claims were unintelligible that two others were not completely clear that at least three of the claims that he raised were not federalized and the court complained about an absence of facts in at least eight of those claims he didn't talk with a client that greatly he ignored deadlines and we set that out quite extensively in the in the pilings i guess what what really bothers me the most is for the court to let's open this back up and look at this again and the course says no you can't do that because i've read everything and i have no doubt the court did read everything but everything wasn't presented there were my numerous claims that could have been presented in this hideous corpus rules i'm not saying that mr picker was the with the best of the best hades council i've ever seen i'm certainly disagree with that i think the record is pretty clear he was not one of the worst i've seen worse believe it or not and i've been doing this for eight years now so i and i seen a lot and i know but he's certainly if we had to put him on a on a on a  case i was on the panel a couple of years ago three years ago maybe even gone in the bank where the clark county public defender's office had a policy that giving a lie detector test to new clients and if they failed whatever the charge was they would assign the newest attorney in the office in the particular case involved it was a first degree capital murder case and it was tried by someone who was about six months out of law school so even if there are a one that's not enough well using your example if there's a one at a point where the constitutional right to us corporate lawyer is a sure but i would also think that hades corpus is unique in the in the sense that by the time it hits the federal court the issue should have been developed in the state court that's what the exhaustion requirement is all about and that's what the stated corpus catch it is all about that the facts be developed in the state court if at all possible so i don't believe that it's necessarily if i were on heartless side representing a petitioner in a federal habeas corpus i'm not sure whether i would be derelict if i didn't go out and start reinvesting the investigating the case and i looked at the record as it has been developed in the state court and said to myself the record looks fine to me there really nothing more to investigate i don't think that i'm being remiss by not going out and seeking discovery or trying to develop new issues which in fact will then most likely be on exhausted in the federal court i may have a reason for saying you know the issues that were presented before only then you consider it under that grounds what's your response i think it's probably better approach and if there is a problem then certainly you must part with your other counsel or whomever could file a petition with this court nomination to file a second making that denial whereas under section the success of petition judgeships or any other united states district judges bypass completely and it's this court looking at the application which is presented specifically as an application for a second or so that's my that's my response with respect to the rule since you are in this court which you did not address the other issues i would like to cite some of the court granted fifteen minutes for along with i would like to spend a few minutes with respect to the other issues we with respect to the three substantive issues the i would have occasion issue the challenge to the grand jury and whether the counsel was ineffective for not seeking state petition for  will and this is a case that i was actually looking in the edge of a record that was filed with jury trial itself lasted for twenty two volumes of transcript between the guilt decision of the nevada supreme court with respect to those four issues was not objectively and reasonable they were thoughtful it was thoughtful analysis and track with respect to the grand jury issue even though we don't find it in our brief the view that a supreme court but overall the it's our position that with respect to those four issues the that the decision by the best report was not exactly unreasonable got witness then occasion expert issues that's up a little differently i think because in that case the nevada supreme court found as a matter of state law that the expert should have been allowed justified so i don't see anything from the nevada supreme court that sets off a legal determination on the  was hugely hugely quantifiably much stronger against him than it was well against mr gurrey but there wasn't a fact a very strong circumstantial case when you tied together all the pieces ten one to ten then i don't think that qualifies as adequate counsel i think judge this man did a bad job all we want is one give some deference to the state court holding i would ask the court to please look at two things one is to reviewing my grief to how the facts really can be interpreted a different way  found on the license plates but the license plates were found in the apartment or were on this large starter somewhere having hardware there in the front yard that was the license plates of after glorious pictures and those did not have fingerprints of glory on them but my understanding is some of the other items were found on the kitchen table and i may be mistaken about that so i do apologize to court for that the other thing i would like the court to look at is anywhere in the e r to see what kind of pleadings the park counsel piled on they are literally cut in paste they are literally things that were taken from one document and pasted on another piece of paper and those things that that documents f put extra issues in there that he played it was through and so i do not think that this qualifies i would like to say one thing about the elizabeth loftus issue that was found as error by the