are two items here that i think i know of are pretty common in the record and that kind of overwhelm the record and they need to be considered on all three of the issues we're talking about issue number one is the fact that i think it's pretty clear reading the first trial plus the appeal plus the proceedings in the second trial in the second trial is that the fund it was never satisfied by the state of his representation he proceeded the trial the first time around with counsel and then that was a two day trial and on both days he requested in some way shape or form that he wanted to  the defendant clearly by two points kind of go in hand in hand the moment is that it was never satisfied with the state of representation number two i think it's important to talk about the fact that you never want was demoted trial he wanted this to be for a long as often and for as long as he could as i think the other his was pretty overwhelming in this case we don't need they're going to the evidence but the fact that he asked for counsel the second time around and wanted to go pro se and wanted a standby counsel he just always wanted something changing to change things up i don't know what he hopes to accomplish by doing all this but as the trial judge suggested many times many different hearings that he was trying to play the system he's continuances that the defendant never would answer home how much longer he would need to prepare ready for trial again this is all part of his his plan to draw this thing out as long as he could but twice and those hearings the trial judge was close to appointing standby counsel but didn't do so because he i think correctly observed that the defendant would not have proceeded happily with with everything the trial has said below and obviously poorly with all of his attorneys that he had the odds are pretty good if not certain that he wasn't going to get along with standby counsel so look we're looking at out that this was the second trial in this case i am stressed that quite often in my brief because i think it was very important considering his ability and his experience the fact that he saw all this one time you heard it all he was in  pretrial preparations it was at trial he heard everything he and the prosecutors a the defendant all the evidence that they had i'm assuming you had a transcript it wasn't i don't believe it was flushed out if you had the entire transcript from the first rabbi you know we had some of the testimony preps for hours and hours based on what he knew the prosecution was going to present and i think that's very important considering his ability and his experience here and yeah i think and that was i believe that's also  im in having defended stick by his original decision which he you know that the law says must be prepared to do solve you're going to represent yourself defending the senate as if he was ready and why he needed an investigator what he what was this mystery investigator going to do what was he going to test the lead was even to investigate this in an interview and the fact the matter is that the defendant never never did it he never filed this written request never complied with the judge's requests and orders to do so the judge i don't believe in the record ever said defendant could not have an s t d or all he said whenever this issue came up was you need to put it in writing what you want and what you want them to finding that's all i'm good but that alone time that ten days before is pretty insufficient notice if you ask me when when this first this trial proceedings went for months and months and months and there was no question in asked many many times to put in writing if he was going to present an affirmative defense and he never did just yes like investigators you never put it in writing what he was going to do and  wouldn't do that at this point because he didn't know which way he was leaning in regarding his defense he actually said that so it seemed like at some point in the middle of these proceedings even though which way he was he was going to go so this is that i that and regarding whether or not this was the least the last at least severe sanction available that people would submit that there is no other there was no other effect of sanction this point the fed then ultimately on the second day of trial on the first day of trial he did it while he showed up but he wasn't present for any of it because just like pretty much every other hearing in this case he was difficult standoffish and didn't want to  along with anything that was happening and so he decided the first it probably went along while he was i believe in the back room or something then he comes out secondly the trial says once the people's case if he found he wanted to present them and the jury and the judge and everybody involved sue put this on hold while the defendant subpoenas witnesses and and interviews people i think that's that's an unrealistic request and again based on  proceedings that happen below that people would see that there's no guarantee that even if he was given this continuance to compile the evidence of self defense that he would have actually that he didn't do it from august months and months and months when he had the chance to do it the odds that he was going to do it again