actions there's no claim that any of the lawyers that he had including his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel the only assertions of error he makes is with respect to a single hearing conducted by a judge a court other than the trial court in which the court declined to interfere with the decision of his retained counsel to withdraw from the case there's essentially two assignments there he makes a one is that reason have declined to represent him in his reply brief he says while the courts keep lawyers in all the time against their will and it's true that the court trial court does have the power to keep a lawyer in a case if lighting a lawyer out will prejudice the implicated by the court letting them go to court there isn't interfering with the relationship as a matter of practice courts will require a lawyer to show cause because as a matter of practice you don't want lawyers for no reason at all and a court also must which there was a relationship that was going to be formed the parties wanted to form a relationship with the planning and lawyer to defend him not the new council the substitute in those council that's ready willing and able and the court day no you can't do that for some other reason so therefore the court there is story that their client was not to commit perjury and they didn't want to be part of it should the client have been allowed to be there to say well that's not true your honor i think it looking at that looking at the records you know after the fact and of course the government wasn't there i think probably the best practice would have been for a judge called after hearing from the lawyers to give the defendant an opportunity to come in chambers or to go out on their on the record and give the defining opportunity to address it however constitutional rights whether it would have been better practice to do it i think yes it does not violate his constitutional rights it doesn't violate the state's i'm a confrontation because right because there's no there's no witness against him it doesn't violate his due process right i believe or at least it's certainly not clear that it violates his due process right under plain or standard of review because this is not a proceeding that's in connection with the trial the supreme court cases on rights a presence under the due process clause all concerned trial related proceedings in snyder again that he had the trial that he had was for him under an hour of question as to what the integrity of the court was about what his counsel was likely to do given that he already had three working lawyers who had ditched him in a way that he never understood while he was undergoing his trial in the district court how do we know that he never understood what i know is i still mr mansour he understands or mr mansour said listen i wasn't paid enough to do this or that aspect of it ye said client wants us to assist him in committing perjury and we want no part of it the client and said no as i fully expect most clients in that situation would so well know i don't want them is not perjury i just want them to put on the defense that i say is the right defense what should judge counsel done in that circumstance can i stop and i'd like to answer the question but i think there's a very important principle that has to be addressed first time i fully recognize i tried many cases in the district court i fully recognize and honor the ethical duty of any counsel not in any way to condone perjury however in order for your honour's question to come apps there has to be some information put in front of the presiding judge what will the future of congress somebody has to say and it had to be a legitimate judicially approved manner for that information to reach the court that perjury was afoot and the record this court faces makes it very clear there is no waiver anywhere of the privileged communications that happened between my client and his counsel the presumably we've got enough of a rift between the council and the defendant that the defendant is ready to go in front of a court and start to make the accusation i'm unhappy with my lawyer i want to new lawyer are the defendant signs is a simple one page request is appropriate and all of these matters in this particular instance there is still prejudice to my choir are it's we can't establish it because the record is developed in this regard but the clear implication is there which is of the  the nature of this particular error which is structural in of itself given the fact that it goes to the continuity of counsel and particularly retained counsel and moreover three counsel all of them in one fell swoop outside my client's presence basically  and the fact that he might deny that he's committing a crime doesn't mean it's privilege automatically reappears i mean the question is is he contemplating a crime but the the privileges that that nature of the discussion may arguably disappear but i have that doesn't