case and in this case the state court's decision resulted in a decision that was contrary to the supreme court clearly established supreme court law as well as it was  why did the trial court who vote his right to represent himself and was that decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of supreme court law at the trial court level your honor to the contrary to the goodness case and a client's educational or ability to represent himself which is contrary to threat and haskell and then the last reason that she sets out is whether she can understand him your hon looking at the procedure at the trial level it's clear that the district that the trial court does not revoke the petitioners rights represent himself because of the language difficulty but because she doesn't want to nine the judge just the client is still representing himself the case of consolidated with another one and the judge is allowing the client represent himself in january two thousand years of hearing that's when the  about the different issues about it maybe action understand you and she also talks about the would you like an interpreter i'm going to get to that in a minute he demurs she still allows him to represent himself until finally she says i can't do this anymore i don't have access to the court library it's a library i give up she says i'm making two pints one you don't want to represent yourself too i'm having a hard time to understand understand you and various motions he comes back in february he's representing himself she asks him how he pleads to a new amended information and he invoked his fifth amendment as that point she says i consider your response based on your response here and our previous discussions i'm considering indicating that you're not capable of representing yourself now it's time that she makes that ruling she clearly understands what he's know what you're really saying and at that point she says you're doing yourself nothing but a disservice you're aware of some of the law not all of the law then she says i have a great difficulty understanding you and then she says you bring motions that don't why you confused an interpret the it on the grounds first she grounds mental health has as i indicated in the ill prepared motions which is what she really seems to be focusing on are contrary to supreme court law and the third one the language one i'll get into a little bit more but what the trial what the district court says when she reviews the record is that while the client is difficult to understand it's complicated the trial court sa that he was usually able to make himself understood now the state appellate court and the federal court both in making their rulings implicitly although they say they do not talk about why it's on the mental health and court reporter i can understand what he was saying but he was making rambling statements about unrelated matters he was filing inappropriate motions he was causing the courts questions competency and so the record reflect you know support that he couldn't communicate intelligibly and then the district court also talked about not only the language issue and she said the language issue alone may not be sufficient but maybe his refusal to take an interpreter makes that sufficient then she also talks about lack of legal qualifications and says well lack of the gulf qualifications alone may not be sufficient but the fact that he's not using an interpreter and he's hard to understand makes it reasonable in both of those opinions your honour's the lack of preparedness and inability to do a good job representing himself is clearly contrary to fred itself so that can't be a basis so then the only basis l seems like the argument that's being made is almost this is the problem that makes it that this client is unwilling to follow courtroom protocol or rather that run evil and what happens with the interpreter is again the client represents himself at many appearances and it's just one appearance that the trial court on three different points says well do you think you could better communicate with an interpreter and he says well no i've used them before it's not the right dialect later  language barriers standing on may not be sufficient were really on page hearing in which the judge asks the client if he would be better served with an interpreter at three points in that hearing he says no she then goes on and still allows him to represent himself until he at that hearing despise that he's not going to do it and when she makes findings after she doesn't say anything about a refusal to use an interpreter and he then she allows him later to represent himself and she doesn't say anything about an interpreter so to later state while he's refused if that were the you're not going to be able to represent yourself she doesn't it's something that comes up at an earlier hearing not at the time that she revoked his right to do it himself and so denying his right to represent himself that was totally consistent with mccaskill versus williams there's been some speculation here today about the reason why the court revoked his right to represent himself education or perhaps was questioning his mental competence the court of appeal said we're looking at the whole record and it's clear to us that the real reason why the court revoked his right to represent himself was because of the language difficulty if you look at the supplemental of record that we filed that permeates the trial court's discussions with this defendant again and again the court has to interrupt and say what are you saying or often the court reporter has to interrupt and say what was that word sometimes they are able to figure out what he's trying to say sometimes they don't in the court reporter is reduced to just putting a phonetic spelling of what he's trying to say in quotation marks and it's never really ever clarified so for the trial court to allow a person with that level of difficulty to go to the trial and present the case in front of the jury i'm sure we would have been here arguing on the opposite claim if that had happened there is no way to ensure that the jurors would have understood what he was saying which is the essence of the trial that it wouldn't have been practical to try to clarify every single word that he said and his refusal to use the interpreter was the last straw  don't think there's really much question that he he refused the interpreter there was quite a bit of discuss about it he said that he had used interpreters before in his previous cases and they were using were usually mexican and didn't have the same  accent are used the same dialect as he did the court then said well can accommodate you and get a puerto rican interpreter who doesn't speak your dialect he still said no i don't think the court is the court did attempt to do that three or four times i don't think that there was any obligation to pursue that any further when he made it clear that he was not going to except it in accepting the temperature and the court couldn't have simply appointed one and forced him to use an interpreter when you're representing yourself you certainly would have to work with an interpreter and he was simply refusing to do that then the presentation of the evidence to the jury would simply have broken down it just wouldn't work and that's the that's the fast  don't have to actually be disruptive or disorderly or disrespectful to the court you also have to be able to represent yourself and that includes able to communicate able to speak and communicate your thoughts in savage versus basis for revoking the right to represent yourself and also an entirely proper basis then there is no constitutional violation i think that would be the case here because clearly his inability to communicate was extreme and severe the court could not let him go forward i also think that it could be said that what the trial court was doing when she was disgusting his his motions that were inappropriate or simply said i can't make a record here but the judge that i have a great deal of difficulty understanding you i think a jury will also tell now that is also a factual finding the trial court made a finding after personally seeing the defendant a number of times seeing how well he was able to communicate that a jury was not going to be able to understand him i think the reason the judge didn't revoke that right representation right away is because she was revoking his right to represent himself what the client woman actually why is because her request was untimely and other is because the judge is concerned that she won't be able to do a good job when in fact the judge in that case  is a late night you know you're asking me to do this at a later time and raises that but what the ninth circuit does is they say even though there's two reasons and one might be a valid reason you have to look at what the court did and in that case unclear because it talks about the ability to communicate and it doesn't necessarily limit itself to the language the other thing i would say is well actually this may have maybe the same problem in the case the court says we're revoking the defendant's right to represent himself because he can't prepare because you can access to have access to live or but he also was obstructionist and then the night circuit looks and says well no actually he wasn't obstruction starter was the problem and interpreter wouldn't help and so in that case state requires that the defendant have co counsel or but in that case the judge still allowed mr savage to file his own motions to to talk to the investigator on his own and there's even a footnote where the court said that they're trying to accommodate his right to represent himself and allow him to have some control while still allowing communication to be an as well even though that's the case there's co counsel in the client is allowed to make arguments on his own behalf in this case the judge doesn't like what's happening and so she revoke his right altogether given your honors that the sixth amendment right to represent yourself so poor to criminal defense the court in this case had the issues truly been the language difficulty should have tried to accommodate should have appointed an interpreter should have allowed the