repeatedly declare that the inherent powers of the courts to impose sanctions and hold it against in contempt and litigants in their lawyers in contempt are uniquely subject to abuse and because of their very potency such powers must be exercised with the court found later that the allusion to the seatbelts was not enough to require a mistrial he originally granted them the straw on that basis with respect to the alcohol mr sattar did not reference alcohol use the word visited establishments so as a lawyer ruled as a matter of law that no reasonable person in montana could ever conclude that visiting establishment meant that you were not drinking and with my judgment we did on the we are not asking that the mistrial ruling be overturned but it was part of the problem here that the mistrial i don't think was necessary it could have been dealt with through an instruction but let me move on i'm going to let me let me move on because i think the well first of all at that point the proper procedure would have been to amend the order to show cause and give mr snyder notice that that was going to be an issue and regarding and provide you know as mr starr offered and his counsel offered at the hearing to provide the record in the kathman case mr sider explained to the court that in his view the ohio supreme court has indicated him when it disqualified the judge who held him in whatever we want to call it we contempt incarceration and judge  it's absolutely clear that he then follows up he has a separate heading pro hockey chip but where he watches into the discussion of the ohio matter that he is folding that it was analysis he calls it contemptuous i believe in the same section but on page one fifty seven  was able to argue these issues i think the judge makes very clear that the he says that the pro hockey change issue of the ohio matter was additional evidence of his dishonesty and that's right after he references the contempt and the judge but at that point there was no indication that this was going to be an all out attack on the streets despite her standing as a lawyer and judge moore converted this proceeding into this proceeding about his standing about his character about follow these rules the rules of montana disport in the wisemen decision which was cited in the decision yesterday and kohl so that we're a court has rules about proxy change status of work revoking the procedures potential misrepresentation exactly i think it was wrong to grant a mistrial i think that that could have been cured with instructional issues and i think judge will abused his discretion on that but but regarding mr prohack it's clear your honor she was relying on the act she issued this opinion and i want to make this point before i or sit down that this is someone's professional reputation this was interesting orders again we recognized the judge could find that it went too far but on the order we was not bad faith but just more issues opinions and he published  decision finding that the judge who imposed this incarceration ohio has been disqualified in that case from highest against mr souter and his clients he does not mention that the court of appeal in ohio from that the entire trial that produce it's still a live issue for this reason the order of dismissal with prejudice specifically cards out entitle him to refund of the fifty five hundred dollars if we prevail and that was put in there so this would be a live issue quickly first of all the plaintiff didn't make it contemporary objection number two when the plant did have the post trial sidebar the plaintiff didn't even think the argument was serious enough to request a mistrial first he said i wanted a modest meant and maybe at some one fifty seven said could have been fixed with a curative instruction leaving only the alleged references to the local establishment as the basis for the mistrial in the order the justice that i think three false alternatives to granting  trial or in this is that one fifty three and one fifty for the record first judge there was i could have instructed the jury that alcohol use is the relevant that would have been that would have not worked i could have told the jury to ignore the statement that would not work and third i could have just let everything be silent and not worry about it and that wouldn't work but what he could have done if he could have said number one there was talk about local establishment i want  you the jurors to know that there is no evidence in this case that mr hill is our have been drinking or that drinking played any role in this case so if that comes from the judge that's a cure to the fact he could have told mr sutter to say something like realized he didn't have to declare a mistrial none of the rest of this would have happened thank you or thank you where you're from the pla ninety seven in february of two thousand and two the case discovered her trial on two occasions it was continued so that by the time we arrived at court and the events that we're here to talk about today occurred it had been five and a half years  at five o'clock saturday during after a full day of trial mr judge mccloy said hold your house now as if as of that point in time there had been no opportunity to consult with the client as i pointed out in the at the time of the hearing given and were present and prepared to testify one of whom testified on monday the day before first day of trial two others were on deck  opinion that words alone cannot convey what was what transpired tone intonation and clear implication of what mr starr was telling the jury was what led mr led judge malloy to rule that this was contemptuous conduct and ethical responsibility that i had given that the case it's settled i point out although there's not specific evidence about the reasons for the settlement but after paralyzed man has been deprived of his day in court and the new trial set your hands september of two thousand and three that has some impact on the decisions to settle but it also seems to me that an advocate in the district court when a matter respecting the conduct of what occurred in the district court comes up that an appropriate thing for an advocate to do is to appear before this court and present the perspective i want to just focus briefly on what judge lloyd actually ordered and that is found in really two places  moreover he hearing was in october judge lawyers should be a decision in january there was nothing that precluded mr snyder from asking to supplement the record and in fact he did on his motion for mistrial i mean right on his motion dealing with this type of situation we have brought to the court's attention affidavits filed by mr cider and to other proceedings in which he has that for example most recently in massachusetts on february fourteenth two that there's already been a proceeding and now we're looking at that proceeding in retrospect and that's the context in which we brought those to the court's attention i have never been reprimanded suspended to sparta or disciplined by any state or federal court it is inconceivable i submit that that statement is consistent with the positions that mr butters advocated here one final point there was reference to the local rule and the local rule rule eighty three  finally with respect to the inherent power issue counsel cites truly these three point one point fourteen but omits to mention the third paragraph of that rule which says and i quote nothing contained in this  shall be construed to limit or deny the court such powers as are necessary to men control over proceedings before it such as contempt power that is exactly with us malloy good here and i submit that it is critical to the administration of justice that district judge able to make maintain control over the proceedings in their court room