posed was the subject of prior discussions between the chord and i guess your client and what i'm not clear my guess is how specific was the course directions your call and that he would not be permitted to get into  outside of potentially saying we discussed this when before what i think what the court should look at in this respect and i think she's extremely important is that one of the things that forever doesn't stop on is a lack of a lack of wired to your account your client asking this question how specific were the discussions that the court had with your client about what he was and was not permitted to do with respect to the question of the altar boy i apologize i intention of the court for alternative purposes not a cite for the issue of which he was covered or discussing also there were opportunities we raises in a brief that there really were a limited amount of constitutional issues on which the judge may be most offended representing himself i don't believe his actions but this one particular question wound up to be sufficient to be disruptive where she had a silenced him short of saying to sit short of saying no more questions here at minus the jury she actually went to the point during trial the court actually wanted a point and said we're not even going to discuss this with the ray doing a review on this trial i think the issue there is she was so afraid of what might happen and it's respectable this is a complicated matter this is a complicated case there were defendants were split three different groups because it was so many of them and i think the issue should have been if mr rangle was told you need to sit down chill and have your standby counsel now take a place why because the issue involving standby counsel at the very beginning was that standby counsel was not there for the benefit of mr angle so that's the st justice for of you for understanding for direction for i think the that you know that was created by him being removed so abruptly goes to the structural error goes to the harm that was caused because he was also not only denied the right to speak at that point to the jury or to the court but everything that he wanted to do therefore had to be filtered through the standby counsel which in effect the nice him of his right to manage is o say i'm almost at my five minute mark i believe that this is the issue that i would like to concentrate on the brady material is as far as i understand as far as i see should be appointed and should be acquired umist angle but i may please the court out of place the united states if i could start out by answering the question i laid out in my brief on page fourteen a little bit of the procedural history of the issue of impeaching me down love report and there was some litigation over it and the government said it was not going to call them love and when the government said that the defendant subsequently filed a motion to be allowed to call them love for the purpose of impeaching him for bringing up this  e to bring in the fact that he was subject to a no id investigation and also i want to be clear it was an o i g investigation the fact that the claim that he was under criminal investigation that that was never talked about  that was out of left field but the so there was litigation over whether they could call whether the defense could but love on the stand to make to make an issue out of the subsequent investigation and the court ruled against them now the the court did not and i will concede court never specifically told angle you are not allowed to ask whether love was under criminal investigation i didn't think to because that was out of left field  judge i'm not arguing that the judge specifically sat down and said hey you got you know if if engle the transcript after angle asks question certainly made it sound as though there was a direct order that angle would have known of this was a very conscious you know specific intent problem and i think you've just told us correctly because i look for it i couldn't find anything here in this record that suggests that there's any kind of a direct order other than a refusal to allow the defendants to call loves for so they could that impeach him with with the thing so given that we have a non lawyer here  question for which there is an objection that is of seynt how is this a proportional response under any of the cases dealing with forever rights well you know i think that the judge found that it was clear the angle  that area was not allowed to be explored and i think that i think that it is circumstances this court can defer to that finding because there was a great deal of it of litigation over love the court read the transcript glad i know i know you're a very experienced day usa as anybody and ever any trial that you've ever been involved in asked a question that they probably shouldn't have asked because the district court told him not to on you're out and i mean very much so i know of course it does but i think that the circumstances that made this case special were the st of all the length the trial had gone on were twenty five days in the amount of litigation that happened on time i mean i think the court would have been within its discretion to do so but i want to emphasize that the finding the district court made here was based on her observation of how the trial played out i admit that i was not there personally in it any of the forensic cases where where we've had people who have engaged in really serious misconduct misbehaving disrespect to the just record and so on whether we have deprived them of their forever rights you know of any case somebody forever rights were suspended rather than taken away he was allowed to come back and be his own lawyer just it just was taken away from him temporarily no your honor i don't know of any case like that and to make clear because there was some discussion with with opposing counsel if this was an error it was structural or on where the government is not arguing that it was somehow harmless but i be the fact that the judge allowed here reinstated him i think goes to show that the the judge took the the revoking of his rights very seriously she struggled with it she found compelled to do it there's something in her in the all of the parker question where's she says that she just doesn't feel like she could read it she said mr engle is and has made clear to me that he's not going to fall on my orders i'm not going to risk it i'm not going to let him  zero you know what i think the judge based it's finding on her observations of him she says she talked about she said it has made clear to me that he's not going to follow my orders i observed him as he i'm not quoting but i observed him as he did as he was very proud of himself for sliding not and he was he was pleased with himself over for being able to slide something by me oh i got a trial that's gone on for a long time as a number don't i mean i don't know about any for any future quest i can't i can't imagine what what other areas that didn't come out at trial like i can't guess at it he didn't have the reason i'm focusing on this is you  missed so what's the rest of the risk i guess the judge found was that i mean i don't gas that i think this is what she said the judge found mr engle has indicated to me that he is not going to obey my orders and that he would continue to engage in activity that would would risk her needing to declare and then a mistrial that was that was the risk she identified she said i find that that  trying to figure out realistically what is the risk of a mistrial what was coming up in the after no where he might have things that know i i don't know the answer off the top i am not able to speculate about all of the various do different ways that it could have gone on i don't know of any particular issue to be clear i don't i don't know that there was some issue lurking but i'm not sure if the court knew that this issue was lurking either i mean the question about a criminal investigation i've absolutely no basis in fact but but there i was sitting in the judge's lap and she was forced to specifically said we want to get love on the stand we want to ask him about this oh i g investigation to get the check and the judge i mean i don't i can't off the top of my head quote the judges exact wording in her ruling but she said no you may not do that you may you may not call love to bring up this subsequent thing that the subsequent investigation and so that's a specific as it case talks about you know giving a warning but i think those are more relevant to the the the sort of when defendants are engaged in bizarre antics and being disruptive in speaking out of turns and and things like that and they need to be told hey you're only allowed to talk when when it's when it's your turn to talk and then of warning is appropriate but in this circumstance where you know he sed he certainly had been warned that he has to comply with the court's orders and the rules of evidence that was part of the for ethical way but in the circumstances where he does something that the court found that he knew he wasn't allowed to do i don't think that the just looking at the circumstances here where the court is doing what she needs to do to control her courtroom and make sure that the trial proceeds without without needing to declare a mistrial i think that i mean it was certainly i a harsh sanction but the court felt like it was the appropriate prophylactic measure to make sure that he that mr engle wasn't allowed to subvert the trial