Back to Exhibit 7

ARGUMENT

1. The defendant has thoroughly argued and demonstrated his right to review of three said Habeas Corpus petitions as being timely filed. And now the defendant asks this court to grant him what the State Courts never did - - A chance to gather evidence, subpoena witnesses, and prove each of his claims in each of his three Habeas petitions through a preponderance of evidence presented during scheduled evidentiary hearings.
    
2. The Superior Court judges that reviewed and denied the three Habeas petitions at bar, in State Court, no findings that were largely conclusory, summarily made, legally unsupported and wholly arbitrary. He ignored some of the defendant’s claims and arguments, and misrepresented clear cut laws (such as those regarding Ex-Post facto laws) to deny relief on others. And in each one of the three petitions he did this by refusing to acknowledge the defendant’s requests for evidentiary hearings, and likewise refusing to allow the defendant any evidentiary hearings to prove his various claims. So since no evidentiary hearings were afforded the defendant in State Court, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, to grant the defendant three evidentiary hearings to prove the claims in his three separate Habeas petitions, now.
    
3. Precedent for this Federal Court circuit and the 9^th circuit Court of Appeals supports the defendant’s request for evidentiary hearings. See Contreras V. Rice, 5 supp.2d 854, 863 (C.D.Cal.1998) (“[w]here…the State Courts simply fail to conduct evidentiary hearing, the AEDPA does not preclude a federal evidentiary hearing on otherwise exhausted claims.”), (internal citation omitted). See also Lambright V. Stewart, supra, 241 F.3d 1201, 1206 (9^th cir.2001) (“[the defendant] asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he has raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and no State Court has ever granted him an opportunity to develop his claim. We agree and therefore remaned to the District Court.” (Internal citation omitted). See also Hoffman V. Arave, 236 F.3d 523, 537 (9^th cir.2001). (Remanding to District Court for an evidentiary hearing to “develop a factual record.”)