and allow him to represent himself at a felony trial and shakin that as to both counts of the indictment the government failed to do sufficient evidence as to one of the essential elements as to count one failed to prove that mr ziegler as an assistant u s attorney during his encounters with the witnesses who testified as to count two that the government failed to prove that he initial decision was lay so here we have the defense counsel explaining that he has despite his interactions with his client you know in private and off the different than my paraphrase but i'll take your quote and so you know we've had a number of cases that seem to suggest under forty to forty one a there where there's a reasonable cause perhaps the best person the best vantage point is is the defense counsel made not during a hearing right that's a different question but for whether there's a hearing should take place the court can rely heavily on the defense counsel at least in the context where the defense counsel says i have no reason to question their competence i mean that the viscount who's the one who has the most interaction with the lawyer early own says i had no reason to doubt his competence continues to hold that position the morning of trial is standby counsel and the district court makes that finding and  when there i don't think we can settle the defense attorney did not ask for a competency hearing in valley which case closed i think i agree with that but it here we have an affirmative statement by defense counsel and then we have an affirmative statement by the prob judge having observed him i'm askin your point is that you know if the defense counsel wanted to say your honor i don't i don't think i can answer that question because i have a conflicting ethical obligation of candor and loyalty i find that silence is one thing we have an affirmative statement by the lawyer and we have an affirmative evaluation by the district corps and we have an abuse of discretion standard i mean that's the that's what i'm trying to it gives you get sort of some thought on is are there any examples you can point me today where where that's been not would be what why why would repeatedly demonstrated they lacked a rational understanding we also have a case where it was a documented mental illness in the back or he'd been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with post traumatic stress well i don't think you did such a bad job for himself i thought he did a better job than a lot of lawyers the come to us have done now he is an unusual person to be but look at what he did to help his case and that's i mean i think maybe how we gave each we look at all the things that he did together and so that's why and st of all you tell me i'm not interested in what he did that was talking about irrelevant issues i'm asking you if you can give me a couple of examples of how he hurt his case his defense to what he was being tried for well  one thing that i add noticed during jury selection he told the woman she had sure the image and it was the mole on her face which is probably somewhat in scholten at other points he was on record judge paper talked about it that the defendant in this case had in a separate trial in i think was rhode island chosen to represent himself and then on appeal claim that he was incompetent represent himself and he actually won the appeal on that ground so how does that cut one way or the other in this case i mean i suppose one could say maybe just favre should have been on notice that there might have been something amiss here that he needed to look into to be sure they didn't fall into the same trap with respect to a competent incompetent defendant or perhaps mr sleep siegal or is just crazy as a fox and is engaging in a tactic that he hopes might succeed on in this appeal well to answer your last question may please the court counsel the record in this case it's clear that mr ziegler's waiver of his right to counsel with clear voluntary knowing and intelligent  district court engaged mr ziegler in rd discussion about his right to counsel there was an ex parte proceeding before the court when i hear his waiver in and in court and during that ex parte proceeding the defendant's to us that we don't look at what happened to trial would you i would not but i think when you look at the filter you are sunni all those things happened before so the question is at trial did the and at the suppression hearing this defendant called witnesses he objected he had objections that were sustained he presented evidence on his own perhaps he did an opening statement he did a closing statement he cross examined each of the government's witnesses he tried to impeach their credibility through inconsistent ses he clearly knew what the charges were what he was facing and why he may have had other if a strange individual and have some strange ideas but he knew the legal proceedings against him and he handled them in a way an attorney and so i think that if you look at the record of the trial and how it proceeded there would be look at the prior all you know that the question is whether what why is it that we look at the trial as opposed to we look at the time when the judge was making those decisions i think that it would be because the right to counsel is sex and it grants rights and it's a continuing right and so it's become up during the trial but absence what you're what you're sitting on them is it says is that you consider all the information and it midway through the trial you change your mind and decide there's a reasonable cause to now believe that the person is being i think you're right just understanding why the trial activity the matter it wouldn't show the good initial decision was wrong what it would show was they don't day two of the trial the court should what i was going to ask you is do we have any case we know that our review of the district court's decision to or not to hold a competency hearing or to clear him incompetent and we review them for very favorable to the district court yeah this court sort of looks at the district court's advantage of being there to observe this defendant and so it would have to be may if you're applying the own standard so let's assume the district court here you said something other than the correct standard that would be that when he advised against it but that did not mean he wasn't competent to make it and this court observed him throughout the proceedings and didn't find anything to change that opinion and i think that this court would have to look for something gets in the record that that would change that view and i don't think there is anything as i stated before the defendant acted and represented himself actively at the trial even calling his own can come to them he did it in a way because he was there testified trying to assert authority to prevent them from filing charges against him it didn't work and it doesn't have to work to be about liason but what he did was try to something that a value that is not be charged with that is correct and that is why we have the training that is why we're not allowed to do it and that's exactly what mr ziegler did it he was trying to get these officers asserting authority over them this case that the the there is a now edition somewhere about policy regarding d o j prosecutions and the notion that at least in the context of these prosecutions that there should be no prosecutions when someone impersonates an officer as who did in this case for his own personal benefit as opposed to the government's benefit and i'm wondering you know if that's the case why the government shows the prosecutor here why you fact having the charges filed it was to affect his ball and it was simply telling them i'm going to win this case of a future tense and you're just wasting my gosh here lee irrational but he's he said i am going to do it of the private citizen while i agree with mr colin that policy is not create enforced right i put that in the brief contacts not as a claim that it is legal standard ownership of the car the driver's like he also said he didn't get a driver's license because the sovereign citizen would indicate he is thinking as a private citizen that the issue wasn't whether he's allowed to drive with the tow truck impress or that he is a legal scholar and a legal expert and he knows how to get his car back but he didn't get it all that he left without the car there is didn't try and take it he didn't say that because i am a united states necessarily clear from the record of testimony but it is how he was interacting with the deputies at the scene two they can be conflating whether or not he's saying i don't need a driver's license you don't have jurisdiction