Ted's letter to LWOD
Shadow
I finally got hold of a copy of LIVE WILD OR DIE! Issue #7. It contains
this article:
"And now some words from Longtime LWOD Reader: TED K".
"For a matter of months preceding the beginning of my trial on Nov. 12,
1997, I had been aware that my attorneys wanted to use a defense that
would be based on supposed evidence of mental impairment. However, my
attorneys had led me to believe that I would have a considerable measure
of control over the defense strategy, hence I was under the impression
that I would be able to limit the presentation of mental evidence to
some items that at that time I thought might have some validity.
The first weeks of the trial were devoted to selection of a jury, a
process that told me little about the defense that my attorneys planned
to use. But in late November I discovered that my attorneys had prepared
a defense that would virtually portray me as insane, and that they were
going to force this defense on me in spite of my bitter resistance to
it.
For the present I will not review in detail what happened between late
November 1997 and January 22, 1998. Suffice it to say that the judge in
my case, Garland E. Burell, decided that my attorneys had the legal
right to force their defense on me over my objections; that it was too
late for me to replace my attorneys with a certain distinguished
attorney who had offered to represent me and had stated his intention to
use a defense not based on any supposed mental illness; and that it was
too late for me to demand the right to act as my own attorney.
This put me in such a position that I had only one way left to prevent
my attorneys from using false information to represent me to the world
as insane: I agreed to plead guilty to the charges in exchange for
withdrawal of the prrosecution's request for the death penalty. I also
had to give up al right to appeal, which leaves me with a virtual
certain of spending my life in prison. I am not afraid of the death
penalty, and I agreed to this bargain only to end the trial and thus
prevent my attorneys from representing me as insane. It should be noted
that the defense my attorneys had planned could not have led to my
release; it was only intended to save me from the death penalty.
By concealing their intentions from me and discouraging me from finding
anohther attorney before it was too late, my attorneys have done me very
great harm: they have forced me to sacrifice my right to an appeal that
might have led to my release; they have already made public the opinions
of supposed experts who portray me as crazy; and they have caused me to
lose my opportunity to be represented by a distinguished attorney who
would have portrayed me in a very different light.
Perhaps I ought to hate my attorneys for what they have done to me, but
I do not. Their motives were in no way malicious. They are essentially
conventional people who are blind to some of the implications of this
case, and they acted as they did because they subscribe to certain
professional principles that they believe left them no alternative.
These principles may seem rigid and even ruthless to a non-lawyer, but
there is no doubt that my attorneys believe in them sincerely. Morever,
on a personal level my attorneys have treated me with great generosity
and have performed many kindnesses for me. (But these can never
compensate for the harm they have done me through their handling of my
case.)
Recent events constitute a major defeat for me. But the end is not yet.
More will be heard from me in the future.
Theodore J. Kaczynski
P.s. Feel free to publish this message."
posted from LIVE WILD OR DIE #7 by Shadow
___________________________________________________________-
check it out:
Tangletown Chronicles, an eco-luddite primitivist radical novel
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2532/tangle.html
RossGetman
seems authentic. It represents yet another illustration that he just has
extreme political views -- and is not paranoid schizophrenic.
A paranoid would not have realized that his lawyers were acting in accordance
with their interpretation of their professional obligations. A paranoid would
have thought that they did what they did because they worked for "the System."
SusanJ1111
Thanks so much for posting this! This letter only leaves us wanting more.
I am especially curious about the mental evidence that Ted "at that
time...thought might have some validity."
But, it's nice to hear from his quite lucid self. Can't wait for the book!
William R. Clousert
Shadow wrote in message <35D508...@geocities.com>...
>SusanJ1111 wrote:
>>
>> Shadow,
>>
>> Thanks so much for posting this! This letter only leaves us wanting more.
>>
>> I am especially curious about the mental evidence that Ted "at that
>> time...thought might have some validity."
>
>I'm hoping that Ted might recount some of the incidents in his life
>which caused him to feel such rage against
>society/technology/civilization. Sort of like the incidents in my life
>when I've seen the bulldozers rip up everything I loved. One doesn't
>have to be mentally ill to have such experiences.
>>
>> But, it's nice to hear from his quite lucid self. Can't wait for the
book!
>
>I think quite a lot of people are avidly waiting for Ted's book. A lot
>more than are waiting for Random House's latest trashy best seller!
>
Shadow
Erik Haugsjaa
: Thanks Shadow for posting that. Sounds very sensible to me, and definitely
Sweet find, Shadow.
As always... a competent writer, that TK...
> Recent events constitute a major defeat for me. But the end is not yet.
> More will be heard from me in the future.
>
> Theodore J. Kaczynski
> P.s. Feel free to publish this message."
1. This letter smacks of his delusions of grandeur. ("THE FBI IS
A JOKE") His thinking that he mailed & planted bombs because he
is (now, at least) on a one-person mission to save the world from
industrialization is also delusional. He doesn't care about the
world ("I don't hesitate to litter in the woods"); he cares about
himself ("If only I had a wife and children!").
> "For a matter of months preceding the beginning of my trial on Nov. 12,
> 1997, I had been aware that my attorneys wanted to use a defense that
> would be based on supposed evidence of mental impairment.
2a. Why did sympathizing people not warn Ted if they thought that
he was possibly unaware of what his lawyers were doing?
2b. Could TK's lawyers really have duped him into thinking that he
would NOT be portrayed as full-blown insane? Yep. More evidence
of delusional thinking on his part.
Devil's Advocate
Shadow
> A JOKE") His thinking that he mailed & planted bombs because he
> is (now, at least) on a one-person mission to save the world from
> industrialization is also delusional.
Perhaps so... but know that a lot of people are in his corner. Not
because they like seeing people's hands blown off... but because it's
great to know that someone, however delusional, has the guts to "cross
swords" with the "system". This entity called The System (also known by
many names such as Global techno-capitalism) does the following: gives
us creature comforts, making us dependent on those comforts by removing
our means to live independently, destroys the planet we live on while
lulling us to complacency. Oh, it is also working on ways to increase
its global stranglehold thru things like MAI (the multinational
investment agreement) and genetically engineered plants which may push
out the natural varieties... I could go on all day about the problems
"the System" is causing. As I have said before... Ted Kaczynski's
actions are sunday school by comparison to the suffering the system is
causing. So if he is on a "mission" to save the world, however
delusional...
MORE POWER TO HIM!!!
He doesn't care about the
> world ("I don't hesitate to litter in the woods"); he cares about
> himself ("If only I had a wife and children!").
Here we go again with the tactic of taking statements out of context and
putting our own spin on them.
> > "For a matter of months preceding the beginning of my trial on Nov. 12,
> > 1997, I had been aware that my attorneys wanted to use a defense that
> > would be based on supposed evidence of mental impairment.
>
> 2a. Why did sympathizing people not warn Ted if they thought that
> he was possibly unaware of what his lawyers were doing?
Sympathizing people were kept in the dark. Ted's own patronizing,
controlling legal team went so far as to virtually forbid him from
corresponding w/supporters.
> 2b. Could TK's lawyers really have duped him into thinking that he
> would NOT be portrayed as full-blown insane? Yep. More evidence
> of delusional thinking on his part.
Lawyers can dupe people into thinking whatever they want. You're going
to call him delusional for trusting them? shame, shame.
Which just points up the truth: the X-files are right. TRUST NO ONE.
===================
Anarchist advocate.
David Buchanan
Shadow <shad...@geocities.com> quoted from a letter TK wrote
to LIVE WILD OR DIE!:
>...
>For the present I will not review in detail what happened between late
>November 1997 and January 22, 1998. Suffice it to say that the judge in
>my case, Garland E. Burell, decided that my attorneys had the legal
>right to force their defense on me over my objections; that it was too
>late for me to replace my attorneys with a certain distinguished
>attorney who had offered to represent me and had stated his intention to
>use a defense not based on any supposed mental illness; and that it was
>too late for me to demand the right to act as my own attorney.
>
>This put me in such a position that I had only one way left to prevent
>my attorneys from using false information to represent me to the world
>as insane: I agreed to plead guilty to the charges in exchange for
>withdrawal of the prosecution's request for the death penalty. I also
>had to give up al right to appeal, which leaves me with a virtual
>certain of spending my life in prison. I am not afraid of the death
>penalty, and I agreed to this bargain only to end the trial and thus
>prevent my attorneys from representing me as insane. ...
>
If TK truly was "not afraid of the death penalty," as he claims in the
LWOD letter, then there was a far better option open to him than than
entering a guilty plea. Curiously, TK fails to mention this option.
Judge Burrell had refused to allow TK to conduct his own defense
on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary delays. That in
itself was a departure from other high profile cases in which
defendants like Charles Ng, the California multiple, torture
murderer, was permitted numerous delays for changes of counsel.
However, TK backed down and entered his guilty plead which ended
the trial. Instead he should have continued to demand the right
to defend himself and to dismiss Quin and Denver.
At that point Judge Burrell would seem to have only two basic
options:
1) Allow TK to conduct his own defense without adequate time for
preparation.
2) Deny TK the right to speak in his own defense and allow Quin and
Denver to continue to represent TK against his will.
IF TK CONDUCTS OWN DEFENSE WITHOUT ADEQUATE PREPARATION TIME
Under the first option, the trial would probably have resembled a
circus but TK would have had his chance to put forward his
"ideas" and excuses. Of course, he's going to get a guilty
verdict -- quite possibly a death sentence which he says he's not
worried about -- but he gets his chance to make his
anti-technology case and equally important he emerges with his
rights to appeal the verdict completely intact.
Judge Burrell's denial of adequate preparation time would seem to
be good grounds for an appeal. That gives him a chance, perhaps
a good chance, of getting a second trial with a counsel and
defense strategy of his own choosing.
IF TK DENIED THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF
If Judge Burrell continued to refuse to let TK conduct his own
defense AFTER THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT HAD FOUND HIM MENTALLY
COMPETENT TO DO SO, then TK would have been in a great position
to score major propaganda points for his cause. All he needed to
do was stand up and loudly object to Quin and Denver as his
defense team every single time they got up to represent him.
Obviously, the trial could not continue under those conditions
and Judge Burrell would have either to order TK bound and gagged
in the courtroom or order him expelled from the courtroom during
his own trial, in effect, to try TK in absentia. Imagine the
propaganda value of an artist's sketch of TK bound and gagged in
the courtroom -- "The Man the System Had To Silence," "What Don't
the Technocrats Want You To Hear?" "Stalinist Style Justice
Invades Sacramento," and a host of other slogans come quickly to
mind.
As under the first option, there would certainly be a guilty
verdict but once again, TK would have emerged with his right to
appeal Burrell's decision which denied him the right to conduct
his own defense even though he had demonstrated he was mentally
competent to do so.
[It would seem that Judge Burrell deceived TK into believing he
would be allowed to conduct his own defense if he first passed a
psychological examination proving his competence to do so. Since
the psychological report took only a week or two to complete,
Burrell can not legitimately claim that the time constraints had
changed significantly between the time he deliberately mislead TK
and the morning of Jan. 23/98 when he denied TK's request to
represent himself.]
And if TK wins the appeal, he gets a new trial with the counsel
and defense of his choice, in addition to becoming a very high
profile, symbolic martyr for his cause.
But neither of those scenarios happened. TK, who claimed he "had
to kill" others to get is ideas across to the public, declined to
risk his OWN neck in furtherance of his supposed crusade.
DB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*** POSTING ADDRESS IS SPAM FILTERED *** To reply by email to the
author of this article please replace the "freenet.hamilton.on.ca"
domain name by "hwcn.org" in the posting address.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
Raja
> SPIN DOCTOR KACZYNSKI VERSUS THE FACTS
>
> Shadow <shad...@geocities.com> quoted from a letter TK wrote
> to LIVE WILD OR DIE!:
> >...
> >For the present I will not review in detail what happened between late
> >November 1997 and January 22, 1998. Suffice it to say that the judge in
> >my case, Garland E. Burell, decided that my attorneys had the legal
> >right to force their defense on me over my objections; that it was too
> >late for me to replace my attorneys with a certain distinguished
> >attorney who had offered to represent me and had stated his intention to
> >use a defense not based on any supposed mental illness; and that it was
> >too late for me to demand the right to act as my own attorney.
What the FK is going on here. WHEN must you let other people speak for
you? The moranda says "You have the right to an attorney.", not "You must
have an attorney".
Why must Ted EVER use tax-funded legal aid?
Why does it EVER become too late to fire people who are determined to
lie, whether they have your best interests in mind or not?
The only thing I must ask is who the other choice for attorneys was.
SusanJ1111
>If TK truly was "not afraid of the death penalty," as he claims in the
>LWOD letter, then there was a far better option open to him than than
>entering a guilty plea. Curiously, TK fails to mention this option.
>
>Judge Burrell had refused to allow TK to conduct his own defense
>on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary delays. That in
>itself was a departure from other high profile cases in which
>defendants like Charles Ng, the California multiple, torture
>murderer, was permitted numerous delays for changes of counsel.
>
>However, TK backed down and entered his guilty plead which ended
>the trial. Instead he should have continued to demand the right
>to defend himself and to dismiss Quin and Denver.
>
I have thought for a long time that Judge Burrell was trying to set a precedent
for the incredibly heinous Ng case. It sickens me that they should be mentioned
in the same phrase; Ng was a sadist, Ted was a pricipaled, if mistaken in his
tactics, revolutionary.
You did give examples of how Ted could have proceded with present counsel and
objected, but I am still unclear as to how he could have pursued his request to
represent himself after it was denied by the judge. That seemed final to me.
Are things different in Canada?
In the former case, where he proceeded with his counsel yet protested, don't
you think that the media would have presented his attorney's arguements as the
main point of any stories, and mentioned his objections as mere footnotes, if
at all? The mainstream media had already made up their minds.
As much as I wanted to see this trial, given his situation, I think he chose
the best option. In any case, we can now all look forward to what he writes
next.
Erik Haugsjaa
Shadow (shad...@geocities.com) wrote:
> Perhaps so... but know that a lot of people are in his corner. Not
> because they like seeing people's hands blown off... but because
> it's great to know that someone, however delusional, has the guts to
> "cross swords" with the "system".
Two areas where people think TK is delusional:
1. His diagnosis of modern industrial society. (People are the
problem -- they can't say no to technology.)
2. His personal plan about what to do about it. (Bomb people)
I have no problems with #1. It's not delusional. Technology is
PART of being human. But his #2 (truly delusional) means that
people will (and do) take #1 as delusional as well. Overall, he has
hurt his supposed cause of saving people from themselves.
> This entity called The System (also known by many names such as
> Global techno-capitalism) does the following: gives us creature
> comforts, making us dependent on those comforts by removing our
> means to live independently, destroys the planet we live on while
> lulling us to complacency...
These are all things that CAN happen. But that's because what The
System provides for SOME is... MORE OPTIONS and MORE CHOICE. (To
buy or not to buy. Where to live. What to do with one's time.) Not
less. And people get weighed down by these choices. And choose
poorly.
HOWEVER... I think a more powerful problem is that TECHNOLOGY often
has society "dividing along IQ lines" (as the TECHNOFASCISM article
I mentioned a week or so back put it) or at least along some line
(like maybe... "being able to handle industrial society"?) This
means that the SOME below this line that's being drawn is going to
have less... choices, money, everything. And it's more and more
people that are being swept under this line, while a smaller and
smaller minority are rising far above it.
The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer.
I think this happens regardless. It's not simply passivity or the
chosen dependency due to too many choices ("making us dependent on
those comforts") that you describe above. People are lured into
certain lifestyles by the advertising and socialization that ISAIF
details, but more importantly, people are simply put out of work by
machines.
Would TK have had anything to write about if there was a more equal
distribution of wealth?
Maybe the thing to do is get rid of inheritance or land ownership?
Advocate advocate
PS. X-Files is just as part of The System as the next TV program.
It's appealing in a manner very similar to Dilbert -- posing as
subversive.
David Buchanan
susan...@aol.com (SusanJ1111) wrote:
>
>I have thought for a long time that Judge Burrell was trying to set a precedent
I suspect Burrell's motives weren't quite that noble -- at most
an understandable desire on the judge's part to avoid having to
preside over the sort of circus the court room would become if TK
acted as his own counsel without legal advice or adequate
preparation.
I've forgotten the timing but hadn't the certifiably insane
commuter train shooter in NY been allowed to conduct his own
defense not too long before. Whatever TK did in the courtroom,
it couldn't have been more of a circus than that particular
farce!
>
>You did give examples of how Ted could have proceeded with present counsel and
>objected, but I am still unclear as to how he could have pursued his request to
>represent himself after it was denied by the judge. That seemed final to me.
>Are things different in Canada?
No. I believe such a ruling would be LEGALLY final in Canada as
well.
But as a political gesture it would be well worth while to repeat
his demand to represent himself in open court and to carefully
point out the discrepancy between Burrell's statements inducing
TK to undergo the psychological examination as a condition of
being allowed to defend himself and Burrell's quick reversal of
that position after TK had acted upon the judge's promise.
Gee, I'm no lawyer -- but if Burrell had done that in a business
deal he'd be facing a lawsuit for reneging on the contract. I
think Burrell was way out of line with this particular deception
and it would seem useful for TK to point out just how far out on
a limb the judge was and to shake that limb a bit. TK doesn't
have much to lose in this confrontation either. At most, Burrell
can fine him or sentence him to a few months for contempt of
court -- TK hasn't any money and he's going to get life any way
this turns out so life plus six months for contempt is hardly a
deterrent.
By entering a plea, shortly after the judge's betrayal of a
commitment, TK let Burrell off the hook and defused the issue.
That was probably a political mistake.
>
>In the former case, where he proceeded with his counsel yet protested, don't
>you think that the media would have presented his attorney's arguments as the
>main point of any stories, and mentioned his objections as mere footnotes, if
>at all? The mainstream media had already made up their minds.
Probably not, if TK had raised the sort of protest in the
courtroom that I suggested he should have. The spectacle of a
defendant bound and gagged in the court or expelled and in effect
tried for his life in absentia would have certainly attracted a
lot of media attention.
Probably the majority of the stories would still be about his
attorneys' insanity arguments but there would be enough about
the "injustices" being done to TK to arouse the sympathy of those
already leaning towards his views. At most that would be a
minority of the general public but I don't believe TK envisioned
creating a majority movement even with his manifesto.
A LEGAL QUESTION
If the trial had gone forward with Quin and Denvir as TK's
unwanted attorneys, it might have raised some interesting legal
issues.
Consider a defendant like TK who believes his attorneys' are
making false statements about his sanity in court and who is
unable to fire or otherwise control those attorneys. The
prosecution on the other hand wants to disprove those statements.
Presumably many of the "false" statements would be by witnesses
to TK's behaviour in circumstances where TK was the only other
available witness. Now the prosecution can't force TK to testify
but it would seem that he would be glad to volunteer to testify
for the prosecution in the limited area of the "false"
allegations made by his own attorneys.
Could his attorneys' prevent him from so testifying? Maybe this
problem has already been worked out in previous trials but it is
an interesting situation to speculate about.
>As much as I wanted to see this trial, given his situation, I think he chose
>the best option. In any case, we can now all look forward to what he writes
>next.
I'd be much more interested in his journals and other pre-arrest
writings which are likely to be considerably more candid. By the
way, what ever happened to the psychological report which was
supposed to be released to the public -- or is that still being
appealed by Quin and Denvir?
Mignarda
>From: ag...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (David Buchanan)
>Date: Mon, Aug 17, 1998 14:02 EDT
>Message-id: <rIF21M+p...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
>I'd be much more interested in his journals and other pre-arrest
>writings which are likely to be considerably more candid. By the
>way, what ever happened to the psychological report which was
>supposed to be released to the public -- or is that still being
>appealed by Quin and Denvir?
>
>
I'm just as interested as anyone else in the psych report. The appeals court
was supposed to make a decision, but to the best of my knowledge they never set
an agenda for it. Meantime, the CAED website is back on line, and I'm keeping
an eye on it for any signs of life from the higher court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
http://members.aol.com/Mignarda/index.html
Unabomber/Zodiac
$11.99 on CD-ROM!
Shadow
> LWOD letter, then there was a far better option open to him than than
> entering a guilty plea. Curiously, TK fails to mention this option.
There was no other option. Any trial would have featured the defense
lawyers parading evidence of "insanity" in front of the world...
something Ted seems to dread more than death.
> Judge Burrell had refused to allow TK to conduct his own defense
> on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary delays. That in
> itself was a departure from other high profile cases in which
> defendants like Charles Ng, the California multiple, torture
> murderer, was permitted numerous delays for changes of counsel.
>
> However, TK backed down and entered his guilty plead which ended
> the trial. Instead he should have continued to demand the right
> to defend himself and to dismiss Quin and Denver.
I believe Ted explains that he was "too tired" to keep fighting. In
fact, the night before the final night of the trial, he tried to kill
himself. I have always wondered why he did this... obviously he wasn't
afraid of death. I think it was his peculiar sense of "warrior honor"...
choosing to "fall on his sword" rather than face the "dishonor" of being
portrayed as insane.
This is what he should have done. But he was "too tired". Plus, Ted is
too shy and polite to behave this way in a courtroom. He can't break
away from his conditioning to be respectful to those in power. We can
see that Ted is quite "oversocialized" when in the presence of
authorities. He can only be rebellious & angry from afar.
>
> Obviously, the trial could not continue under those conditions
> and Judge Burrell would have either to order TK bound and gagged
> in the courtroom or order him expelled from the courtroom during
> his own trial, in effect, to try TK in absentia. Imagine the
> propaganda value of an artist's sketch of TK bound and gagged in
> the courtroom -- "The Man the System Had To Silence," "What Don't
> the Technocrats Want You To Hear?" "Stalinist Style Justice
> Invades Sacramento," and a host of other slogans come quickly to
> mind.
Yep, it would have been quite a spectacle.
John Merrall
: Two areas where people think TK is delusional:
: 2. His personal plan about what to do about it. (Bomb people)
: I have no problems with #1. It's not delusional. Technology is
: PART of being human. But his #2 (truly delusional) means that
: people will (and do) take #1 as delusional as well.
Hm? Why is it "delusional" to bomb people to make a point?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.hwcn.org/~ac096/Profile.html =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* "Even when the mouth lies, the way it looks still speaks the truth." *
* - Friedrich Nietzsche *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Viktoria4 (vikt...@aol.com) wrote:
> In response to a previous question of who was the other lawyer that Ted
> wanted, it was J. Tony Serra.
Thanks. Denying you self-defence is one thing. Denying you the defence of
someone who thinks you're sane and works pro bono to boot...that smells
like a hot day on a pig farm.
And following the rest of this thread, I bet TK's lawyers are trying to
suppress that psych report pretty hard if it works out to a clean bill of
health. That would hurt their credibility...not just theirs either.
Lawyers that jump to insanity pleas have been a joke since the Earth
cooled.
brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
> did out of fear: fear that Ted would have been acquitted if he were
> allowed to act as his own attorney. If the OJ Simpson trial has shown
> us anything at all, it has shown that even in the face of overwhelming
> evidence, all that it takes to get a verdict of Not Guilty is just the
> tiniest shred of Reasonable Doubt. Ted is a man who is accustomed to
> making the most of the meagerest of resources (just how many of us could
> survive on $200 per year?). He also has a razor-sharp critical acumen.
> Using both of these talents, I would say that he would have certainly
> gotten off if he had been given half a chance. With his intellect, he
> would not have needed a "Dream Team".
Lawyers, salespeople, and politicans have a lot in common. Among those
things is not the ability to form self-consistent, predictive, useful
philosophical systems of thought or mathematics (however out of date).
Sales is emotional, and any lawyer that say's he doesn't sell is either
lying or a bad lawyer. Mathematicans and philosophers with persuasive or
motivational ability much beyond what can be put on paper are atypical. I
HEARD about one such calculus teacher in University. It's a rare combo.
Unfortunately, the question of which TK is is pretty moot.
We're not likely to find out unless Burrell was bound to his word.
_______
I didn't realize there wer so many girls who spelt that name with a 'k'.
Scott Corey & Mary Foley
own lawyer. He argues that two outcomes were possible: either the judge
would relent or TK could disrupt the proceedings with protests of his
lawyers' use of an mental defect defense. He argues that either
approach would have advanced TK's agenda, but that they were not chosen
because TK, in fact, does fear the death penalty which might well have
followed.
I think it is very plausible that TK wished to avoid the mental defect
defense in and of itself.
1) He attempted suicide when he suspected he could not avoid the mental
defect defense.
2) His lawyer, Judy Clark, was impressively sincere in her presentation
of his view on this, shortly after his suicide attempt.
3) At that time, TK had an additional court appointed lawyer (Kevin
Climo, don't hold me to the spelling) whose sole purpose was to
represent TK in his conflicts with his defense lawyers and to speak for
him in court at any time he objected to what the defense team said in
his behalf. Clark's statement brought no such objection. If I recall
correctly, Burrell actually asked Climo if TK found Clark's statement
correct, but I have not checked the transcript as I write this.
4) The jury that was selected was probably not one that would easily
vote unanimously for execution.
As for Burrell's actions, the consensus of experienced trial
journalists and legal consultants in the audience was that he would
probably have been overturned on appeal. Denying someone the right to
defend themself on grounds of undue delay is, I gather, at least
conceivable (though still open to challenge), but Burrell seems to have
made his decision on the grounds that TK gave late "notice" of this
intention. Late "notice" is the grounds for Burrell denying a change of
lawyers (to defense by Tony Serra), since it was given on the day of the
trial. There was, apparently, plenty of precedent for judging this to
be a delaying tactic, and Tony Serra did indeed require a delay if he
were chosen to defend TK.
However, late notice (despite lots of indicators that the lawyers
intended to use a mental defect defense) is not a very persuasive sign
of delaying tactics when the defendant is openly willing to begin trial
immediately. It is not impossible that Burrell knew this would not
stand review, but was counting upon TK's fear of being depicted as
insane to get TK to accept a plea bargain. However, that would seem to
imply that he knew TK had a concession that he could make in plea
negotiations, and I do not think he is supposed to know such things. I
do not immediately recall if that had been leaked in the press before
Burrell's decision, or if the leak came immediately after it.
Possibly, Burrell simply preferred being overturned to presiding over a
political trial in which an unpredictable defendant acted as his own
attorney.
It is not exactly true that Burrell implied TK could defend himself if
he passed the competency exam. TK's lawyers asserted that the exam was
appropriate precisely because TK opposed the mental defect defense.
Burrell asked them specifically if they had changed their minds for this
reason and they conceded that (in essence) they thought him insane
because he would not plead insanity. With the prosecution and defense
both favoring a competency exam, the judge could hardly have refused.
Burrell ordered the exam and TK could not have defended himself unless
he obeyed the order, which is not quite the same as promising that
self-defense would be allowed.
I do not think disrupting the trial was an option. It has been tried
before, and the standard solution is to isolate the defendant in another
room, where the trial is viewed on closed-circuit TV. I think that has
held up under challenge, but am not sure.
US5NEURONS
writes:
>For the present I will not review in detail what happened between late
>November 1997 and January 22, 1998. Suffice it to say that the judge in
>my case, Garland E. Burell, decided that my attorneys had the legal
>right to force their defense on me over my objections; that it was too
>late for me to replace my attorneys with a certain distinguished
>attorney who had offered to represent me and had stated his intention to
>use a defense not based on any supposed mental illness; and that it was
>too late for me to demand the right to act as my own attorney.
>
>
He sounds so reasenable, I still feel like likeing him.
A bit like one might like Dr Who of the British BBC scifi series on TV in
the 60's and 70's.
When I get AOL software sorted I will send ISAIF again if noone minds.
John Biosicfix
John Biosicfix
David Buchanan
Scott Corey & Mary Foley <sco...@saber.net> wrote:
>...
> It is not exactly true that Burrell implied TK could defend himself if
>he passed the competency exam. TK's lawyers asserted that the exam was
>appropriate precisely because TK opposed the mental defect defense.
>Burrell asked them specifically if they had changed their minds for this
>reason and they conceded that (in essence) they thought him insane
>because he would not plead insanity. With the prosecution and defense
>both favoring a competency exam, the judge could hardly have refused.
>Burrell ordered the exam and TK could not have defended himself unless
>he obeyed the order, which is not quite the same as promising that
>self-defense would be allowed.
Thanks, Scott. It appears to have been a complicated situation.
However, I'm troubled by the idea that Burrell could "hardly have
refused" because both the prosecution and the defense favoured a
competency exam. That argument seems to be based on the implicit
assumption that the defense are merely agents of TK and acting in
his interests and with his consent. Otherwise there are three
parties to the dispute: the prosecution acting for the
government, the defense supposedly acting for TK but actually
pursuing their own agenda, and TK himself.
In that view, there was no unanimity among the parties. Also
there seems to be a "denial of natural justice" type argument
since TK was compelled to accept as his agents counsels who, at
least in TK's view, were hostile to his interests.
The fact that Burrell ordered TK to undergo a mental examination
would seem to get Burrell out from under any "violation of
contract" type problems because TK's acquiescence to the
examination couldn't be classified as the "consideration"
received by Burrell under the contract.
Tactically though, Burrell wasn't in a position where he could
force TK's cooperation with the mental examination since TK could
have easily sabotaged any attempted examination to a sufficient
degree that the examination would have little validity in court.
That's why I believe Burrell must have at some point said or
implied that is was still possible for TK to represent himself.
Contract questions aside, couldn't those statements be used
against Burrell's later contention that time constraints ruled
out TK's requests?
Scott Corey & Mary Foley
>
> In article <199808170406...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> susan...@aol.com (SusanJ1111) wrote:
> >
> >I have thought for a long time that Judge Burrell was trying to set a precedent
> >for the incredibly heinous Ng case. ...
>
> I suspect Burrell's motives weren't quite that noble -- at most
> an understandable desire on the judge's part to avoid having to
> preside over the sort of circus the court room would become if TK
> acted as his own counsel without legal advice or adequate
> preparation.
Just a point of information: TK would have been allowed to have a panel
of lawyers to act as advisors. He could even have kept the lawyers he
had, if they would stay for that purpose.
>
> I've forgotten the timing but hadn't the certifiably insane
> commuter train shooter in NY been allowed to conduct his own
> defense not too long before. Whatever TK did in the courtroom,
> it couldn't have been more of a circus than that particular
> farce!
>
Your rememberance is correct, and the comparison was drawn at the time.
>
>
> A LEGAL QUESTION
>
> If the trial had gone forward with Quin and Denvir as TK's
> unwanted attorneys, it might have raised some interesting legal
> issues.
>
> Could his attorneys' prevent him from so testifying?
I was told by legal consultants at the trial that the right to testify
in your own behalf is almost inviolable -- but then so is the right to
act as your own attorney.
Scott