All right then, there's a request by the sum to audio before, audio and video record and the precedence. I have a partial objection. I'm not sure who it is that is your or what is name is. I have no objection with regards to the government. Sir, I guess I don't know who you are, who you are and who you are and who you are. I've been blogging for about a year at 300.org and I've filmed trials in the past. First, there is an issue for the rule on this. Rule 1.4. Mr. Murler? Yes, your own woman is checking the text, Mr. Dean. It's also quote of ten advice now, the same instant. So, certainly, he's not a member of the media with regards to this matter. We might be a member of the media or even the non-member media. In other matters, this one is best interest as quote of enterprise, the same instant therefore. It's not that he's properly classified as media in this case, therefore the judge was reporting you matter. Do you have any belief authority for that proposition that one disgates their standing under the First Amendment by virtue of having charges arising from the same instant. No, sir, it's okay, so I think if they come on point or kick them off, it's that you don't wear them. How are you going to do this without a big novel in simple? The rule and the addition of WNUR requires that the court, you could be going to prohibit this, may be a series of facts findings. What are the facts findings that you expect the court to make for review by the Supreme Court? The mystery and its naughty member media for purpose of this matter that he's called offended therefore, not subject to the truth. Sir, I want to make sure that I give you the opportunity to be approved with regard to this. Again, I'm a... I don't know if it will be long, in short, in this. I'll let it say that the fact that I'm operating a camera in the courtroom should have no weight on Mr. Gildry's case. I'm just looking to record it and document it as a member of the press and whatever documentation I do will be going on outside of this courtroom and isn't necessarily in any way significant to the proceedings that will be going on that I'll be recording. So I don't see why it matters whether or not I'm the person who is doing the recording or anyone else here who I think is doing the recording. And Mr. Gildry, yes, I'm a... You know the objectives. No, I don't. In fact, we are not technically co-dependents. We have different charges. Well... The argument is no. The issue for the court would be... Can I have that finding that the individual may have charges arising out of the same incident? Remove from that individual this first amendment protection has a report. The issue that the court has to deal with is that this individual underneath right between public funds, even if he did not record it the gentleman would be allowed to remain in the courtrooms for long as he did not make any disruptive movements or sounds that would interfere with the rights of the courts. Because he could remain, he gains nothing as he could ask for a copy of the audio recording they would record. In consequence of those points, it does not appear that I can make a series of facts finding that would be seen as the sustainable pectures on his discretion under roll 1.4 and the WMUR rule. Therefore, it is perhaps in. Sir, I am going to authorize the recording. I am going to do the only things I am going to be asking you to do is again I need quiet in the courtroom so that it is not in confusion with the making of a record. I am going to ask you to set yourself up in a place that you are not going to move around and make noises. You will be allowed to do that. I do not want to put you where you want to set up but as long as there is not going to be any room around the noise or in any way you interfere with the process, please feel free to set up. I will now commence with regard to the case of state versus yield play. Sir, if you are not sustainable, are the parties ready to proceed with regard to the dismantle? The student is ready to move.