argument one thing was a consistent throughout and it's kind of the foundation for the appeal and that is at what point do or does any criminal findings and in the review of the record obviously the judge she was frustrated with the similar type of request again by mr christian but you  you know at some point there has to be an end to that request can't be a continual request if you have the proper i mean we have many many cases substitution counsel including the day will your honor in my opening for this i was going to refer to the fact that it comes down to a partial argument that i've made in my brief as well and that is that there was ineffect i've done is in my brief i am spending an awful lot of time on the effective assistance of counsel argument and a lot of the argument is predicated upon the fact that i can't go into a number of other things because they weren't necessarily raised at the trial and that preclude your argument no way goes to a further form the basis for the ineffective ineffective assistance of counsel hearing right there in no way was that asked for your i didn't see that it wasn't actually it's got to be wa right the case law doesn't necessarily follow through with that of course and in the we're in response to the court's initial question about new counsel and and  it appropriate for the judge to make the determination that he did to deny it that additional time and under the rogers criteria obviously this court is is well aware of the fact that new counsel has been denied and granted at various times throughout the proceedings but the first and foremost issue with new counsel is the time when this matter or at least the first  criteria to look at is the timeliness and what i would submit to this panel as the timeliness in this manner although there have been and had been prior appointments and if i may correct there were  prior appointed counsel that were both dismissed and appointed new counsel so mr loeb's the third counsel mr christian was asking for a fourth just to make sure that we're all on the same page there but as far as the time minutes issue was concerned when mr christian made his request for the for the pointed counsel he did so about five weeks before trial it was and this time frame judges that i think is rather critical the underlying information the charge was felon in possession of a firearm and mr christian requested new counsel and that was brought up and made present for the court that this is not a real complicated issue and that was one of the basis that judge shane made or  and mr christian pulled out a weapon right threatened somebody with that the weapon goes off the paper and wrestling to the ground take the weapon away from call the cops the cops take him in the weapon away now that sounds like a simple case but if you're going to adequately defend them i you better go interview the witnesses so it doesn't take time even in a straightforward case if you have a number of witnesses your honor and it does it's just that mr lowe in his  preparation for the case did all that he had a private investigator report he had forty of work to to get the investigator point of the investigator and already gone to twist and interviewed the witnesses and in fact in one of the communication do what you need to do but you don't have a defense what you want to witness and do lie i mean if if in fact he did all he could what's the issue i don't quite understand your argument well it's not necessarily whether or not mr lowell was able to do interest is a very legal or what is the conflict of interest the conflict is mr lowe not being able to loyal really represent mr christian conflict of interest what is the conflict that's causing him not to be able to represent the client they can disagree that's like no i think i understand the conflict of interest would be his ability to present an effective case and i've read one of the cases that referred to conflict of interest and not necessarily something i presented but but it goes to explain at least a partial position and that is that if mr low firmly believes that mr christian is guilty and there is this communication and there is there are problems with that communication that would disqualify you know perhaps eighty percent of defense counsel is clear that there was in effect of assistance in relation to mr lowe's communications in its efforts to or inability to properly defend mr  was walking through the preparation of my briefing my argument again everything tied into that lack of communication the inability of mr low to properly represent mr christian in all phases of the proceeding it required mr christian to stand up and actually make a pro se motion for appointment of new counsel five weeks before the trial again yes he had done that previously with two other prior to court appointed attorneys but there is evidence as to why he did that and i would submit that the judge was an error by not granting mr christian's motion to appoint you counsel think it's fairly clear from the record that the judge did not abuse his discretion which is the standard here and declining to grant christian a fourth attorney based on the same ground when there's only allegations were had done which was review discovery conduct investigation and he found that the judge that the lawyer was mr low was conducting a defense and that there was no grounds for  that there was not a total lack of communication and then he declined to grant mr christian still another attorney and yes it was five weeks part of trial but the trial had been continued just because are two additional two factors in addition to the conclusion of the court that there was sufficient communication and that two factors which supports his decision not to appoint new counsel one is the repetitive nature of the requests the scores recognized that repeated requests for new counsel is a negative factor and here are the requests from a district on the same basis time after time and also that manufactured discontent by the defendant is as a factor winning against replacement of counsel and here the entire record shows that  what happened during the trial as far as actual communication but there are just snippets from the record references from the lawyer discussing our communication with  christian during the pretrial trial period reference as to whether right after the first day of trial lawyer asked for two if the defendant could be held at the courthouse to allow him to  they discussed whether or not he should plead guilty they discussed the issue of whether or not he should be he should remain present at the trial when he chose not to be these are just things that were mentioned documents and conducting the investigation and the record shows he cross examined and he made arguments attacking the scientific proof he made a closing argument he made he did everything that could be done in the circumstances i believe if there are no further questions i think we have  to to rely on the brief as presented as well but is as far as some further clarification on the effect of assistance issue this was beyond just the mere lack of communication or inability to communicate during preparation phases of a defense this was at the trial as well where the defense counsel and i believe that that it's responded to by the government in their brief basically asserts the possibility of the fence a diminished capacity defense yet doesn't provide any information to the judge pretrial doesn't provide any information in jury instruction concerning that diminished capacity and in fact does cross examine witnesses specifically two different witnesses concerning issues that may be relevant to a diminish judge to move on this isn't relevant those are things and i go in quite a bit of detail example by example of things that should have been objected to should have been raised during th trial and want him prejudiced mr christian because of it this is again encompassing the whole theory behind the appeal goes down to the heart of not having a fact of assistance there's a breakdown of communication at all stages of this proceeding including the trial stage and mr christian was certainly prejudiced by that and the case law that i've read does allow me when the