that and direct examination the judge interrupted and said i'm not about to retry the criminal case ye he allows a prosecutor full reign to go ahead and ask whatever she wants later when there's a one if you hold that good thought let's hear from the government and then you come back and give us your rebuttal thank you who's i don't i don't really want to go i'm not going to try this case and then followed up by asking this are going to be just like you know you were found guilty by the jury and if you if you don't know i didn't appeal and that was it i don't i didn't see any hostility any  asking if the father had never talked to them about that basically would have been a crucial turning point in this trial the reason that he was found guilty because if he agent logically lies and and both cases the daughter said no that the father had never said that to them and is there anything counsel that you want to bring to the court that should not set forth in your brief no your honor i believe it's all there i mean my twenty actual letter did raise a couple of jurisdictional questions which do any of my colleagues have any questions you have anything further you want to add then no thank your honor ok thank you we'll have your rebuttal then please the question was whe entitled to prosecute he crosses that line and becomes a non neutral factfinder when he starts prosecuting the case and the best place that i can point to is the questioning by the judge of my client's wife and  client's daughter in the case of my client's white the record shows that the judge the prosecutor questioned my client's wife for four pages but the judge questioned her for eighteen pages that's four hundred  are i don't think that biased by asking a person did you tell your daughter just that you were convicted of x y and z that makes you close or not close to your family that's not how you measure whether a person is close to  your client was right that it was false if you look at the tone of the questioning that is not that's not what the record shop was in the early sorry but what's he doing he was questioning the for example he put words in the in the girl's mouth you believe it's the government's fault that your father went to jail why because she said i believe he was innocent your fault my father told me that he didn't do it did your father tell you didn't know he did so therefore you believe that it's the government's fault that your dad went to jail that's putting words in our mouth that doesn't show neutrality that shows very clearly an effort to try to put words in his mouth that's not his job his job is to listen to that to the testimony an good morning you may proce