claims in other words judge judge anderson at that point was looking at that motion for equitable tolling as the twenty two fifty five motion treating it as such and basically said you can supersede any and all claims that you're going to file now or  he did that twice do you understand those orders to mean that you could add additional grounds because it is a little confusing what he was saying in terms of the orders saying yes but i want all of your grounds to be put into each of those superseding twenty two fifty five and that's part of our argument your honor is that in fact it was confusing because the language that he uses i mean it's pretty clear he says that he says it several times one you know he says for example move it must include all of this claims in the amended twenty two fifty five motion which will supersede all previously filed motions and that's an indication to mr merilahti who's pro se that now i'm allowing you to file another amended motion or successive motion however you want to idle it that's basically saying this motion now that you're filing must include any and all claims that you have been granted to mainly versus fillets case says it doesn't matter it doesn't or really characterize this twenty two fifty five motion or this motion for acquittal tolling as a twenty two fifty five motion they needed to let mr marijuana know judge broomfield had the opportunity on october thirtieth in one thousand nine hundred eighty to let mr marijuana know hey we're going to look at your motion for acquittal tolling as a twenty two fifty five motion so therefore you should amend and clarify and supplement and add whatever you want include all of your claims all the were using your time on the merits didn't judge greenfield reach them there in essence both judgment magistrate anderson and judge greenfield basically said look we're where maybe i'm making a determination that your claims on timely but i'm going to still make a the course of the trial even the government was concerned about the conduct of defense counsel and repeatedly referring to mr marijuana's previous trial judge broomfield on the record stated that he was surprised by the conduct of trial counsel during the pendency  trial in fact judge brutal stated on the record pay the bills been wrong i can't unring it at this point i can't ask her to take a different course or argue something different because a trial has gone too far my point is that the district court warrant counsel to range from referring to the previous trial even suggested to her other alternatives for presenting that testimony and even after being warned she one hundred fifty six times during the trial referred to the previous trial the government she not didn't the district court essentially conclude that she was attempting to impeach the government's witness with testimony in the  know which i thought was was pretty strange but she said not trial strategy i mean this is just was done intentionally on my part because i see of no other way to do it but the court went to great lengths to try to tell her yes there is another way you can do this other than bringing it out place still her concern that she wanted to get in for so as a trial so the jury didn't get the impression they were prior convictions or that there were some other proceedings which could've even created even greater prejudice correct but in mr lacy the government's lawyer at the time acknowledges that what you're doing here is you're allowing the jury to speculate and we're not supposed to permit you juries are told not to speculate about any fact or any issue and here in here we had an issue that w interjected repeatedly not just once not just twice one hundred sixty three times how did this hurt him on the basis of the record prejudice because of the fact that it even like i said once again the government in the court was concerned about the conduct because of of the fact that it could cause the jury to speculate and that's that's that's the thing that mr marijuana's concern that is on the flip side the jury could have speculated that he had been convicted in other cases in all of this prior testimony coming out of other cases that went against him and the choice was made and it's really very little in the record to suggest how this was pretty additional i do agree with you there was a lot of concern about it at the trial i can't disagree with your honor but here we have the fifty five motion first at the hearing in september sixth two thousand and two there was a hearing on the equitable tolling issue and the defendant argued that it was a motion at twenty two fifty five motion  timely he and the defendant actually labeled his next twenty to fifty five motion and amended twenty two fifty five motion which shows that he concedes that the first one was the twenty to thirty five motion everyone believed to be understood to be exactly and i think that supreme court male vs phoenix acknowledged that there's going to be some difficulties with post a it's not necessarily understanding exactly what's going on however if i could just read this it said the government need not equalize the economic conditions between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth and that's in footnote eight so the concerns understandable that he might have been a little confused but merely because the magistrate quote was consolidating all of the confusing and repetitious motions doesn't mean said that he had one year from december eighth of nine hundred ninety eight follows petition the reason i bring that up is even the magistrate judge and the district court judge were confused as to the time limitation that mr marijuana had under the