“Never before did I realize that mental illness could have the aspect of power, power. Think of it: perhaps the more insane a man is, the more powerful he could become. Kozinski, as an example.

Fair makes the old brain reel, doesn't it?”

Under the law, mental examination is 30 days max, and a mental "treatment" is 4 months or 16 weeks.

They tried to claim they sent me off for a examination, after the fact, but I was gone for 3 months, a full 2 months longer than an examination allows under the law. Think they cared? Naaaaaaa. That was just par for the course. Not a one of them was following the law, but I. So much for speedy trial. So much for due process. So much for any Constitutional Rights.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

As a punishment, the torture was a success. As a deterrent, it was certainly a failure.

A "defense" counsel moved to have "his" client, who objected to [t]his "defense" counsel being foisted on him in the case by the judge, sent off for "mental treatment" under 18 USC 4241(d) without any "mental examination."

And the prosecutor and judge overseeing the case both agreed to it, without question and without any lawful authority.

What I’ve described is not sloppy lawyering. It was a wholesale collapse of the procedural safeguards that make the criminal justice system constitutional. And a true story.

Now lets rip their arguments apart like a real defense lawyer. Come on, don't be a quitter. Do it harshly. No mercy. And find every law they broke.

Preface: "Incompetence," in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian.

1. They Ignored the Plain Text of 18 U.S.C. § 4241

Section 4241 does not permit a court to guess incompetence. It requires a “reasonable cause to believe” the defendant may be incompetent. That finding must be grounded in evidence, not convenience, not irritation, and certainly not defense counsel’s unilateral say-so.

Even more glaring:

• § 4241(b) expressly authorizes a psychiatric or psychological examination before a competency determination.

• § 4241(c) mandates a hearing conducted pursuant to § 4247(d), which guarantees:

  • the right to counsel

  • the right to testify

  • the right to present evidence

  • the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses

Skipping the examination and proceeding directly to commitment under § 4241(d) is not a shortcut—it is a violation of the statute’s core structure.

2. Due Process Was Trampled

The Supreme Court has been unambiguous: Competency determinations implicate fundamental due process rights.

Cases like Pate v. Robinson and Drope v. Missouri establish that:

• A court must conduct a meaningful inquiry into competency when there is doubt.

• That inquiry must be based on evidence, not speculation or strategic maneuvering.

Here, there was:

• No examination

• No evidentiary basis

• No meaningful hearing

That is not a “defective process.” That is no process at all.

3. Defense Counsel’s Conduct Is Deeply Problematic

Defense counsel does not have unilateral authority to:

• Declare a client incompetent

• Override the client’s objection to representation

• Engineer involuntary commitment without procedural safeguards

When the client objected to counsel being “foisted” upon him, that raises a separate constitutional issue under the Sixth Amendment:

• The right to counsel includes, in some circumstances, the right to reject counsel and proceed pro se (Faretta v. California).

Instead of addressing that issue properly, counsel appears to have:

• Treated disagreement as pathology

• Removed the client from the proceedings altogether

That is not advocacy. That is abdication.

4. The Prosecutor Failed Their Duty

A federal prosecutor is not a potted plant. Their duty is not to “go along to get along.” It is to ensure that justice is done.

Agreeing to a § 4241(d) commitment:

• Without an examination

• Without a proper hearing

• Without a factual record

is a failure to uphold that duty. It suggests either:

• A disregard for statutory requirements, or

• A willingness to sidestep them for expediency

Neither is acceptable.

5. The Court Abdicated Its Gatekeeping Role

This is the most serious failure.

A federal judge is the last line of defense against exactly this kind of procedural abuse. The court must:

• Independently assess “reasonable cause”

• Ensure statutory compliance

• Protect the defendant’s constitutional rights

Rubber-stamping a commitment under § 4241(d) without:

• Findings on the record

• Supporting evidence

• Compliance with § 4247(d)

is not an error in judgment. It is a failure to exercise judgment at all.

6. Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty

Commitment under § 4241(d) is not administrative housekeeping. It is a significant deprivation of liberty—often involving confinement in a federal medical facility.

Doing so without:

• statutory compliance

• evidentiary support

• due process

raises serious concerns under the Fifth Amendment.

At that point, the issue is no longer just statutory error—it begins to look like unlawful detention.

7. Structural Error Territory

When a defendant is:

• deprived of a meaningful competency process, and

• stripped of autonomy in the proceedings

this is structural error, not harmless error.

These are the kinds of defects that appellate courts do not excuse—they reverse. Except in this case. Hmmm.

Bottom Line

What you've witnessed is a perfect storm of failures:

• Defense counsel: overreach and disregard for client autonomy

• Prosecutor: abdication of duty

• Judge: Intentional failure to follow and enforce the laws

At the center of it is a statute 18 U.S.C. § 4241 that was designed precisely to prevent this kind of shortcut-driven deprivation of liberty.

This isn’t a close call. The proceeding is legally indefensible.

As was the first appeal.

Please contact me if you can help.

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved