least the supreme court has it not for those requests that literally in the middle of the trial in this case as i understand it the jury was waiting out in the hall when he made the request well your honor the didn't the supreme court tell us that circumstances where the granting in this case the reappointment of counsel would operate as a of struction to an impending trial that that is an exception to the rule that we would ordinarily simply we appoint a lawyer well that might be an exception your honor but i think you need to look at the facts of this case through the eyes of my client why not why shouldn't we look through the eyes of the supreme court unhappy with or representing himself he did equivocate somewhat which way he was going to go finally he decided he would represent himself although i indicated he was trepidations about that he was have assigned attorney does no back to the defense what would have happened given mr soils constitutional right to represent himself if in fact at the end of the day with my client if the right is there and there's no four other writers right council michael absent a conflict of interest much mr does now could have been forced upon my client whether he says i don't want him or not and again this whole  well you know i think the money that's a minor consideration when conley with the fact that my client's looking at a life sentence and having to represent himself would that he's not qualified or compared to do of course you if we accept your argument we are essentially undercutting the language in the supreme court cases that say that there is not an unlimited right to switch counsel that at some point when the trial is imminent that the interests of society and having its speedy trial outweighs the defendant's desire for additional time for whatever reason and if we adopt the rule that you're asking us to gob we are essentially going against what the supreme court has told us and i'm still wondering how it was unreasonable for the california court of appeal to apply existing supreme court authority denial of review yeah all right so back to my question how is it reasonable to apply existing supreme court authority in this case where you know mr soil bring in the jury work or start the trial right now but he's a man looking and spending the last rest of his life in prison and being put between a walk and a hard place on thank you very much process the rule is that at the end of the day we reward that defendant i don't understand at all how that rule would comport with any of the limitations or any of the characteristics for that matter forever that have been recognized either by ironically exactly what he got under the rule that he proposes and ironically at the end of the day namely post trial what happens the defendant reversed himself again agrees to business representation for pos this charade began there was from the time of august a rather april until august of like in seventy seven no fewer than fifteen appearances and which was no represented the defendant no threat of motion no martial motion  you have with that argument is that whatever the trial judge for me it's directed to the other plaintiffs and you don't have any evidence yet that he holds the same views with regard no doubt my mind you know might likewise you're in the sixties and seventies and we can't keep on coming back up to the ninth circuit every other year even though i love coming  essentially agreeing that it was at least two years and the court did not to look at the issue very closely because the conduct was far beyond two years here we have parties very carefully and very early greeting the issue of whether one or two years and our esteemed panel says the statute of limitations for infringement of the right of publicity in california is two years and then the panel goes on to say cassano did not commence the present action until july nineteenth ninety seven well after the two year statute of limitations had run if you look i just meant that established for all time the ninth circuit recognition of a two year you have done perhaps in a particular case both and under particular circumstances it might only slowly be an economic interest but we're not here under the radical circumstances we're here under these circumstances in which the point is consistently argue