distance and organization of the petition it's a very long petition it is organized after a fashion but it is not obvious when you delve into it exactly where his factual claims are and where the support for it is but the t attorney essentially told him you have no choice but to get up there and say you didn't have a gun and you didn't assault anyone and it's our new to do that and when mr richmond said no i don't want to do that i want the truth to come out i want say that your coins did have a gun i'm trying to think of the record regarding a letter there is the allegation that mister richman admits that her testimony that she told his trial attorney that she said essentially i know you didn't have a gun when you went to the truck because i took it away from so it does implicate him on the felon in possession charge and i don't know i don't know whether the record has that actual letter in it so i would hesitate only to try to remember that i don't remember  the point in time these things are on the third strikes with me you've got problems on the felony possession he already had problems on a felon possession and that's yes it does trigger three deciding strategy in a case and the decision of a defendant to waive basically the interests low guilty plea is the way i view this and what he's contesting this is the thing that i think needs to be developed better in district court in sorted out what that it's far as the start with a deadly weapon a deadly weapon part haters and we are witness so if i found him tomorrow i don't know what he would say when he would have to know not part of mr richmond complaint though regarding hate also was also that he would have provided supporting testimony to his defense which was basically there's been this ongoing confrontation between us out of control minor and that his intentions regarding this whole group of people was to help his norgaard get her foster child court process he doesn't know that there's any factual findings that are being made against him we don't know that so there was no offer to the state court other than what you other than basically what was offered to the federal court as far as i can tell yes i don't know that he where the trial court took an extensive waiver from the defendant about wanting to admit his felon status there is a car there is commentary about the defense attorney having talked to the defendant about this whole issue so these later affidavits are not necessarily reflective of what actually happened at the time and the court should also be aware that this defendant are filed a number of petitions in the lower courts and one of the very extensive and it was the basis it was the basis for the reduction in the sentence is a matter of fact so there was certainly opportunity for counsel to raise this issues i a c issues whatever because we had a whole new attorney doing a whole new petition it was not p discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing is is to realize that we don't even get to the point of talking about whether or not the defendant developed the facts in the state court until we first talk about whether or not the record contains the factual basis for the claims and it's basically the first step in three steps in analyzing whether or not an evidentiary hearing is appropriate or not mandated but appropriate so this first step is whether the record contains a factual basis for the claims basically we stop right there because the record contradicts any factual basis for the claims the record that is before the state courts and in turn before the district court and as the justices already noted he's doing his job and he's interviewing a witness and he seclusion and that's certainly a moral more of what the law nor god would say that the defendant would and the courts already pointed out the difficulties with hate as a witness and you basically are in a its conclusions properly implied in one burger and when the state also to make explicit claim is or factual conclusions in the denial of the claim has resulted in the claim so whether or not you have and then all this other record evidence saying not is what the state went winging you  a that that was and it was one methodology over other over another bery made by the federal courts that question no which