the fly recall of the evidence presented at trial at the really trial we have the transcript because there were two levels of appeal from the magistrate to the just record from the just recording this we literally had years to review the transcript and we filed twenty four pages of briefing to the magistrate for the retrial in the judge's own words reach findings of facts that quote are substantially substantially or process of the th amendment right to impartial juror and the judge on remained which goes to your question your own that he had his facts findings were no different from those in the st bench trial so we filed twenty four pages of briefing with judge doesn't change a single fact that he sat in judgment of his own verdict and he had made up his mind already in literally it made up his mind already and it's  single fact even though we filed twenty four pages of briefing he said that his determination that mr juan was not credible was dispositive oh yes i felt ok you suppose literally shifts the burden of proof to mr wallace and he said this won't lack of credibility inconsistent statements demonstrate that mr wanted not have a good faith belief in shooting the bears beyond a reasonable them the judge doesn't acknowledge in his analysis of the eyewitness testimony that night in every single person both mr wallace neighbors both of his family that mr walton statement on the night of the incident were likely the most reliable but then he mistakenly says that mr waller never mentioned fearing for his safety or for the safety of his family until two days later at the st wildlife  parks mr bartos chuck parcells testified that that night mr won't said he was afraid and he said he was afraid for his children in the neighbors and that he stated he was trying to scare the bear away from his family in the chickens and he specifically said mr bartos mr wong was rattle judge lives just ignore all of that because he had already decided that mr wallace was not credible right so what is your position now i don't i d just i don't i know your position is that it shouldn't go back at all and it but assuming that it was to go bad what would your position at the least mr wallin deserves another trial we believe it has to be before a jury because even if it's assigned to the new magistrate who replaced judge lynch she's going to know the procedural history and that's the problem and one thing i want to say about judge when we brief this he made it very clear in another grizzly bear case how upset he was about people shooting grizzly bears in montana and he twice used the phrase and the cats are a case  don't know why we're not looking at it with regard to whether there was an analysis of other facts and it seems to me that there was are at least arguably there was the district court said credible do i need to be for you to meet your burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome my self defense i'm not proud of it let's just only talking about that  to meet your burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt that i don't gauge in self defense and so central having trouble with that let me give you a little bit of a hypo here let's assume for a nd that i am the biggest liar that has ever been a fact that made time magazine meet your burden then what what if i add one factor that and that was the grizzly bear was chewing on my leg right i only add that that my lack of credibility the fact that the biggest liar in the world makes zero difference we w decision he clearly says mr rhodes is right he clearly says that he is finding that the you met your burden beyond a reasonable doubt purely in strictly based on the lack of christiansand he actually goes further he says when i look at the three factors at the wall in court gave me those all cut in favor of mr mr wallace like all of you know that he had good reasons for all this and so i basically if he would he would eat the reasonable  he found differently in the st case but whatever and then he says but he's not credible so i hit the credibility finding was so strong the lack of credibility that overcame all of the evidence i'm having trouble seeing how you meet your standard based purely on somebody being not credible when ultimately i agree that it's relevant but it's not what i think mr rhodes said it very well is it can't be dispositive you cannot prove your case on self defense not mention fearing for the safety of his family or himself on the night of the incident now i want to turn to page fourteen of your answering brief and you say i mean you don't i don't think you wrote this but your attorney did the district court acknowledged that the bend it may make false statements to law enforcement for a number of reasons however his lack of truthfulness coupled with the significant fact that while in never just the pure false statement in your brief that misled judge christian sen it's not to judge a person's question that she asked mr rhodes earlier how can we trust a judge christians i mean he was misled by your brain yeah well he up another question yes i did so you're saying all of this but if you actually go to if you actually go to the record and you look at what what judge lynch said what he says as i just didn't find credible and he says that family and so you've got this you're saying well you know he didn't eat he was shot to protect his chickens exaggerate but that is all based on the idea he also was not scared right that's all because that's exactly what judge judge that from all when it matters whether it was scared and you just said the district court did not think it was important this fear issue but that's exactly wrong because i'm going to age eighteen of the excerpts of record the court himself said you're i find it significant that wallin did he was reasonably europol so i think the judge to say he could have been fearful it makes sense because just three factors that the wall and the wall on one court set but then he goes on and says but he wasn't careful because you didn't tranches to get rid of the resident there peacefully and the grizzly there is right in front of him that's not going anywhere and that and you're scared of that but that's your position is that that's not enough to ford's credited because it had changed so much the story that the court credited was that he was standing next to pick up any pick up the rifle from the school bus in his pickup and fired at the bear from the relative s the quest i've got so there's an interplay here to the standard of view between i think you're right on substantial evidence there's a pretty massive as i discussed it as a pretty massive glaring fact and it seems like the district court judge relied very heavily on that if you has already said that he's not credible and since he's not credible he doesn't he doesn't look at the wind on a subjective standard anyway and the court and if he has it was harmless error and the court rejected that report rejected your argument and rejected your argument because it's not enough to go back to what i said again not enough to simply say that somebody is not credible it's not enough even judged christian said didn't think it was enough he thought he needed add to it the fact that he said he was scare on egregious factual acting in the factual capacity the district court made a pretty grievous actual error misled by your office and and seem to have decided based on that and it seems to me it was very difficult for judge lance and i know he won't be back on this case anymore but the put aside his prior rulings do you ever if this was to go back does your office ever say you know we don't have to provide a jury trial but it would be better for the appearance of justice to do that do you i understand that you want to have a hearing and so on but if you put on another evidentiary record yes or and we wanted a different fact finder but obviously wasn't going to happen so right well this time around we're there to be  we would ask for a trial before the new fast finder and what this court didn't have with it is you wall when one was judge which is comments in the other case which were extremely strong comments a good st example there's not a  instance when someone's trying to defend their family have to be out of fear it's not like the bear was running away in that means the bear was shot in the river the bear could have been shot where it was because it was dashing darting there was chaos