in may trust some policy which states step offenders found to be kind of think or completing financial transactions including sending of money from one dollar offender to another were sending a money from the family or friends of one dollar offender to another because of that he could be waking up in the presence of them and he could lose credit time or he could be potentially demoted from going one credit class to the other so that's why he's statement is not suspect there's no   the report of conduct here talks about the disc describes the mailing of the check to crawford's mother does the record show whether the officer who prepared the report actually examined the underlying documents or do you think it's just reporting what wolf said from the record that suggested i just can't tell i mean for example the last sentence in appendix page seven says the check was mailed to becky crawford's address and she signed the check that sounds like a ready to examine the check but it's also alternatively possible that that's what was told the officer correct your honor yes of course we don't know for a from the strikers what exactly happened but because of the standard here there are only has to be some evidence to show that this is what happened possible scenario must be refuted you know we don't know why he wasn't charged with trafficking he p could have been charged with trafficking arguing this is the same scenario at that or was that with the prosecutor a prosecutor can choose what offense to charge what not to charge  the dividing line between some evidence and no evidence is uncorroborated hearsay and the wording cannot cite to a single case where uncorroborated hearsay alone with the fission to meet the some evidence standard rather that you're saying is a question not of fact but of what the meaning of the prison's regulation it is is not a sensible understanding of this your honor i  think the the if you hear is you're correct that ye that the supreme court some evidence that she wants to be a rule about what happens when there are disputes particular disputes of fact about the mooning of the prison regulations about whether the reason for the transfer of money matters the state says that the reason doesn't matter that any financial transaction of this short for any reason violates the regulation and that may be right or it may be wrong but that seems to be wholly a question of state law why is that an issue properly raised the federal collateral attac honor i'm not sure i'm fully understanding the question i think if there is a question of fact here because there have to be something that ties the financial transaction to the person being accused of engaging in the financial transaction nearly knowing that another inmate engaged in a financial unauthorized financial transaction is not a violation of the offense that issue  is a dispute about the meaning of the present regulation and that's why i'm wondering whether we still have a problem here because the supreme court keeps thought the state courts in indiana are closed to this kind of a case that they do not provide for any form of traditional review of prison disciplinary proceedings even those that take away a good time credits and that's why in the end of prisoners cases go straight from the department to federal court yeah i'm sorry i'm not i am not understanding your question the usual pattern the pattern we're very familiar with for about ninety nine percent of a d s cases is that they that come out of state courts and state convictions is that you have to exhaust remedies in state courts where you can raise issues of state law before you can go to federal court under indiana law prisoners are not permitted to do so there is no remedy available for prison discipline in state courts in indiana you have the only remedy if your liberty is being deprived through through an unconstitutional disciplinary asking counsel a somewhat different question which is whether the supreme court's rule that haiti is corpus federal habeas corpus can't be used to enforce state  when state courts themselves refuse to enforce they will you might want to address that question there gazing for sixty days for reasons undisclosed he decided to implicate implicate in self in a crime the reasonable inference being that will somehow benefit benefited from it by claiming that he sent money  crawford mother to purchase drugs from mr crawford the only evidence of this the close transaction is not the drugs nor corroborating those or text messages or the statement of an investigator who had any personal knowledge of the  transaction but rather the only evidence is will uncorroborated hearsay story repeated in the report of conduct and report of investigation the district court correctly determined that there was no evidence that mr crocker did anything that at the disciplinary board he no i know the report of the report of conduct was in introduced correct that's correct and the hearing officer in examining chose to credit yes that is correct your honor and isn't that isn't that some evidence no your honor because because that's so we want hearsay evidence can be used a disciplinary hearings it's not so it's not sufficient on its own without something corroborating the hearsay and the case law is clear on that fact and all of the cases where some evidence was found to be met there was something corroborat in all other cases there was something more than simply just just the hearsay whether it be the personal knowledge of the person official who drafted the report of conduct for an additional person employed he who corroborated an informant statement corroborating text messages there's always something more than merely the allegations of another inmate if it were the case that clear in this court has found in for instance leaks versus mcbride and lenient versus lane that there have to be something more something to actually point to the accused guilt and here's just simply no evidence that mr foster engaged in any kind of financial transaction the mere fact that he knew about the transaction is not the stuff offense with which he was charged your all your time has expired thank you miss one thank fix both himself the liability given that hearsay has credibility and also cooperate himself corroborate the fact that there was such a transaction because he admits that this will stand money to his mother and one last point your honor configurations are for extortion and direct trafficking and the prison system has a significant interest in making sure that those don't happen we have material reversed the district court's decision thank you thank you very