good morning your honour's morning council may please the court my name is joshua you are and i represent the appellant in this case joseph banks the primary issue in this appeal and really the only one that i'm going to be touching on this morning is whether the district court abused its discretion in permitting mr banks to represent himself a trial it's our argument that the court did not recognize its authority to reject mr banks's waiver of counsel and therefore fail to exercise discretion in evaluating this issue i think it's appropriate to sort of recap the somewhat torturous history of well this case i don't really understand  everyone virtually everyone who represents himself you know i kind of criminal defendant is making a big mistake and where's the trial judge is supposed  and his idea of a defense you know is it's primitive but there's the this is common the this court has said that the request to proceed pro se must be unequivocal when we look at the background of the case mr banks have been in custody for almost four and a half years and then represented by but he doesn't want to have a lawyer well he said he didn't want to i think the it's my position it's the defense's position here that the record doesn't support that mr banks didn't want a lawyer the record supports the proposition that he didn't want attorney brinley representing him a trial the courts colloquy with him that really continued throughout the the jury trial  banks repeatedly said this guy can't speak for me he's not my lawyer he can't speak for me where did he ever suggest that he wanted another lawyer he did but i think the onus to some degree is she has said that she didn't say the court should have recognized not have recognized what should she have said i don't think there is much more that the court could have himself doesn't want to have a lawyer and watched supposed to do well the court should have been on notice as mr banks again oh this means what should she have done she should have rejected his waiver of counsel and done what required the attorney who had been representing him for the past eighteen months to see through the trial the court and he was so adamant and even i mean it's like to me you look at this case in a vacuum he had already fired won't fool you well i mean and there's only so much she can do and she's got to protect the record and try to get him some representation if she can so that's the whole point is shadow or stand by counsel and i agree that judge how meyer was put in a very difficult position by mr bangs his actions but the court still has to ensure the integrity of the process and part of that requires the court to recognize in this case that it had the authority to say no mr bangs you're not going to represent yourself and there are a variety of reasons why the courts should have done that and they have many cases where judges of actually done that over the when you have this kind of history just forced the lawyer on i mean that the more typical situation is do exactly what she did by shadow counsel that the court has dealt with scenarios where defendants the court has forced counsel upon a defendant and of course it's resulted in a conviction conviction in the defendant ends up here saying that the court should have done that the court should let me go by myself and the barry case that with and judge evans open does he like when they would do in by you by saying that you know judges are sometimes put between a rock and a hard place and that was the case here to be sure defendant has to unequivocally express a desire to represent himself or freddie to kick him but if the court wants to operate under the idea that differ at a waiver gets us past the original just says i don't want  and but made the request to proceed pro se months before the trial and the court held the fret a hearings and allowed him to represent himself later weeks before the trial imposed counsel on on mr brock because of his what the court anticipated would be a very difficult trial the the judge in this case said that and this is on page three seven difficult trial with the pros they defend the very case is a pretty good example of a case where a pro se defendant represented at least made some effort constitutional principles i don't think that's a very strong basis to have here if the judge had appointed lawyers as your lawyer how do you react i think that's a what if that the court never had an opportunity i don't think he would have attended the trial well and then he said leave me in my cell illinois versus allen allows them to do that and this mr banks repeatedly asked during the trial to be removed from the courtroom and to not have to participate and well he could have said i don't want to i don't want to participate in this but so go ahead appoint  and where does that leave him well it leaves the court again in a difficult position but the court has to take all these factors and you know i know your honor was addressing what abuse of discretion means previous from the in a previous argument and at a minimum requires the exercise of discretion in the exercise of discretion requires the court to evaluate all its options and the record in this case is clear that judge palmer didn't recognize she had the authority to reject his waiver she said as long as your decision is knowing involuntary i have to allow you to proceed on your own and that's not accurate she also said obviously page two hundred eighty of the transcript he's not letting us unleash mr jones or mr brindley lawyers those comments reflect the fort's belief that it had to let him represent himself and it's our position that that's that's not the law the court had every reason to reject mr banks's waiver in this case but believe that you had to accept it so when we're looking at this thing for abuse of discretion our position here is that despite the difficult position the district court was and the morning here on earth may please the court my name is andrea stanek and i represent the united states there is a constitutional right to have an attorney there also is a constitutional right recognized infrared that to represent oneself and it appears that the defendant's argument is based on a legal fallacy that there was some discretion on the part of the district court to reject a valid plea invoked unequivocal volunt waiver made by the defendant to represent himself there there is no such discretion absent the extraordinary circumstances that were discussed and recognized by this court in broccoli or ian brown and the other cases that have been discussed by the defendant  to correct the claim that his waiver was somehow not unequivocal and was specific to mr brumley it was not there are no less than seven occasions during a very short trial in which the defendant indicated that he definitively did not want counsel so at the very beginning of the trial the court asked him you are certainly after a discussion about him wanting to proceed sui juris which is latin for on my own or applied my own right and in her prior persona which is latin for on one's own behalf the court advised him you are certainly free under the constitution to proceed on my own and the defendant responded exactly that is what i so choose your honor the discussion continued after a colloquy into the voluntariness and intelligent waiver that he was providing and the court said is your decision to proceed here entirely without a lawyer entirely voluntary that is your decision correct the defendant said yes it is that's on th fourteen of the transcript a few moments later when he was asked if he adopt the motions that have been filed by his previous attorney the defendant state it i have objected to having an attorney on this case it continued throughout the trial so the next day or after jury selection  impressed upon the defendant that he had a right to an attorney that there were attorneys ready to represent him and he said i understand the benefits of having an attorney that's all fine and dandy but i prefer to go as i'm going in the direction that i'm going that's page one fifty so totally disruptive that the judge has the choice of letting the for the sit in jail for a long long time and not even having a trial or dropping the defendant's requests to go i think that that is a first down or it isn't that the thrust of most of those cases yes your honor that in you know barry and brock in those cases the court has recognized that sometimes with a pro to proceed defendant there comes a time where the trial cannot move forward if he continues to represent himself himself and there's a range of possible outcomes in those cases it could be that you remove the defendant from the court room it could be that you would post counsel and the court has a lot of discretion in considering those outcomes but one of the implications is that you can forfeit your right to south her presentation but this idea that absent that type of forfeiture or that there is some sort of discretion on the part of the district court to reject a val invoked waiver of counsel is not supported by this court's case law and the discussion of to return back to the discussion of whether this waiver was unequivocal there are examples in the record where the defendant is talking specifically about mr bradley those are in the context of him being standby counsel so there's a number of different occasions on which the district court talked to the defendant about the legal defense that mr brindley would put on for the defendant told him that he was ready to stand up and put on that defense in the defendant was saying no no i don't want him as my attorney but those are in addition to other examples in the record where he unequivocally says i don't want an attorney and not at all and as judge posner noted he never asked for another attorney he never made any indications at any point during the trial that he wanted someone else to represent him if there are no further questions from the panel the government would asked ask the court to affirm the judgment and the sentence the district court you judge counsel's correct defense can forfeit the right to self representation in this case mr banks did virtually everything the courts have indicated amount  i submit your honor that the morrish sovereign national defense that's been raised by pro se defendants many times over the years is a factor that again maybe should have put the court on notice that the request to go on his own was more to obstruct the proceedings than to raise a legitimate legal ground legally grounded objection with the court i see my time is out of the obstruct so you can be removed from the courtroom and wasn't done here when the judge struggled throughout the transfer of their various points in time where he asked to be removed and that the district court said frankly i've never had a situation where i have a pro se defendant who is also asking not to be in the courtroom usually it's a difficult defendant who has counsel who doesn't want to be in the courtroom the judge didn't really have an answer as to a set how to handle that ultimately mr banks was kept in the courtroom throughout the entirety of of the trial there were various points in time jury instruction conference he refused to come out and participate in you know he was for the most part during the trial  potted plant at at the defense table without without any any counsel ok well thank you very much thank you for who you are and i and i know we didn't raise any issues with the sentence today but if the court affirms the the conviction w