interpreter because he did not speak english at all the interviews lasted over an hour so i can assure the court that he is well aware there of the consequences and he was very clear of his  very well aware of the facts of this case i don't have to go into details i think issue number one related to the close call room issue is a fascinating issue because the facts in this case are really different than most of them the queen officer informed him that there were people still my whole way he told the way to pack and leave tell everybody we're done for the day and everybody came back at six thirty there was no indication from there than anybody else was in the courtroom at that point except  well it's interesting and i would i would admit to the court the following that initially i mean usually there was i would say just an expression of reluctance but  after he thought about it and this was before the procedure went on so i knew it was going to contemporaneous he thought about it and then eat and then he said i tend to agree with this procedure now i know i mean did he market and he thought about it and he said he said i can't agree with this and then the judge said ok i won't close the court room and that's when the w conversation with the bill but the marshal with the bailiff occurred where the bailiffs of the store people in the hallway and that's when the the judge said tell everybody that we're done for the day pack up your bags and come back need for witness protection and security well answered question number two first had i understand that the government is arguing that there was no closure and i would maintain the deaths fairly disingenuous  y through the process of of again faking out the public and the press by essentially lying to them we are done for the day let's let's let's just take the premise of judge said it's a question was there then that there was no recourse or again and whether it was justified that's that's the real question we'd like an answer to in this particular case i would i sentencing on the state and then on that date he changed it changed without telling anybody and then everybody came back in and nobody was there when they did it and the first circuit in that case said you can't you can't do that you have to give them notice to everybody if you're going to if you're going to make it in you have to specifically give reasons reasons articulated i mean i understand the general tenor of this case i do i get it and i may understand maybe the broader war in charge and at that point in time for three years she wasn't running the enterprise it's true for the first couple he was getting a little bit a little bit of money back the last three they cut him off so how was he they had taken his valuable criminal enterprise out from one of the is a gentleman now who say that's revenge the government says that's because he wanted back and i say jail in appears far from little fritos testimony that he had some kind of connection for at least the first couple years but then there was a cut off yeah but that is the price continue thank you thank you knowledge related to any ongoing enterprise but before i go into depth about that i would like to was the quoits questions in perception about original question to mr black why isn't that just a jury question because it's the prosecution's burden to the enterprise and in that same questioning may not be readmission it except at the defendant's behest thank you very much away from the question are you saying that the notice to the press is you know age of first amendment right well is that why you're saying the defendant can't raise yes  doesn't doesn't that undercut his show for a way his question implied the defendant's right to a public trial the fact that bad if the court room is going to be one t and had recognized him on the scene and that all four of those witnesses said that they had not come forward because they were afraid i can't as appendix ph as for fifty four five ninety seven thirty that in chambers conference that at no point does counsel suggest that any of the factors are not satisfied is there any objection raised to the lack of public notice was a falling out at some point from between because kendall was still in control even though he was no longer he was no longer in puerto rico he was still controlling the organization from detroit and because he became five to fifty seven and he says this is what we would do when we would go to activities as we would make sure that we were and this shows that they were they were still a team they were still an organization and that is why shooting her directly in the gym and this is the actions of somebody demonstrating making a public demonstration for anyone president that how violent he is willing to be and this is the type of demonstration when it looked like he was beginning to lose control that is when he began making his threats and from there is there any evidence that he intended to continue to work with the downed sellers or the people who were left alive that was the sane when he did it as an enemy within the organization and bring in some some of his new people probably the people who were with him that night so what's the evidence to support that the