Self-Represented Ligitant Says He Was Mentally Incompetent to Represent Himself, Seeks to Void Results of Past Case

From Judge Jennifer Dorsey (D. Nev.) last week in Naessens v. Breslin:

Pro se plaintiff … contends … that he has an undisclosed mental-health condition that made him incompetent to represent himself during this lawsuit….

Naessens … argues that he was "diagnosed with a serious mental-health condition and lacked the capacity to proceed pro se without a judicial determination of competence or court-appointed representation." He asserts that the court should have sua sponte inquired into his competency and appointed a guardian ad litem to represent his interests. He contends that the failure to do so violated his constitutional rights.

Naessens cites no authority for the notion that this court should have, unprompted, questioned his competency to litigate a case that he brought before this court. The court's obligation to conduct a competency hearing under FRCP 17(c) arises only when a "substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party proceeding pro se …." No such question arose in this case; Naessens actively participated in motion practice, coherently articulated his arguments and allegations, and never informed the court of any condition that affected his competency.

The only issue he raised concerning his health was in a motion to extend deadlines, stating that he was suffering from seizures that made it "difficult to communicate in a timely manner with the court." That statement did not raise a substantial question concerning Naessens's competency, so the court was under no obligation to determine competency under FRCP 17, and I conclude that his arguments do not justify relief [from the prior judgment].

Naessens separately but relatedly argues that because he was incompetent to participate in the prosecution of this case, "all court actions taken while [he] proceeded pro se are constitutionally invalid and must be vacated." He cites United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (2006) and Dusky v. United States (1960) to support his argument. The United States Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzalez-Lopez addresses criminal defendants' right to constitutionally effective counsel. And the High Court's opinion in Dusky concerns the requirement that a criminal defendant be competent to stand trial. Neither case provides any applicable principles for this civil context, so they are not persuasive here….

Comments

[ReaderY]

This case should not have been decided on the merits. If plaintiff’s argument is correct - if, as he claims, he is so mentally incompetent to represent himself that a ruling in which he represents himself is invalid and must be voided - then the same would be true of any order the court might issue in the current case, in which he is proceeding pre se.

This means his complaint itself alleges that his claims are not redressable. He is specifically argung, pro se, that courts (including this court) cannot issue binding orders redressing his grievances (including the current ones) when he proceeds pro se (as he currently is).

This means he has no Article III standing. He has just pled himself out of court.

When the complaint itself alleges an absence of standing, an Article III court’s only option is to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. That’s what the judge should have done here.

Absent Article III jurisdiction, the judge should never have issued a merits opinion. The judge should sua sponte retract the merits opinion and judgment as void in their entirety, and dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction instead.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

And then award full restitution to everyone who had to respond to his non-claim.

[Supremacy Claus]

"Naessens cites no authority for the notion that this court should have, unprompted, questioned his competency to litigate a case that he brought before this court."

Hey, lawyer dumbass. Arguing by Authority is a logical fallacy, covered in high school. As to experts, they stink. They are all self-serving, oblivious, rent seeking, corrupt, often Ivy indoctrinated a-holes. This is methodology from the 13th Century. Authority was enforced by torture and execution in those days, not by facts. It should result in a mistrial and the removal of the judge for quackery and fraud. This judge is a disgrace of atavistic bullshit.

The subject is reviewed here:

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-authority/

[Supremacy Claus]

All legal citations, even if real and on point, commit the fallacy of arguing by authority. They should be banned in statutes covering all Procedures. People knew less in the past, even the recent past. Today, the total knowledge doubling rate is every 12 hours. Once AI prevails, it could become every minute, then every second. Those authorities knew shit. Citing them is outrageous fraud. Arrests are problably justified, like practicing any profession from 200 years ago. Surgery without anesthesia would justifiy an arrest, sawing a leg in under 30 seconds due to intense pain.

Because of several correct conservative rulings, the Supreme Court is very unpopular. Now is a good time to start impeaching Justices for their decisions. Fast track the impeachments to make the punishment more effective and educational.

[loki13]

Somehow, you managed to show that you both have no understanding of informal logical fallacies (argumentum ad verecundiam) or how common law works, at all!

You take two concepts you don't understand, and somehow bundle them together to show an even greater ignorance in a substance-like diatribe? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad. I'm impressed!

[Supremacy Claus]

Loki. Those are personal remarks. No fact. No argument of logic. Fallacy of Irrelevance.

[loki13]

Fun fact- as someone who actually studied rhetoric and philosophy a great deal, I have found that anyone on the internet who tries to invoke informal logical fallacies doesn't know what they are talking about. Weird, huh?

But sure, I'll give you a brief primer- when people talk about fallacies, they are talking about formal logical fallacies and informal logical fallacies. Well, to be honest, a lot of the time they are discussing biases (such as cognitive biases) that have been labelled fallacies, but that's neither here nor there.

Let's start with logical fallacies. These are flaws in deductive arguments. Notably, while the argument is always considered incorrect, it doesn't necessarily mean that the premises or the conclusion or wrong. These are the ones you might have written as:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

But random internet commenters don't understand that kind of thing, so they go to informal logical fallacies. Let's talk about those (contd. in next comment)

[loki13]

Informal logical fallacies are when people start screaming AD HOMINEM! APPEAL TO AUTHORITY! YO MAMA!

Well, two of those, at least. But informal fallacies are an interesting lot. Language is imprecise (informal) and for that reason, some so-called fallacies aren't fallacies at all, or in some contexts, or even why it is a fallacy. However, truly understanding them can be helpful in spotting common errors in argumentation.

Now, let's take your current favorite- argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). What is the EXACT nature of this fallacy?

It's an argument invoking someone's authority regardless of relevant expertise.

So let's start with some basic concepts- if you're playing a game, and you say, "That's against the rules," that's fallacious (even though the rules are the authority of the game) because those are the rules - and they can be examined by anyone. You see where this is going, right?

Imagine a system, like a legal system, made up of rules. Rules that require you to abide by authorities (rules, procedures, cases, laws, and so on). That's how the system works- it's not an "appeal to authority," it's literally how it works. This is different than if I were to say, "Supremacyclaus says that the Constitution guarantees maple syrup goodness, so that's what the Constitution says." That would be an appeal to authority (you) and fallacious since you lack any expertise.

The more interesting issues come up because random internet people like to misunderstand these fallacies, especially this one, in order to say, "ALL AUTHORITY IS INVALID! FALLACY!!11!!!" That's not what it means, at all. This is nothing more than a heuristic many of us use in our daily lives- if your doctor, who has expertise in your specific condition and your medical records and medicine, argues (communication is an argument) to you that you have a terrible condition where your foot is stuck in your mouth that requires surgery, you are more likely to accept that and get surgery than if a random internet dude tell you that your head is stuck in your posterior.

I could continue, but I've written enough. This was fun for me, and I hope it was fun for you. Take care, and try and take it easy.

[Supremacy Claus]

Those are just ipse dixits to insult dissenters. Tell me how you can defend the lawyer profession after the briefest study of critical thinking. I want to understand you better.

[loki13]

Defend the lawyer profession?

How about ... 'cuz it gets me paid? It's a free market economy, and, like LeBron, I took my talents to South Beach... um ... the place that pays me. I like getting paid. Most people do.

I don't actually think you want to understand the profession, because then you'd have to be willing to understand that "the lawyer profession," isn't a monolith. Nor is the law. Not just in terms of litigation. Or the distinction between criminal and civil litigation. Or probate / family issues.

But where are all my transactional peeps at?

If you want to understand something, you actually have to ... want to understand it.

[Supremacy Claus]

I understand far better than you do. You take our $1.5 tril and return nothing of value. Your profession must be cancelled. Restarted again. The Rule of Law is an essential utility service that made civilization possible. It must be taken from you, because you stink.

That is coming. I took 15 minutes to write an intervention lawsuit against 28 despicable, mass murdering AGs. I am stymied by the inability to fill in the names of 28 AGs in the box of defendants in the cover sheet. I may sue the court for its bogus cover sheet. Any advice about opening that cover sheet to insert that list?

[loki13]

....bruh, it you are being stymied by a simple form for a case caption, not sure you're going to be able to handle some more complex tasks.

As a general rule, I have to admit that I find some enjoyment when a person is attempting to be taken seriously, but then starts with a statement that argues that the reason that "the law" is terrible is because of the lawyers.

Here's a protip- seems like you're frustrated with "how things work." But ... you're probably not going to get a lot of people eager to help you with that based on your demeanor ... not to mention telling the people that actually understand it that they are useless.

But hey, I am sure things are working out for you! Good luck with ... whatever that is you are doing.

[ReaderY]

I find myself curious how your “they should be banned by statutes…” etc. etc. etc. would work. How could such a ban operate?

It couldn’t work through courts. It would be illegal for them to cite the statute, because citing the statute would be appealing to sources of authority, which is exactly what the statute bans. The problem is that a statute is itself a source of authority, exactly the sort of thing it prohibits use of. That’s all it is.

However a ban on appeals to authority can be implemented, one way it can’t be is by means of creating sources of authority, like statutes, and then appealing to them.

It seems to me that you too, sir, have just pled yourself out of court. A statute that prohibits people from appealing to it is effectively a statute that prohibits its own enforcement. It bans itself.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Nicely done! I hope you get a response from Daivd 2.0.

IANAL and I detest precedent, but to the subject, I've always thought of "appeal to authority" as the mirror image of an "ad hominem attack", an "ad hominem praise" if you will. Precedent is more like a shortcut, boilerplate by reference instead of wastefully copying the whole chain of logic.

[Supremacy Claus]

Precedent is by people who knew one tenth what we know now. When AI prevails the doubling of knowledge will be every minute, not every 12 hours as it is now. Precedent is set by ignorant morons. They knew less than retards do today.

[loki13]

ReaderY ... are you really curious? I mean .... c'mon. You are presupposing that there is any internal logic or consistency to the word salad.

[Supremacy Claus]

We have Frye and Daubert standards for expert testimony. Law, regulations, precedents should meet those minimal standards. These result in the transfer of $trillions by scammers in court. They result in capital punishments, and are far more consequential than expert testimony. In real world application they are all feelings, biases, cultural practices, hanger, whether the scumbag on the bench got yelled at by his bitch at home. They are Medieval garbage with no reliability statistics, and certainly no validity statistics. Every self stated goal of every law subject is in utter failure. This profession must be cancelled and completely redone.

Expertise has not had a good run this decade. There is a good likelihood all medical studies are invalid. Even physics is full of shit like dark energy, dark matter, things that have not been shown to exist.

[Supremacy Claus]

Medical expertise was prostituted to close the roads, and to destroy the economy. That was to prevent the re-election of Trump in 2020. The tech bros own the Dem Party and the media. Since the 1300's it has been well known to quarantine the sick, not the healthy. Experts killed millions of people around the world by starvation from the drop in economic activity. The tech bros scored $1.7 tril in the US and $2 tril in China. That was the experts this decade.

[Supremacy Claus]

We have historical experiments. Turn off the police, turn on the police. Good correlation with crime. Mandatory sentencing guidelines dropped crime 40%. Defund the police surged crime.

Legalizing porn, including child, dropped sex crimes against people. Criminalizing again surged sex abuse of real people.

The best would be pilot studies in a small jurisdiction. Check on unintended consequences.

[Frank Drackman]

When I got my DUI, (not yesterday, 1983) I tried saying I was too drunk to take the Sobriety test, or know I was refusing the Breathalyzer, not driving for 6 months did wonders for my grades. Yes, I defended myself, they hadn’t turned DUI’s into career ending crimes yet(and I didn’t have a career to end)(or $$ to pay a mouthpiece)br>
Frank

[Savagely Average]

But by recognizing he’s mentally incompetent he’s able to rationally observe that not sane - so by definition he’s sane, right?

[Frank Drackman]

Thats enough from you Captain Yossarian

[loki13]

And this is why I keep you whitelisted, Frank. Every now and then you come up with a gem. No notes.

[not guilty]

"Naessens cites no authority for the notion that this court should have, unprompted, questioned his competency to litigate a case that he brought before this court."

Perhaps the plaintiff was relying on Abraham Lincoln's famous maxim about having a fool for a client.

[Supremacy Claus]

Criminal pro se defendants outperformed public defenders in jury trials, according to one study.