framers the clause as we all know is in the body of the constitution not in the bill of rights and the reason that it is is because of the the paramount importance the framers placed on  and what i'd like to the way i would like to put this case into context is it dresses the core conserves of the ex post facto clause i have a quote from land graph ursus us i film profs which is the supreme court case hundred ninety four and what the fourth said there was the following the legislature is the natural powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly and without individual ised consideration its responsibility political pressures poses a risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals and i would suggest to the court that's exactly what we're dealing with here w most perhaps the most unpopular group imaginable which is a class of inmates who have committed serious crimes and the legislature in california in fact responded to political pressures as they saw those and passed legislation that retroactively impose harsher punishment on on the inmates who are already incarcerated but didn't the california legislature acknowledged historical portions of the ex post facto provision by putting a corrective provision in the one nine hundred seventy seven statute section one hundred seventy point to see there is no question but that there is a statutory recognition of the fact as your honor just pointed out the know i've covered all the bases that i could think of in the briefs the numbers are stark they speak for themselves and i'm not going to revisit that absent any questions what i would like to point out however is that their worst substantive so on top of you know the numbers and the as applied analysis there are the substantive changes i would just like to quickly pressed and one of them i stressed in the breeze is the reversal of the hierarchy of criteria that the court problem is clearly the hierarchy has been reversed the case of the i cell cases make absolutely clear it's rape it's rehabilitation individualisation and what can we do to help this inma here you've made a significant showing us just a whole showing of what's happened over all but it least i can't find have i missed something if i haven't missed anything in the record then how do you get over that hurdle i have several responses to that point your honor first of all not provide evidence of similarly situated prisoners who were paroled under the i s o which i believe is somewhat the point your honor was making and we were specifically asked for that in discovery and were denied it so here the district court in hise our request to promulgated regulations or bulletin or whatever to enforce what in re right drug as was was ordering so he that's what he's already lost the ability to have a parole date set at his first year in holy apart from and this is it in and in the exhibit we appended to our expose facto memorandum down below you'll see that the numbers and it's also revealed in the discovery and my discussion of the discovery we received the numbers are of a totally different order 's a big difference overall overall i agree i grant you that even i can figure that out from the tables can't figure out from the tables is how it plays out with respect to somebody who did w with what this guy did and how and where he ended up as of two thousand ok so if you if you start with what this guy did and where he ended up  know it would have been any different and one alone is substantially different ok and i can you know i guess my only response to that is as a member of a group every one of whom was was substantially had his if you look at the facts of the offense you have to look at it in terms of the decision the board was making in two thousand and what the board would have to decide in two thousand was it was there were nine reasonable risk of you we want a little higher level of assurance that you've now got that concept so you are therefore unlikely to repeat yet or anything similar ok well there are two problems i see and that one of them is it  assumes the good faith of the panel which ignores our third claim which establishes i believe overwhelming that they weren't acting in good faith and they were just just you know issuing an order that was pre determined and on that subject i would just add that there's a federal district court now that's that's rule that there was a an illegal no parole policy and it's in the eastern district of california coleman vs the board that's currently on appeal and briefs are being filed as we speak only recently come to terms with this if you recall in nineteen eighty three and evaluator said he was an above average risk for parole in zero twenty seventeen years earlier so it's the board imposing its findings on a record that doesn't support it which is our due process some evidence claim he then accepting responsibility and it's gone through category x years in years earlier and the unanimous opinion of every professional every c d c professional ever looked at him they are as a matter of practice it doesn't happen every year and with that i'd just like to save a few minutes for  court now but that's it's not quite my question my question is he's putting statistics which show cross the border overall there's a big difference between pre reasonably infer that woods was caught in this week even though they have nothing specific as to woods or which is our finance nevertheless they're suggesting it's reasonable to discovery that he was allowed to conduct his life just got in the discovery of the year's worth of parole decisions and in his ninth circuit briefing he refers to one on one of the kidnapping case but the court may not just stop at the discovery and his briefing on that twenty six children ages five to fifteen of a school bus and then the underground structure underground vehicle and a hot summer afternoon out hoping that they're going to be rescued or wondering as the record shows the children or if they're going to die  you're saying because there was no other person who kidnapped twenty seven people including twenty six kids and put in an underground for seventeen hours before they managed to get themselves out of the nest given the unique and impressive that president nature of the crime the fact that he despite making very good effort that really built a sham prison the board still found that there were some aspects of his program that were made in one suitable for parole he cannot show as a matter of appointees or a new governor or something to that effect and my adversary suggested well then it's just speculation to tie it to the change in the legislative regime but the legislative regime that replaced it specifically mandated that the new princip be applied in parole decision making and that's how we know that it's not speculation it's not just a shift in political fortunes and that's california penal code section eleven seventy point to be that i discussed it twenty five of my opening brief  board and his failure to participate in self help programs we completely have addressed that in the papers below there were no other self help programs it's just i mean you know and finally about you know the specifics of how do we know what the  number two what we have shown definitively i believe is that under i as well he would have had a term set that much we know he's lost in their failure to apply yourself to him and if you look at all of the contemporary major cities that are supposed to guide the board of the can't you can't forever rely on something that's always going to continue that's that's that's right but the point is that point come in why not well because the nature of the it's always going to be important isn't yes and the nature of the office will be more important in cases where there is that connection between what happened in the office and in a determination of the fellows current parole suitability for example if he was in a gang when he committed the crime twenty six years ago and the crime was was was a derivative of the fact that it was a gang related crime he's still in the same gang that would be a case and refuses to give up his gang membership that would be a case where you know the rely on the professionals and in this case don't forget there was a professional psychological evaluation prepared they understood that the evaluator understood all of the circumstances of the offense and he found that he was a little parole reskin that he ought to be you know the parole decision ought to be