and the courts pleasure i will go through the issues as they were presented in my brief and like to create a creature of five minutes for rebuttal if i'm able to do so however i believe there is kind of one common thread that exists through this case and that is how the trial court dealt mr alexander the situations presented by someone who is representing himself at trial the first issue that was presented to me as i became involved with the case after i was appointed and every view of the record that there did not appear to me to be a ruling by the district court on mr alexander's motion to suppress review his objection when i entered when that evidence was introduced at the trial i couldn't see any indication that your honor i don't believe that he did i know that that interviews and the question for appellate review is whether or not the the pretrial motions and hearings preserves the issue so that it can be challenged on appeal here we have a slightly different problem the argument is that that there was no rule i mean and therefore you know because counsel and i'm i'm assuming the same rules apply to mr alexander notwithstanding he was pro se doesn't he have an obligation to particularly the reasons for the ruling so that if it if the substantive merits of the ruling are challenged on appeal we know as appellate judges will have a perfected record that we can review so that we can understand what the i went down to the jail to talk to my client he said there was something that happened just before the jury selection and i am concerned that that might be might well be a ruling i listened to the cd on it of the record that was not transcribed going to include in the excerpts of reference that's correct now as far as i can tell that proceeding was denominated jury selection and i don't know i don't i'm and court reporters at least rough or is a recording but the jury selection is that where it is yes i mean when i wrote the letter to the court i attached the part of the this matter there might be something in the way of handwriting samplers someone who wouldn't know the signature but the problem as i understood it from your briefing was that judge adams might have that this war might may well of been a sham no no we understand that but i guess the question i'm trying to determine it sounded to me if you're cracked that we should have heard testimony to address alexander's concerns that we would need the testimony of judge adams to to verify that he did in fact issue the warrant and that he perhaps may have erred in entering the da in one or more places in that that's that's essentially yeah or that he you know i've never seen this before right so handwriting exemplar maybe you could tell us that that is in fact judge out of signature but it wouldn't resolve the mystery surrounding here in the gate that's true there might be some court calendar records that could help clear things up and i with think that they think that we don't need to reach that issue if we and he didn't ask for photographs he didn't ask he didn't make a description in the record to be what i have to say i judge him he has a lot more experience hearing people for than i do but this is the first one in five years that i've had where the defendant actually asked to appear in shackles but this is a first for me i don't know if you're out or i if you if there are there's a number of ways to read the record ok if he'd you could see him be with the skakel was going to be pretty clear to the jury this guy's a customer but i think he'd he i don't again the record is not absolutely clear but i'm quite sure that he was not in shackles during trial there was a bench  and give the man some clothes i mean what the the remedy here is so simple or go to the federal public service office where they have  and that's where the judge says well you look good you know you you look good there's not going to be any secrets  on but i just i just want to go back to this question because you know the church should be neutral in this you know if it's not right it's just not right to say you love good harmless error to to to show off and in jail close it's something every defendant every defense attorney in their right mind boys like to play please the court i can tell you a little bit about mr alexander i'd like to take just a couple of minutes to give you my impression as to what this case was about and what mr alexander strategy in this case was the sensually this was a fairly simple case it started out with mr bradley and mr alexander getting together so i didn't deciding they want to make some money mr alexander was a software guy he was the computer guy mr bradley had a bank account at the time so they've cited this sort of this with quite scheme and mr alexander convinced mr bradley well if things go bad you can declare bankruptcy and this little scheme group and it eventually involved a bunch of other people primarily women who were addicted to crack cocaine as well as mr bradley and the clothes and the shackles are basically one issue i don't think you can separate them and mr alexander clearly said to the court i want to track was left on what were they where they left on you know i was thinking about that and i don't remember i remember the clothes it was a blue jumpsuit i don't remember any stenciling or any lettering on them and i don't remember if using shackles or not to be perfectly candid but i do know th i knew and i know it was part of mr alexander strategy to specifically let the jury know that he was in jail and i want to read you a few of his comments in his final argument to the jury because this is his version of what this case is all that he says essentially that this whole case was the government conspiracy to frame him with regard to these charges and he sa in come out right what's going in the door usually comes to light and he talks about of stuff a little bit and he talks about the fact that he was a whistle blower that he blew the whistle on a very powerful person in our state went to the f b i the f b i the government turned on him and he had and he ended up representing himself why did he do that because he didn't trust anybody so he says i'm here representing myself because i'm the only one who can tell you the truth there's no lawyer i wouldn't trust anyone to come forth and handle this for me i had to do it myself because these people are all liars they manipulate everything  the clothing issue that was all before but about opposing counsel's argument that he was trying to make the best of the best situation and he was forced to appear in jail clothing are you there when the  over backwards for him there was discussion about the clothing and then there was discussion about the trackers and there was extensive discussion about shaq can we stick with the clothing issue the clothing issue was there was not a lot of time spent on the clothing issue i mean i can't get around that i mean it was my extensive discussion between mr alexander and the court about the bombing do you think the district court erred in saying i'm not going to take care of your clothing civilian clothing requ because he made that decision in context with with everything else you can't just look at that little issue all by itself because you've got the shackles that go along with it and and his whole interaction with  out running around look at me here i am in jail i'm being held as a danger to the community says he i'm a flight risk but wait a minute if you go into the socket to the excerpt of record jail so you see this jail business when he says to the jury he uses that as a ploy it's not sympathy he's not he's not he's really trying to have the jury sympathize with him if it's part of the conspiracy  who is now essentially trying to take advantage of invited i wouldn't give mr alexander that much credit i think in time he decided hey i want to keep the shackles he sir am i correct that i don't have the exact wording for me but in the supplemental excerpt of record one twenty one twenty two of the fifth district court after saying look i'm not going to order you a suit but we do know that he didn't object to the skakel at least that part much is clear mark or even worse he conducted this trial himself he was dressed the way he wanted to be dressed and he had his own agenda and i think he has that right he made his decision about that and the judge when you read the the record the whole record the judge bent over backwards for this guy he spent a lot of time talking to him trying to splay into  michael and then finally twenty eight coal and eleven dash seventeen and as i say the the magistrate judge had an extensive hearing on this search warrant issue hearing from the manager of the carrot stick shack with regard to the automobile repair and the has ruled i've accepted his decision but you're entitled to that issue on appeal you can if you raise that issue on appeal i'm going to stand by the magistrate judge with regard to that issue that is the question is that what you're referring to for i i don't recall the i don't know with mr alexander made an issue out of several search warrants for the agent that a warrant for mr alexander's luggage and i don't know the mr alexander challenge that he challenge the state's search warrant to that guy actually government into the car that was extensively litigated but i don't i don't think you challenge the search warrant  just robert this is good robert taken he just says i don't need to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve contests the issues of fact as you haven't presented any contested facts for me to resolve that's correct is there is a discussion in the ma sheet he file a lot of stuff and i think the court did the best with it that it couldn't judge roberts apparently saw an old married he wasn't specific in what he wanted to suppress or why and the judge said you have to be here and i still in trouble go by the fact that even if there was a failure on the part of the district court to rule you still haven't and i i don't think he was a type of person who was doing thoughtless motions or very short i mean he had he had you know focused focused ideas judge to reopen to let me file something on the search warrant issues because i think there are some issues about the empowerment of the vehicle what authority the state the state officers had to him challenge to so that i can even drafts your the merits of your attack on the warrant and you don't raise those issues on appeal it seems to me it would be a curious result for us