appellant i actually i'm going to be brief unless the court has questions i think that the written briefing in the case probably covers pretty much most well i think everything but there's just a couple things i want to highlight one of them as i think i would understand a little bit more if mr kallstrom and the underlying civil defendant's attorneys have come in and argued that the september october hearing on contempt was a direct contempt and therefore there was no reason to present any evidence but it's the court that's appearing and it was the court that set up the procedures and the court tol to prepare an order to show cause that's not done in a direct contempt there was additional there was a response filed by hour by my client there was a response filed by then there was a response filed by us and then there was the hearing and the direction found none of that happens once the supreme the superior court has set up the proceedings that can then in the middle just say you know we've changed the rules you've been operating under the idea that this is an indirect contempt and there has to be  e but there doesn't i'm going to find that in my presence you fail to pay the fine to the court obvious that wasn't in his presence that the the cost will weren't paid and that's the end of the ballgame and so  i find it peculiar that this if your court is coming in here and basically saying this was a direct contempt when the court itself set it up as a direct and indirect contempt and other than that  i think i just want to point out again that the citations to the record with regard to the sixth amendment issue at the april eighteenth it and then continued on hearing april twenty first that clearly and turning she did proceed at the beginning on the issue of service or process but after that she asked over and over again she even said she didn't understand the proceedings and it seems to me that the argument from the other arrested which will be the next time i get arrested that i'd like to think that i don't have to rely on myself because i can representing mr the eyes all the way through this i've been pretty unsuccessful i think i'd rather have somebody who might actually be better at this than i am and that to represent me and i would hate to be told if i went into court and said gee i have a problem with who i was served and then told no you can't have an attorney for the criminal part of it i think that's not the way things work other than that mccormick for superior court of california county of los angeles on the issue of the september october contempt hearings what happened is that ms diaz appeared through her attorney mr reuben and at that point and did not engage in the trial process refused to put on evidence and then advised the court that none of the fees or costs for pfizer had been paid that then constituted a direct contempt was in the view and presence of the court of proving that pay your honor my understanding is that it can be shifted to the defendant under california law and the precise i believe the last face for that proposition the issue there becomes if in fact the contempt or the defendant shifts the burden to the court and says i can't pay but you have to prove it and says i have a constitutional right to financial privacy then the courts left without a method by which you can force its judgments at that point the court can prove the financial ability and anyone can come in and say i can't pay but you have to prove a court the court then would have no power to enforce the judgments reporters and they would become  true and i know in family law context my belief it is your honor and that cited for the reasons i put forth before that if you have a situation where a defendant says i can't pay but i don't have to prove it well how do you then account for the california cases that basically say that ability to comply is a traditional element of the contempt itself and but then they interpret mostest sort of and exception or a narrow situation where that wouldn't be the case if you are right i think moss is the correct holding as applied to contempt and for the reason stated the financial issue of whether or not the defendant can pay if it shifted back to the court and in this case should take precedence of me and i think i do not believe so i believe looking at the record in total instead of snapshots in time i set forth in my second request for judicial notice which i believe is the court of appeal decision labeled the intelligent waiver of the right to counsel it's not an issue of whether the lawyer has a right to due process it's whether the lawyer made an intelligent knowing whatever and given her status as a lawyer we believe she did second with regard to with regard to moss morris appears to be introverting a statute that was passed or amended and response to the hicks case which we a criminal so they didn't know whether there was an improper burden shifting california then went back and amended twelve on one point five and talk ability to pay out as an element so all of morse's language that's cited i brief that analyzes whether this is proper doesn't go any further than analyzing the new twelve o nine point five a c c p and what it says is yes we can remove it as an element made and we can't shift the burden if it is an element but we can remove it as an element and twelve o nine point five removed it as an element but what we have in this case is the standard garden variety or the more complicated maybe content and it's not under twelve o one point five being not under twelve on nine point five the element of ability to comply is still the mosque the only case i know of that interprets mosque as to whether moss applies in anything more than the family law cases the i v case i v e y which we cited there may be more than that since then but i don't know and i think he says yeah this is limited to family law cases and they go into this description about the fact that makes sense or is a prior holding as a prior finding and basically it's there's no more element the reason that this is important in terms of federal constitutional law is under winship and under you know the the footnote that cited in but the court now seems to be arguing well she didn't prove to the court she didn't have the ability to pay because she refused to answer questions to somebody else which is kind of trying to have it both ways as to who can count you know is sort of directed at and you know i just i guess i just need to point out that contempt is a pretty serious business and under attack so it's really a criminal case and there are times in the criminal case where you can't get the evidence you may believe the evidence is there but the only way to get the evidence would be to violate have the defendant violate the fifth amendment and you can't force him to do that and whereas i'm not arguing for the let you there is a practical matter but how would it work i mean under well at that at that point the person i'm not sure why the person would take the fifth amendment because at this point there's the question of the other contempt i don't know i mean it's possible that the way this is set up and less california would decide that in any case in which ability to comply involves a money payment much i call the nine point five that that then isn't an element anymore california could do that i suppose they get it in twelve on nine point five follow that they didn't file california lawfully to review their points if it's plainly wrong and violation of federal law which it is because the state the the law in california is that ability to comply is an element and they're reading that out you're