e you're almost giving a defendant an incentive to flip flop repeatedly with the hope that when the last that management under the supreme court rule is stated it falls fully informed was a cheat in this case i'm not sure that the defendant would have stood still for anything and i'm not sure that the defendant would have would have allowed i mean what he presented his own he presented a barrier to allowing the judge to fully comply with the rule or to changi brown by this first district lays out what we need to do in the state situation either you require we enter a rule that says once you go pro se we're not going to change that we're not going to change that because if we do we get into this situation where there's repeated the hiring firing irie firing and then you need a new  at a minimum you can do it once i think the trial for in this case wanted i mean the trial court here acquiesced and appointed you know at least five attorneys i would i would argue on the two private attorneys cloaking and  judge banned to make a mistake and raves in raids and makes a mockery of the criminal justice system is this the kind of person that we're going to give relief to because if we are only and knowingly gives up his right to counsel so substantial compliance assures that that event occurred but when that event has been repeated many many times in the record i'm not sure that substantial compliance is necessary to ensure that the individual intelligently and knowingly gives up and has a full understanding of is his right to counsel no doubt that this wasn't included in just the statements and take just a stagnant doesn't even mention people the simpson and his in this court is also repeatedly upheld the continuing waiver rule we all know what the continuing waiver rule is it continues throughout ok there are two exceptions according to simpson significantly changed circumstances that we have that here all and that so every time he gets a new lawyer that's a significantly changed circumstance absolutely proceeding pro se fired and this case to be so he chinese asks for a lawyer and then fires them and then gets a new one that's a significantly change circumstance in your view yes i'm not sure that justice miller would agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion the other exception was a later request for counsel which would seem to infer at least as far as simpson is concerned that we start looking at this case from the beginning with a defendant who started pro se from the outset in this but in this case started pro se he didn't i didn't know he did no and substantial compliance with supreme court will for one day at that point all it says here is here legally will we believe in the continuing way in the absence of significantly changed circumstances or his is life is at stake and he says you know what i think i want to i want counsel now and at that point the tragedy said no and i think we he wasn't able to counsel when he said he was entitled to counsel when he said he wanted counsel but in this case the defendant is not saying he wants counsel so much as he's saying he wants an attorney that meets all of those conditions and requirements and is the attorney complied with the judge appointed moratti of counsel and each time he was this court to agree that this defendant was made fully aware of his his rights and you know his sixth amendment right was really given to him on a silver plate in this case i think judge  d no no no it was required in october you know they cited but i know what all this case is completely so far afield from the situation in cleveland and you know at the very least as a matter of policy in this case if we if this court were to say that the court had not at least substantially complied which it did more than that complied with giving the defendant his admonished ments that this would allow every defendant to delay trial this this defendant was fully aware of his rights he was fully aware he was made aware by the trial court the consequences of him firing yet more coun you have four choices you can rip be represented by the p d by any of the four private attorneys that were offered and there were four offer to him not to his liking you can hire your own counsel which he could not do and where you can proceed pro se and he did have counsel on october thirtieth and again rejected best counsel he knew the consequences of his decision at that point he had been admonished at least four times by two of his different out of the three judges that he appeared in front of and and as a matter of policy at the very least it is defendant who attempts to thwart the administration of justice is just six pounds he said it twice december you don't want to go to trial you're doing this because you do not want to go to trial this was not a defendant like in cleveland so it should be a situation so should our ruling in this case really turn on that  finding by the trial court that everything he engaged in was dilatory and that his real reason he didn't really want to go to trial and under that situation all the rule responded about at least one question as of the should we simply ignore or would like why should we we rely on the trial judge within his discretion finding based on his interaction with the defendant that everything he was engaged in was dilatory and that he really didn't want to go to trial and therefore all these actions about firing hiring firing and hiring i had nothing to do with counsel it had everything to do with that he didn't want to