In order to guide the district court in its decision, we now discuss the conduct necessary for a defendant to forfeit the right to counsel. Forfeiture results in the loss of the right to counsel regardless of the defendant’s knowledge of either the consequences of his actions or the dangers of self-representation. Id. at 1100. Forfei ture of the right to counsel “does not require the court to conduct a waiver colloquy with the defendant” and is “usually reserved for severe misconduct, when other efforts to remedy the situation have failed.” Jones, 772 N.W.2d at 505. The district court concluded that ses in which a defendant has threatened the life of his counsel or engaged in a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 879 A.2d 246, 258 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) (<HOLDING>); see United States v. Thompson, 335 F.3d 782,
holding that appellant forfeited his right to counsel through his pattern of serious misconduct abuse threats and utter failure to collaborate in his own defense holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his postadjudication sentence because he did not object at trial or present his motion for new trial holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial