is the validity of the guilty pleas at the gates which is entered and of course that's subject to a multi factor test that we've analyzed in our our briefing there are two features of this case that i think are no worthy and set this case apart from many other cases where defendants attempt to withdraw a guilty plea the first is that we do have expert medical testimony in this case as to both of the  is were under a tremendous amount of emotional distress that their anxiety and their depression led them to essentially acquiesce in these charges when faced with the ultimate decision of we've got trial around the corner  that testimony is worth something that the court of course as in the past asked for this sort of evidence in support of a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and i think the district court heard in a sense in relying on his own lay perception of what was going on in the courtroom and excluded the essentially discredited the the expert i think the expert testimony is worth a little more than the other aspect of this case it's slightly different deals with the complexity of the charge and what most of this drama of course occurred during barbara's change of police hearing george was sitting in the courtroom but barber routinely testified and inquired about matters relating to what rights she had and what rights she was giving off so the first episode we see is her not being sure what  she might be waving and there was a great deal of confusion and eventually she acquiesced as as the doctor testified she would but the second has to do with the charge itself what the gay s contended throughout in their prostate pleadings and at this change of pleas hearing was that they believed what they had done was a legitimate way to offset tax liability with the i r s they believe that filing i think most people in this room but that would be a question of fact that would bear potentially on their guilt what this court now what this court said maybe twenty years ago was a willfulness is not a part of section t eighty seven claims and the reason the court gave for that was that well if you file a false claim with the government then it it's necessarily for fraudulent and so we don't need to get into willfulness because it's it's an inherent in filing a false claim that that's certainly right and i what i would expect is at a trial the government would urge the jury to say of course they didn't believe this they they're trying to get around the taxes and you cannot credit their self serving state but when we're talking about a change of plea as to whether they are knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty if they think they've done nothing wrong that's a that's a problem with a guilty plea and this would be a case to test the court's earlier sanctions to say yes i admit i filed a false claim but it wasn't to defraud the united states so she should the court change position should we preserve this for the supreme court all of those sorts of confused apart from that we've we've laid out all the factors they were of course per se for much of the case they didn't have the assistance of counsel the assistance of whose choice was that well that was of course their choice but that there is one and one of the important parts of for read it is that somebody who chooses to proceed pro se can't argue ineffective assistance of counsel no sir you choose to proceed pro se you can't argue i wasn't a very good lawyer so let's do it again no absolutely fundamental i agree with that and the point that i would make is when we're analyzing whether aid defendant enters a knowing involuntary plea that is important to see did they know what they were doing because clearly there were a number of misconceptions of the law in this case by by these defend well but that's just within the scope of heredity the supreme court has said that if you are intelligent enough to waive counsel could have been compelled to have counsel against their wishes indeed the district judge had to compel them to give counsel against their wishes but that doesn't seem to be the applause for you know and that's not the argument i'm making  they go together if you can if you have enough intelligence to wave you have enough intelligence to plead guilty yes your honor and the point that i'm making is when it comes to a knowing plea that means you know what you're pleading guilty to you know how the law applies to the facts as as as you know them and our contention in this case is that the gay switches were confused on that score and the district judge did not do enough to clear up th their position seems to be that the district court didn't get it anyway and just kind of dismissed it out of hand that's not what happened in this case your honor if you look at the district court second order denying their motion to withdraw to district court says i've read the considered reliable so right there at the district had a very valid reason to discount dr bernstein's report but then the district work goes further and says even if the g s is still reliable these particular defended scores which range in the sixty to fifty on a scale of one hundred are not so low as to render their pleas involuntary and that's according to the d s m which dr burstein relied on the diagnostic  statistical manual that psychiatry and psychologists typically rely upon so the district court considered the report it just found it wasn't enough to convince him otherwise that their pleas for involuntary and there's no clear error in that conclusion now the second thing that the gas itches appear to be relying on is that two eighty seven is a complex statute because they might have had some defense the problem with that argument is as they've now this court's precedent has been clear for twenty years that there's no element into eighty seven so when they say the district court should have explained that to them that's not right the district court didn't have to explain well other circuits accepted there might be some other elements but under seven circuit law there is no the district court stated here are the three elements the government would have to prove for two eighty seven you knowingly submitted a false claim to the i r s that's not a complicated concept and as judge manning pointed out these defendants are well aware of the tax laws and how to get around them this was not complicated for them to understand all in all we think the evidence shows in the colloquy shows that these defendants voluntarily pled guilty and the court did not clearly aaron reaching