first issue regarding post conviction counsel's performance and the only remaining argument is that mr edwards direct criminal contempt conviction should be paid directly middle contempt of court is conduct that is calculated to embarrass hinder deceitful or disobedient are only criminal contempt to the extent that they disrupt court in the courts contempt power is to be exercised with passion and against united states supreme court has made clear that  criminal contempt is not for the protection of judges who made the name of the whims of public opinion and one isolated disparaging statement while offensive is not necessarily criminal contempt or can you describe them  direct or indirect this way merely mr edwards speaking to his counsel while leaving the court room and it was clearly after proceedings had ended the court announced the hearing was looted and it was at that point the mr  basis for funding i'm i do believe that the law is clear that he can say he was speaking to his attorney if the hearing had concluded and this was protected by the first amendment this was a conversation with  x claimed she heard some well your honor i wasn't there you're saying and no your honor but i was hearing it what do you want to use the term claims because the court reporter found the comment to be an audible and i use the word claim because i think it demonstrates how quiet this comment was made  there's no real denial correction of the judge's recitation of what the comment was the very reason the court is repeating exactly what the court believes he heard so that it's clear that he did of her that best correct your honor and even though mr edwards with with counsel counsel did not make any comment negating that that's what mr edward said so i do not have anything to demonstrate that the court's sum  and it was not in imminent threat to the administration of justice this court before in hannah the defendant said this court has messed up so much already it's pathetic the this court found that that was not the defendant is indicating it's the judge that is brokered here so your honor i think there's two points to that argument one i think that with context it seems like he's talking about counsel and representation he's received in this county because immediately before this off the record comment about the county being crooked he says to his counsel you went with the pro se i didn't do anything on my profane motion and when the court calls him back out there to the bench the court says  you know the common and that's the sad fact is the judge know that and mr edwards responds your honor i filed a and according to upset he tried to explain i filed a and i think it's clear from context he talking about his petition on the court says i find you in direct criminal contempt of court is there anything you want to say before i send you and again he says yeah i filed a post conviction and he didn't add anything more tender anything to my post conviction and he and then the court addressed him again so i think with context it's clear he's of fortunately in circuit court where in this particular defendant is here his parting shot and as he leaves the quote which suggests it was loud enough you know he's leaving the courtroom walking away you argue he's talking to counsel something about the they may be looking at this in a different light yes your honor and i think even if that's my second point even if the comment directly refers to the trial court even when he says county if he is talking about court i still think this does not rise to the level of a contemptuous that it was not a and in imminent threat to the administration of justice and unfortunately litigants and parties do have this right to have criticism or comments about the court and their treatment in the court their biased and had prejudge the case and said this during proceedings and the united states supreme court said this was not an imminent threat to the administration of justice litigants are allowed to criticize the court and u nfortunately the court has to take it to some extent i think when it becomes destructive during proceedings that's different than the them calling a judge crooked you know any motion for substitution as a matter of ri have an argument that the party thinks that the the judge is biased to her particular reason i mean that's what's spurring the motion the substitution of judge that's different than calling  judge crooked in open court yes your honor but i don't again i don't think he was calling the judge crooked and i think you he was this seemed to be a comment at the after proceeding pending it was one statement it was an isolated statement it wasn't made in a louder boisterous tone because the court reporter found it to be an audible i think when you consider all the facts surrounding the statement the treatment that you have received by his counsel who stood idly by while the court found him in contempt and did nothing council president no argument on mr edwards behalf just as he had done with the post conviction petition mr edwards did not receive good treatment in that county by any attorney that you have and i think when you consider in context all of these that the proceedings had ended for example the court mr edwards did talk earlier in the proceedings to his counsel and to the court in the court told him if you talk or interrupt again then i will hold you in contempt and mr edwards followed the court order and it was only after the court said his petition was dismissed and that will conclude this hearing that he spoke to his attorney and as the court noted it was while they executed the court room i think that these are the winds of public opinion that the supreme court has talked about that unfortunately the trial courts have to face as part of their job i don't think that these comments were in and minute a threat to the administration of justice i think when you consider the comment in context please the court counsel i'd like to clarify a couple of things i've heard counsel talk about six or seven times that the court reporter put down the words inaudible and  that the defendant's remarks were not allowed or boisterous if you're so if you stamp looks at record volume one c two through c three appears to be but it's a documentary and it appears to be in the he's mentioned that six or seven times about this not being allowed in their opening brief on page one thousand and twenty one twenty three and twenty four they talk about it not being allowed  the wilson case was affirmed because it was loud and hannah and little were reversed in part because it was not allowed so all these arguments about this  not being allowed are boisterous i think are undercut by this documentary which appears again it's a documentary on it's own it's see two through c three of volume one the other thing i'd like to make clear is that if this people come down from the jail witnesses are waiting and people are in the wrong courtroom people learned the influence and the surrounding circumstances are that the defendant interrupted the judge repeatedly prior to this remark and was repeatedly told that he had counsel and he should not speak now as to this protected speech argument the defendant had this plenty he was dismissed from the case and defendant hired or somebody hired for him a private practitioner gary morris from peoria and gary morris entered into a what i consider to be a favorable plea agreement whereby they defend th guilty to one felony and got day for day good time and defend his argument all along has been i didn't give david a good time he did not i don't think this was a protected speech a political statement and councils repeatedly said this was me first not loudly and second it was made to his counsel there's nothing in the record that shows this was made to his counsel and not to the judge and the state's confest argument one recall argument yes your honor first this is the first the state has mentioned that documentary was not mentioned in briefing only argument the state raised in its free was that this court should find invited error for us and our way to error and not address mr edwards contempt argument next the state pointed out edwards interrupted the proceedings repeatedly however if you look at the transcript it's clear that mr edwards was trying to talk to the post invention counsel to get him to raise arguments during the proceeding because  so it seemed to be that he was whispering to counsel which was disruptive and the court told him if you interrupt again i will find you in contempt and mr edwards did not interrupt again from that point on he followed the court's instruction on that so i think that's important also i again i just want to stress if you look at this with context this was made after the hearing had ended and while the state argues that there's nothing showing these comments were made to counsel right before this inaudible comment mr edward said you went with the pro se i mean do anything on my program a provision so it seems clear to me he's talking to counsel who went with this pro  se and it's as their ex in the courtroom it seems clear to me that in context this was a conversation of counsel he said you went with my profanity i didn't do anything on my pro se and that's where this crooked county comment followed it was immediately after that would be inaudible comment and i think if you look at hannah and little it's clear if it winds up isolated comment while the disparaging or disrespectful this one isolated comments after the hearing had  looted did not rise to the level of contemptuous conduct litigants are allowed to have opinions about the court and to criticize the court and this one was not a disruptive statement it was made after the thing after the hearing had ended and