knowledge is not a proper basis to deny them the right to proceed pro se although the state brings up the fact that his request for hybrid representation defense's argument is actually nothing hayes he requested hybrid representation as he was entitled to do and he was a conditional request it wasn't it was a request where he forfeited his right to proceed pro se and he is request again was unequivocal the trial judge knew that he made to the class one was rick as for high representation one was a request for representation and she denied them both based on the improper basis that mr jones had no legal experience or expertise secondly mr bunce again made another  february sixth he acknowledged the seriousness in this request of what was happening there and that he se returned his first trial although we had no legal experience and he said the bottom line was i would like to go pro se once again the judge criticized mr bonds for not knowing how to provide proper pleadings she said there's no there's no passion here i can tell by what you filed that that you don't understand the law and these things are  and more than that mr bond you have no rights pro se the right to go pro se slowly with my discretion and more than that in order to proceed pro se you have to articulate a substantial basis to why i should allow you to proceed pro s class is murder it's not a path and he said i think it's a super apps and she said no that's why you need a lawyer and then she said mr brown what is the range and he said between six to twenty and she said that's incorrect that's why you need an attorney and she said there are alleged misconduct yes would you say bob dylan i don't believe it was misconduct i mean it's clear that mr johnson gauged and something he should have been doing he was on the phone he was referencing trying to conversations it was only after the twenty twelve conversations came to our attention with defense witness smith who ended up being a state witness by the way that she said ok i'm going to shut down your phone contact and um when he requested to go pro se on her her statements were more of i would have to vacate my order of you using the phone and give him access which i don't want to give you two witnesses this far out to go pro se which is actually not correct she could have simply said mr bonds that's fine you can hang yourself but you don't get a phone contact you know the library privileges she was fully entitled to do that and she could have done that but now she said i may have to take a my order and i wouldn't want a different  at his last request he said you know what i'm not going to have an extension of time i'm ready to go today even though he didn't request or just on me basically read richard knox we could contact witnesses and the judge had no reason to  that he was going to have any witnesses come in and he could have coerced because the state had because of his conduct in twenty ten twenty twelve transcripts of every single person he'd ever talked to they knew every witness every person he was on the phone with he had spoken on the phone since speculation about what this defendant may or may not do or did or did not do was simply not enough and again the state's asking this court to make brand new laws not just about how out of course conduct has nothing to do with the function and they have nothing here and again i don't believe that this is actually gross misconduct mr bond's big several mistakes which were introduced against him a trial he knew that they were going to be introduced against a trial the witnesses that he was charged with trying to influence were state's witnesses and they would be testifying anyway and what the judge did here is basically say i'm going to let you go pro se because any evidence that you offer in your defense is probably going to be a lot and is going to be for a jury which is also obviously the trial just made several errors in the women's frederick's initially i think the problem with the friends argument as far as oh well the very first time she did it now it's structural there and everything else goes away is that if you have at some point a correct ruling that he cannot represent himself and then the defense argument in this case when we get to a point and it's really understanding the position that we're in when we get to the point that you know our argument that she made a proper is that a real question that whether or not this find out right now right negatively as he has a system which is just the system that we have that we're allowing somebody who gather conjured testimony and the one to present it to  right absolutely and we understand that yes yes and then and the kind of problems that the few times that which upheld that you can't do that or you don't have a right to do that is typically a person who cannot control themselves or or they're not able to represent themselves you're not alleging here that there was an inability to speak for himself or any of that so we've got none of that this case the problem in this case and the fact that that the constitutional footing that we have is really based on whether or not misconduct outside the courtroom because clearly by all means if you want to hang yourself be my guest but but it's the the damage the potential damage to the dish process that we're really saying is a is  that is something and my concern about it i mean does it go to zero in this particular case i don't think it is it affects the outcome of does that happen all the time in cases sure does it come out so the that's the jury sure does but it's not the place officers who are representing the state state's attorneys representing the state so there is a real distinction between these two scenario just very briefly the judicial process was already protecting that the evidence of the tampering was argument against him a trial and it was going to be admitted regardless of who the attorney was in the state has the ability to cross examine the states already protected and again as you know it they should just let him do it because he would have been more strict you know worse for him having done the right is the defense and the defendant is the one who's doing eighty three years in prison and it's the defendant's conviction it's although we may know that it's a terrible idea for a defendant to go across a and they should never act as i feel as their own lawyer are just going to tells us we have to allow them to do that and if it makes it worse for them than they do and let me ask you  becoming the state's witnesses so and that was that there was nobody else there was and there's no one else as this has been they said we don't know who she was talking about when she said potential perjury the defense counsel was the one who listed mr sneath so he would have testified regardless of whether or not the counsel would have been mr bouncer not mr johns we don't even know who she's speaking of the defendant was going to have no time to prepare anyone he said i'm ready to go to trial today so i don't think that he's going to be punished the process of how he protected the state has glorious cross examination of these witnesses that they can use the say isn't it true that you said this isn't it true that you said this is just one other question you mentioned that once the structure were there's there's a motion to reconsider cases that where the judge just i'll take it under advisement not reconsider my ruling and the defendant is then allowed to go pro se which is what you should have done i mean when he when he corrected himself and he said you know sure i'm going to law school there's really not much i think of the state within the carson would be influential in that case and again as it's although she again we're hearing now about what happened on the tapes knows were coming in and those are going to be punished regardless of who is going to be the lawyer i don't think it was enough i don't think that that kind of defendant's wish to go through with it regardless