no particular exceptions in the case of the government has stated likewise didn't necessarily foresee that they come into conflict with the cases that i cited since that we have a situation where we have a constitutional right to a closing i take it your argument would be where a person is attractive only remove his there's own counsel and no other lawyers a point in this point where examination of witnesses is tonight or trunk decided by the government involved a situation where a criminal defendant was bound gagged ejected or whatever but where his attorney obviously was able to remain in the courtroom and continue to do whatever that attorney did and a defendant where it's clear that counsel is necessary and i submit that in this case counsel was necessary and was clearly necessary from the get go there are some statements at the very beginning of the transcript where mr mack talks to the judge and says from the get go your honor you when i have been have been fighting so i think it was clear to the judge one through how many lawyers for the thruster well i believe if you himself i'm probably the fifth where i think there were three prior to trial him and then me i don't think he went through three lawyers he went through three previous lawyers so there was obviously if nothing you got the juror removed and then he told or attempted to tell the jury something about the circumstances of the jurors removal and there were no done deals with him lord knows what he was going to do next you your place whether you like it or not that's fine and the judge certainly that's one of the alternatives that i would submit that the judge could have done is to just say fine you're you're being removed but we're bringing in an attorney to handle the rest of the case that's one alternative and another alternative is the judge could simply ok mr mack we're going to for instance bind you you know shackle you so you can't do any more hand written notes to the jury and you can have you can have ten minutes you can say whatever you're going to anybody who's a parent as i am has probably been in a similar situation where your buttons have been pushed and pushed and pushed and finally say something or do something that in retrospect you think well that's not really me and you hope that the else it wasn't necessarily pushing the buttons and all reacting but i think most judges when night when they suspect jury tampering gets pretty upset for good reasons and want to take steps to protect the jurors it was a no win situation if you replace the lawyer at that point and then you have another appellate issue which was probably the goal from the beginning of one of the goals i would agree of it on i would agree there probably should have been a mistrial one of the things that i was starting to say that the judge could have done is even knowing that mr mack were suspecting that mr mac might have something else improper to say simply saying i'm going to restrict your closing argument i'm only going to give you a limited time you can say something you know i'm probably going to instruct the jury that most of what you said should be disregarded once you say it but here you can sit down and shackled or whatever you can say that there were things the judge could have done that was short of simply calling into the trial and saying ok we're going to just stop this trial right now and send it out to the jury in what was essentially in the disruptive so disrespectful and as with pointed out earlier it becomes to the point were at least one of the jurors feels threatened by it at that point all bets are off and that depend on that that one loses certain shackled him to the chair and said you've got five minutes to argue say what you want and i think the transcript makes absolutely clear that that would have not dissuaded mr mack in any way shape or form there was nothing that had been timed along what he was war sits there until the guy behaved so badly that you have to take him away from his own that you have to stop this on representation at which point you still have a record problem well might have an appeal but  that mr mack had a problem getting on with his attorneys there's no doubt about that but that doesn't mean that that's an automatic equations that he's going to be disruptive and just tactful and completely out of line during the trial and then there obviously the main distinction i'm going to make with the illinois versus allen case is that that is one of the cases that get involved an attorney remaining in the courtroom and that and that is the crucial distinction that we have here that as long be necessary i'm not here to to blame the judge that the point is not whether the judge did something wrong in terms of blame the point is was there a proper constitutional trial here i take it if we do send it back you're going to