yes michael saturates again on behalf of mr hayward and i i will try to reserve a minute for that bottle of mr hayward's case brings us from the u n of the beginning of parole consideration process and we see how that's worked well for today and i think and of the parole process because mr hayward has now been incarcerated almost thirty years on his second degree murder conviction for a crime that was committed in one nine hundred seventy nine he's been free of all disciplinary since one thousand nine hundred eighty nine almost twenty years he had a spiritual awakening in one thousand ninety one more than fifteen years ago and since then has been living a life of princip not only had it was a just when it happened now that six months earlier but there was all of the dealing every day he was dealing with the effects on his girlfriend who became his wife by that time the six months later and so there had been no accumulation of stress and of course what happens then is he admittedly goes to the bar to seek this guy out to beat him up because board's determination and made the conclusion i'm not going to believe any of this stuff but what i don't know is that what is the basis what is the basis for the state's climb that the only provocation was that based on that's based on the trial court record because it never became an issue of provocation because the defense at that point was i wasn't the guy who did the crime so to actually make any explicit flying in so many words as to what the provocation was yes well put it this way the board found that the crime was committed as a product of substantial confrontation and then he's going to leave the parting from the scene with i don't taking the intended action of beating up the victim and the victim then comes out after trying to get a weapon from the bartender as we have in this case we're the parole board finally many years down the line mr hayward sixty three years old now concludes that in fact that crime because there was stress involved and be executed extern on it if you are trying to say that that governor davis is actually offended due process what's the best supreme court authority punishment under what the legislative envisioned and then that's being taken away from him at the end of the process by the governor so you have a complete fantasy or pro forma parole system going on here were virtually nobody is getting out unless maybe they are the prisoner that has everything surrounding the commitment offense being mitigating they killed their wife and i enough think without any violence and they for for thirty years or whatever and now they're sixty five years old so the parole board let's get gives them a day finally and then the governor you know in some unpredictable way allows that date to proceed and so that lucky fellow gets out fifteen or twenty years after the date that the parole board set for him and it's important i think for the federal courts to step in and do something about that and then mr hayward's case the release is very clear because he's twice been granted a date by the parole board and that's a date that was many many years in the past nineteen  morning again julie garland on the half of responded apparently the state court issued a reasoned decision and very thoroughly reviewed the governor's decision in this case and found sufficient evidence to support it under the some evidence standard made also kind of had some change stories throughout his parole review period he also had a significant substance abuse history and did not in the governor's opinion have did not come to terms with add or had not come to convicted of murder unless they committed some pretty bad thing does a pretty bad thing to do you can always try well this was a very serious crime and therefore he should be turned loose and you also got a flaw in that most of the know extreme deference to a state parole board and the governor i'm pretty certain of that but still i don't think you can go so far as to say that the federal court shouldn't consider the california you could you can check in but you can never leave so you saying that's the california process you do of murder you check in the best no matter what you do in prison no matter if it's forty years later you can never be cool no that's that's not what we're saying but i would say that that's a state court decision not a federal court decision whether california wants to have a hotel california that is the california's privative they don't have that there obviously are inmates you can think convicted of life crimes who are released but that's not a federal question and to review the facts of these crimes in depth is it goes beyond the federal courts the lower courts are very confused we're seeing issues that we're seeing orders issued weekly where the courts don't know what to do and how to how to address that some evidence standard now following sask which was very deferential than irons which kind of came back and seemed to be a little bit more addressing of specific facts of the crimes of the federal court the lower courts are not consistently applying the standard and so it's hard even for us to address mr safir star myself to address what really matters under the standard in this court and and there are thousands of hearings every year and why that one is probably our song that's what we're going to have to do with this case it has to do with any case before the court because it matters whether the federal think he received the procedures a stablished and if it's an arbitrary decision if the governor is that i don't like your out the supreme court precedent that says due process requires fundamental fairness there's a lot of any reasons to reverse is that just wouldn't wouldn't we be able to say there's a lack of a mental fairness in the decision yes around here under green holds because the green holds doesn't require being made to have that written statement of the reasons he fell short so there is a plain court authority establishing that if the governor said i don't like you i don't like your hair cut that would be on its face arbitrary but that's not what mr of that this court cannot grant federal he is really this isn't an issue of an arbitrary denial this is an issue with a disagreement with the governor's decision the state court reviewed it under a standard that's far greater than what the federal courts provide and found that there was sufficient evidence that that should be the end of the story just sort of the library on the last question your honor they are doing it more and more frequently there's a number of cases recently in the last month or two that we put something to the board with that goes to show that there's an ongoing practice of the government tha different facts coming before the court yes but where a governor acts capriciously for no good reason for any reason or for no no reason you know that's an extreme action and the governor is doing that time and time again and that's the only way the governor can reverse nine out of ten parole cases because it's only the cream of the crop the ones that are most deserving of parole under the state's system that are even being found suitable for parole should be a no brainer in those cases to affirm or let's stand the decision of the pro board and yet the governor is time and again denying parole and what's fundamentally unfair about it is the fact that to fifteen percent the whole thing is a farce and a sham because it's it's not a system that's set up to say that the order of the governor we want you to rarely grant prisoners parole and grant them parole only in the most with when the crime was committed the substance abuse history that's a factor that favors mr hayward's parole as the sites found because he's been in substance abuse treatment and no longer is is at risk to use substances so that this is the kind of case where you have repeated grants appalled by the board where it has been almost thirty years that at some point the whole idea of parole is a prisoner can change and rehabilitate himself that needs to be recognized and it's arbitrary the preachers for the government