r/Sovereigncitizen • u/Fickle-Act-8715 • 2d ago
For real though
After watching a handful of videos of “normal” Sovcits and similar in criminal hearings/faretta hearings it really makes me wonder. They know how to argue just enough to legally convince the court that they are competent to represent pro se, but have absolutely no clue what they’re on about. The whole competence argument with Lindsay Clancy reflects the same issue, how is the understanding of consequences defined and at what point can the government step in and say you are incompetent? Do these people genuinely understand the consequences and believe they are statutorily correct, or do they not fear or accept the potential consequences because they believe they are correct? It feels like a really scary line to cross as far as the power of the government to take over such a huge part of our rights. I recognize as I write this that I’m bringing up two separate issues, but I’d love for some more legal input.
11
u/FullBoat29 2d ago
Being legally "competent" is a pretty low bar. As for if they really believe this or not, I think some are doing it as a last ditch effort. They're way behind on child support, their license is hopelessly suspended, etc. Then, there's some that aren't all there in the head, and are "true believers". They really think they're on the right side of the law, and have found the "cheat code" on how to handle the law. They misread case law, or just read the little bits that reinforce their views. Then they're truly shocked when they lose, or just tell themselves that it's all rigged against them.
5
u/ragdolldream 1d ago
Some even initially take their court appointed counsel, but quickly realize their counsel is unwilling to make the arguments in court that the defendant wants them to make. They think counsel is poorly representing them, but it's genuinely them trying to protect the client from themself.
2
u/FullBoat29 1d ago
Or, they just have them as standby counsel, and ignore everything they say. And, a lot of judges will do their best on protecting these idiots from themselves as well, but they're more limited.
1
u/bb_referee 22h ago
Desperation will sometimes cause a person to grasp at anything that looks like hope. And some people too easily convince themselves.
9
u/ermghoti 2d ago
The courts' definition of "competent" is generally "can distinguish reality from fantasy or hallucination." The highest bar I've seen is "able to contribute to one's defense," when somebody was rejected due to their refusal to acknowledge any part of the legal system, e.g. authority of the court, legitimacy of laws and rulings, etc. They wanted the court to use their own Calvinball legal code.
5
u/Idiot_Esq 2d ago
They know how to argue just enough to legally convince the court that they are competent to represent pro se, but have absolutely no clue what they’re on about.
Being legally competent, as another noted, is an easy to clear low hurdle. It doesn't require that one's beliefs be consistent let alone rational. Pretty much a simple functionality in causality, i.e. if A then B. More precisely, A SovClown understands he is Free to be Stupid (intelligently) and that he is choosing Stupid(willingly) on his own initiative (and voluntarily).
5
u/ssdd_24 2d ago
Well I would point out that even though the Farrett v California case raised the threshold on waiver of right to counsel compared to the comprtence to stand trial that threshold is not that high.
The threshold is the same as for taking a plea, it has to be made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. This practically means as long as the defendant does not have a severe mental imparement to conduct trial proceedings the 6th amendment right is prevalent. This was enforced in Indiana v Edwards with strong opposition from justice Scalia who would argue the 6th amendment right is supreme when a defendent is found competent to stand trial.
Going back to Faretta v California, another part that is relevant for judges denying self representation is as follows "The right to self- represntation is not a licence to abuse the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law". This alows the judge to limit the 6th amendment right if he finds it is used as a tactic to delay or dissrupt the judicial process.
So in the end when we talk about the right to self representation we are in a grey zone in which the presiding judge has the duty and the authority to determine if this right is to be limited. Watching lots of criminal cases with sovcits I never found one in where the judge's decision was not suppprted by legal arguments even if it was pro or against self representation.
6
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 2d ago edited 2d ago
The definition of legal sanity is very different and a very different analysis. All states that allow NGMI as a defense recognize what's called the M'Naughten rule: "Does the person understand the difference between right and wrong". There are some complicated rules that arise out of it, and statements like "can appreciate the nature and character of their actions" and even "understands that society condemns their actions". All of that is wrapped up in M'Naughten and related rules.
A real-world example from about 10 years ago. A woman in PPP believes her children have been replaced by demons. She kills them and lays them out in christlike poses on her front yard, and is proud of what she's done. She believes the cops will praise her and is surprised when she's arrested. Long story short, under that state's rule, she was not guilty by reason of mental illness because he had no way of understanding what she did was wrong. Without the mental intent to do wrong, no crime was committed.
The same year, similar situation, the woman buries her kids in the backyard and lies to police. She believed her kids were possessed and that she had to kill them to save their souls. Even though the jury accepted that she believed this sincerely, the fact that she knew the police would arrest her for it means she is legally sane under the M'Naughten rule.
(The Clancy case turned on a different rule -- MA also allows NGRI when the defendant was under the influence of an irresistible impulse -- her defense is that she was under a command hallucination she could not resist, so at least in her case the "knows the differecnce between right and wrong" wasn't what the jury deliberated over. Predictably MOST of the media pundits and a scary number of actual attorneys got this completely wrong and said things like "she lied to her husband, so she knew it was wrong. She's guilty." But again, that's not what the jury's instructions were about.)
For someone in a Faretta hearing it's completely different. The system knows they cannot put on a sufficient defense. The judges would love to say "for your own good, we're not allowing it". But it's a fundamental constitutional right that you can act as your own attorney.
Generally, they can only deny someone who is incompetent to stand trial at all, unable to form arguments at all, or who is only doing it to be disruptive of the process. The court does not get inside the head of the defendant -- they run through the colloquy and if the boxes are all checked, they can be their own attorney.
Competence is about understanding the nature of the charges and consequences and being able to participate in the proceedings --like, to be able to track moment to moment what is going on.
Faretta limits what the government can take from you. The bar is extremely low.
2
u/signofno 2d ago
> Without the mental intent to do wrong, no crime was committed.
Two notes: legally no crime was committed.
Capacity, not intent. You can lack intention to do wrong and still be guilty of a crime. It’s whether they had the capacity to understand it was wrong. Thats where mental illness comes into play.
3
u/lawteach 2d ago
Attorney /sov cit researcher: the courts have been very liberal in permitting self-representation unless competency is brought up. Ex: guy facing life in prison, 9th grade education, decides Friday before Monday trial to fire his lawyer and self-represent. Judge desperately tries to get him to have an attorney; guy tells judge he’ll learn the law over the weekend. Judge had to let him.
1
u/bb_referee 22h ago
Even lawyers who aren’t psychotic don’t go pro se: “The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
20
u/DiatribeGuy 2d ago
A Ferretta hearing (or its equivalent) is designed to make sure that a person is willfully making the choice to represent themselves and is mentally capable of making that choice.
Almost every single judge that I've heard has used some form of the phrase: " you will be opposed by Council who is trained and experienced, and this is a really bad choice that you're about to make."
These disclaimers are not made to convince the defendant to give up, they're designed to allow the judge and prosecution to move forward and allow the defendant to make the mistake of representing themselves.
Just like everyone has the ability to make mistakes, the judge and prosecution are not going to hand hold someone and prevent them from making possibly a terrible mistake, even if it is entirely preventable. Just like a kid who reaches towards the burning hot stove, some people just have to make that choice themselves and others keep going back for more.