over please mr must notice that he could waive his right to counsel and if so where do supreme court rule for a one to delineate for things swiftly trial judges supposed to do to police the defendant are no is not supposed to receive any notice that he can waive his right to counsel so this is he supposed to receive well you're saying that based on your analysis of what occurred he received the notice he was entitle through kind of like is due process right now informed or through what might occur if he acts in a certain way so you're asking us to say that forfeitures applies here because this is the most severe case of misconduct by the fact that he grabbed papers from this tourney and repeatedly the attack in defense counsel be that would dispense with her warning and the state doesn't seem are you that this was a forfeit your situation and what james and goldberg have held is that if there is no immediate have to write a book it is and then they go to this colloquy but again where is this sense of misconduct he's saying i don't want the public defender can't afford a lawyer and the counsel record he didn't disagree with and refused to cooperate on every day when he appeared in november there was the issue with the transcripts mr leslie believes he could get the was representing mr leslie there was absolutely no disagreements he appeared in january ninth two thousand and fourteen and at that point district have when he was representing him there was no misconduct at that  file i'm going to get something down on paper i'll be here the next court date and then mr marsland actually came in at the next forty eight so he didn't disagree and refused to cooperate at every hearing the only time that there was really any disagreement was about the transference  defendant has to understand what is going on even in hitman which the state mentioned as most point in that case the defendant was whole you don't have the right to try to choose your attorney he went through side when he was unable to hire an attorney and he came in june he wanted his help he asked and he was willing to cooperate and that would have been the perfect chance for the trapper to say ok mr leslie i see it it will be that you're wanting to work with the public happened at the february twenty fourth period is why it wasn't that enough to compose the judge to do with because there was no warning that his there was a right to counsel all she said was i can't give you a different public defender she never at that point she should have said ok mr leslie i understand you want to hire an attorney heat and that behavior was not to agree just to forfeit the right to counsel right there is it inappropriate sure but that's exactly this this gray area that the state is talking about the courts have recognized where you need a warning there was no warning prior to that in order to comply with goldberg pains there would have needed to be something prior to february when that misconduct occurred and there wasn't he had no and he believed he still had the right to the public defender supported saddam beforehand you either cooperate with the public defender now or you've lost the right to appoint counsel and fine but there was no public defenders and moyers are going to fight attorneys appointed to represent indigent defense and promote cases will rarely find their citizens mistaken for rotary club members or other leading citizens of the community instead their clients are frequently angry ignorant suspicious and counsel such as the reality of the criminal justice system so the fact that he had one very minor disagreement in november with mr caviling in which the trial pretty easily resolved certainly does not standard going to be different here because of the  the the standard for waiver of counsels the same whether it's a constitutional or statutory right to counsel so no it's not a different standard it still must be knowing and intelligent