foreign
Channel guys today we head to Florida
for a very interesting Court video
regarding the guy who featured in my
most recent video most embarrassing
Sovereign cities than the rest ever
today is a competency hearing where we
learn a lot more about him from a
psychological point of view from when he
was assessed by a clinical psychologist
now during his evaluation he invoked his
right to remain silent under the Fifth
Amendment so the psychologists reviewed
the traffic stop and other documents for
his assessment and the diagnosis is grim
guys with words like delusional order
psychotic disorder and thought disorder
being thrown around which is really sad
to hear but from watching the video
again last night myself this diagnosis
kind of makes sense anyway I'm just
gonna let this video play without
interruption I'll just drop back in
between this and the second competency
hearing which lasts around five minutes
at the end
right let's get into it
we're on the record here
and we're in a competency
hearing
and I wanted there may be some
subsequent appellate review of this
matter Dr Williamson so I'd like to go
ahead and uh
sweary in at this point do you swear or
affirm that any testimony given this
proceeding will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth I do
now Council I'd like to start the ball
rolling and then I'll give you an
opportunity to uh to ask questions
Dr Williamson could you first tell us a
little bit about yourself and you're
putting this on the record what your
credentials and qualifications would be
yes sir
um so I am a clinical psychologist uh
Jeffrey Michael Williamson and um been
in private practice since 1991 and in
Florida since 1990 well I'm sorry I've
been in practice since 1991 and in
Florida since 1992 going into private
practice in 1996.
um I have PhD from the University of
Missouri Columbia Missouri with
specialization in child Clinical
Psychology
um I have testified in court over 2500
times
um
and uh I'm currently in private practice
in Melbourne Florida
thank you Doctor
um does either side object to the court
eliciting opinions from Dr Williamson in
the field of psychology no you're on
know your honor
Dr Williamson
um
I had
entered an order
calling for an evaluation of Ronald
Russell Farnham
for uh for competence to proceed
and you received a copy of that order is
that correct yes sir yes you are now
um you have
uh
reviewed various documents
purportedly
um
authored by Mr Farnam is that correct
that is correct your honor
and his pursuant appoint to an
appointment
um
I understand made by his counsel he
appeared at your office for the
interview that was contemplated by that
order is that correct that is correct
your owner now we have uh count both
Council and I have reviewed a
hush now
uh I've reviewed a uh document titled
competency evaluation of yours
um
regarding this and you were the you
authored such a document is that correct
yes your honor no my impression of that
document is that it
um
involved impressions of
uh Miss Farnham but it did not
uh
have the evaluation
uh associated with each of the criteria
for
uh confidence
as would be typical and as would be
called for by the order is that a fair
the description of it that is correct
yes sir why was that why
that Mr Farnham
um
refused to answer any of the competency
questions or typical background
information uh invoking his
right to remain silent
now you reach some Impressions however
notwithstanding that invocation is that
correct that is correct your honor could
you share those Impressions with us
yes your honor it appears to me that Mr
Farnham is suffering from
delusional disorder
primarily grandiose and persecutory type
um
and that typically is a diagnosis that
is part of
individuals that have psychotic uh
processes however you can have a
delusional disorder
um without
hallucinations or thought disorder
things of that nature
um I would add that having reviewed and
at that point there was only an initial
document filed
uh actually a written uh note I believe
from his mother but having read over the
other documents I would add some
concerns about you know possible thought
disorder and I say that simply because
the
uh legal texts that are or responses
that were made by Mr Farnham
um
are diffic are difficult to understand
it it all it seems very similar to what
we would call a word salad
uh type of presentation when we're
talking to
um you know someone who is suffering
from a psychotic disorder and uh they're
basically not making sense there's uh oh
we're called loosening associations and
uh referential thinking where they will
go back to what they've said before but
really there's a lack of coherence if
you will
um in their oral presentation so in
looking at the written documents
um and certainly I'm not a legal expert
but looking up some of the words and
things that were used by Mr Farnham and
the general presentation of the
documents
um it would look uh
nonsensical if you will
um it's not clear to me what point he is
making
um or what his defense is even though he
you know he's making the point that he's
able to represent himself
um so all I'm saying is that in addition
to the delusion uh that I definitely saw
I do have some concerns now about a
thought disorder
foreign
I wanted to ask you
about
the the nature of his
apparent delusions
yes sir
um
oftentimes we see people who have some
some
um unorthodox beliefs
here in court and they sometimes are
part of a sometimes they are part of
what might be characterized as a
sovereign citizen movement
where they where they are I object
where they're
um
oftentimes seeking to
frustrate
law enforcement and obstruct the
processes in court
um yes I'm sorry is that is that a fair
characterization from your
impressions of Mr Farnham
um certainly I can
see that as an interpretation and I am
aware of this uh Sovereign citizen
concept or idea
um having evaluated individuals who have
taken that approach
um I would say there is a distinction
with Mr Farnham and that distinction
would be while I do agree that there's
an attempt to in essence say that the
laws and
judicial process you know do not apply
to him
um the reasoning is
substantially more illogical it seems to
me than your typical individual who is
making that Sovereign citizen if you
will defense
so what I'm saying here is that there
seems to be a lot more disorganization
and lack of clarity
and even though when you evaluate
individuals with a sovereign citizen
concept
you know they they often have
presuppositions
Etc that are let's say equally
um uh unusual or
um
distorted but we could say persecutory
delusions might be there as well
um I would distinguish Mr farnham's
situation because of the uh lack of
coherence if you will at least from what
I've read as to what really his argument
is
oh
they
an assessment tool
yes or the evaluation of
delusions and
delusion-like beliefs it's called the
brown assessment belief scale are you
familiar with that I am familiar with it
sir yes is that is that something that
would
be useful in evaluating
the uh the delusion-like delusions or
delusion-like beliefs of Mr Farnham
will certainly will provide an empirical
basis Beyond just my uh observations
um and uh certainly can be done
um again my concern would be uh level of
cooperation and if using that my own
observations
um
I am aware of this instrument I've not
used it personally so I don't know if
it's a primarily observational
measure or if it's a self-report measure
so I would have to look into that if
it's a self-report measure then I don't
think we're going to get any better
information than we already have if it's
an observational measure then it would
give us a better I think empirical basis
for my conclusion
I I was reading an article last night
it's entitled integrating non-cycle
psychiatric models of delusion-like
beliefs into forensic psychiatric
assessment
the author is Joseph M Pierre
from the Journal of Academy American
Academy of psychiatry in the law online
June 2019.
okay it states in part as follows
assessing the pathological nature of
beliefs is fraught with challenges
however including
The Limited options in the diagnostic
and
statistical Manual of mental disorders
DSM
yes for the characterization of
delusion-like beliefs dlbs
the expanded cultural sanctioning of
Fringe beliefs in the age of the
internet and the potentially conflicting
agendas of clinical
and forensic psychiatric evaluation
so my question is
if
the assessment is so difficult
um how can
the court make this determination or can
the court make this determination with
respect to competence where the
defendant is not
cooperating where there's no
and there has been no empirical
assessment
of his beliefs or delusion-like beliefs
or his delusions
well I think we have and if I understand
you correctly your honor
um
you know typically
it is fairly apparent when individuals
are uh delusional that you know by the
statements Etc that they make or other
correspondence and clearly what I'm
going off of in a major part is the you
know correspondence
um you know you are uh able to identify
uh some of the major parts of it
um an application to you know forensics
um
I think one of the questions that's
being asked is this a either malingered
uh presentation or a just outright
um you know attempt to obstruct the
legal process and that's where it
becomes a little more difficult
sometimes is distinguishing between
um whether it is uh
a legitimate presentation
um
or
um you know Milling group in some
fashion
um regardless part of the problem that I
had with this evaluation was in
exercising his you know right to remain
silent and not responding to you know my
questions
um all I can say is that there the
effort wasn't put forth the ability to
observe the defendant was minimal so in
and of itself
my primary uh response to that was
looking at the documentation Etc that it
did appear to me that there is actual
delusional content but it's further
assessment
um
a more empirical lines like using an
instrument like that is beneficial I'm
certainly more than willing to assist
the court with that
that brings me to my next question
and this let me preface this with a
quote from through the Looking Glass the
classic children's uh
Story by Lewis Carroll
yes sir which uh the the quote begins
with
um a
the words of Humpty Dumpty
when I use a word
Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful
tone it means just what I choose it to
mean
neither morn or less the question is
said Alice whether you can make words
mean so many different things
the question is said Humpty Dumpty which
is to be master that is all
is is this
merely
someone who is just using language in a
way that makes him feel special and
important and different from other
people
in a way that tends to frustrate the
processes of law enforcement and and the
uh and the court system
the uh
or or is it someone who has legitimate
issues
mental issues with respect to I'm just
trying to get this out over his business
yes
so that this is a product of some
legitimate cognizable
mental disorder
[Applause]
um
that's my question
do you understand my problem yes I do I
do I do understand your question and um
I would say that having reviewed some of
the documents and so on
um I would be inclined to say that I
think this is a product of a true mental
disorder but I also would add that uh in
scientific reasoning particularly in
Behavioral Sciences a both and
hypothesis is generally uh most correct
so
um I certainly
um
I certainly would proffer the idea that
we have a both and that there is
legitimate psychiatric issues going on
but that there also may be a deliberate
intent to
um
uh frustrate if you will the court
process
now let me ask one further question and
I'll open up for to the attorneys
in the event that the court were to find
Mr Farm to be incompetent to proceed and
the court directed him to some
uh remedial measures designed to restore
him to competence would he understand
the obligation to appear for those
subject to some
potential
compulsion to do so
um
I think that there is always that
possibility that he
would not comply given our con
the compliance issues to start off with
I do think however he should be
evaluated by you know for example
Circles of cares uh uh forensic
multidisciplinary team for competency
restoration and uh and that would give
us some additional information as to uh
their uh observations and take on how
much of this is a uh
clear mental disorder versus a motivated
attempt to frustrate
I did have one further question I said
that would be my last but I do have one
more all right in your in your
competency evaluation
you uh conveyed an impression that this
um
the the uh delusions or delusion-like
beliefs that he has didn't pose a uh
a danger to the community is that
correct yes sir why is that
well there's no evidence that that I had
from any of the information that we had
any past history of uh
um aggressive threat
um
what we would call threat override
symptoms which
with psychotic disorders
threat override symptoms are the ones
that are more directly related to
concerns about aggressive threats so uh
basically what that means is that the
individual does have a paranoia
a persecutory complex if you will uh the
world is against them
misreading people's uh behaviors Etc as
negative intentions okay so we have a
hostile if you will world view
combined with a inability to override or
control
intrusive thoughts
typically command hallucinations
and you know which is part of psychosis
um
and I have had no evidence and
observation of him that or what I'm
little I knew of his developmental
history that there was such a threat
override symptoms and inability to
control impulses because of the strength
if you will of the
competing voices and so on
um thank you Council either from the
state of the defense whoever would go
first any questions
um so Dr Williamson from what I mean
this is Janet Roberts the state attorney
yes you are recommending a facility like
the what was the the name of the
facility the circles Circles of Care
um the forensic
multidisciplinary team fmt program who
does competency restoration training and
provide Psychiatric Services for
individuals who you know have been
deemed as having a psychiatric disorder
but
are incompetent to proceed to trial and
just to be clear at this point in time
you are recommending that that route is
that right that would be correct yes
Ms Roberts anything anything else any
questions
good morning Dr
doctors so I know you weren't able to go
through the full evaluation that you
typically would do
but just based on your limited
interaction with him in the office
reviewing the case File and the
different filings I just kind of wanted
to get your impressions
on some of the competency standards like
his ability to appreciate the charges
before him and kind of how the legal
system works what my role is
yes yes ma'am so
um first I would say that that's one of
the reasons that I in uh
suggesting that I think that there is
more of a psychiatric element or
component uh to this
um
so
the uh the the if you look at
both uh statements that has been have
been made and his various filings it
seems very clear to me that he does not
understand in essence the basic roles
respective responsibilities of uh
courtroom Personnel
um
the fact that we have a misdemeanor case
which theoretically could be easily
resolved with his cooperation and he is
responding in the manner that he is
responding certainly suggests to me that
again there is a mental disorder behind
all of that
um and when your honor had asked me
questions about the Sovereign citizen
um you know I would say that the vast
majority of those individuals
um are using that kind of Defense if you
will
um if such is a defense because they're
facing serious charges
um those same individuals would be
pretty unlikely I think to make such a
defense on a misdemeanor case
um so I I do think that there is a
reaction here to a misdemeanor case that
strongly suggests to me that there is uh
you know again psychiatric factors going
on and so on
secondly in a I may jump here to also
our Factor about uh being able the
capacity to consult with counsel
um so
given his inability it seems to
recognize what the actual charges are
and the
Distortion by which he has interpreted
it the severity of of the the charge in
his eyes that's against him
um and uh
an inability to you know basically
accept uh his defense counsel's uh
representation and collaborate
um I certainly would say that he's
incompetent on the factor of what are
the charges that are against him
um what is a lesser more serious charge
um
Etc and the uh
understanding the adversarial nature of
the legal process and the rules
responsibilities of courtroom Personnel
it is clear that he sees the whole
process as adversarial against him but
does not make the distinction
you know between
the state and
um
the defense counsel Etc uh that would
then lead to the next one which is I
don't believe he has the capacity to
effectively collaborate with Council
um I'm not there or able to pick up on
what's going on in the courtroom but I
think we're likely seeing uh behaviors
in the courtroom that you know would
also indicate
um uh incapacity to proceed and if his
legal documents or any indication of
what he would testify to
um if he
um doesn't uh
choose to not testify
from right to remain silent all of that
also indicates to me that there is a
underlying incompetence
so certainly it's possible that there is
a you know deliberate and conscious
attempt to frustrate this process I
would say that however that the
illogical nature of the uh
way in which that's being done and I do
like the uh Alice in wonder looking
through the work Looking Glass uh quote
yes we've gotten to a place where the
language is
um
meaningless because it's just very
unclear as to
what he is referring to in regards to
his own case the logic of that
um and what seems to me in trying to
figure it out is almost Blake blatant
contradictions and what he is using as
his defense
so just that was a long-winded answer
but thank you so just kind of based on
having touched on the factors that you
would have gotten into in the evaluation
um if judge was to make up finding one
way or the other today do you have kind
of an opinion or conclusion for him on
whether or not
Mr Farnham may be competent to stand
trial in this case
um
so
recognizing that such a decision is
ultimately the in the judge's purview I
do feel that he is incompetent stand
trial because of psychiatric factors
that's all I have
anything else for Dr Williamson no
you're not
Dr Williamson thank you very much
um I it's rather unusual to have the
psychologist or psychiatrist testifying
at these hearings because we typically
have a
a a
competency evaluation
um that addresses those the various
different criteria but I thought it was
valuable in this particular case
well I actually appreciate it your honor
because
um and if
if it is at all possible I would like to
have that article or give me that
reference again
um
yeah the uh the article
that I was referring to
and as I said I read it last night
it's called integrating
non-psychiatric models of delusion-like
beliefs into forensic psychiatric
assessment
all right the author is a Joseph M
Pierre
p-i-e-r-r-e and it appears in the
Journal of American Academy of
psychiatric Psychiatry and the law
online June 2019.
awesome
and uh
yes they
excuse me but I'm just going to say too
it also allowed me to uh look up some
information on treatment of delusions
Etc that I found very helpful so I do
appreciate being included in this and if
there is anything that I can do I
certainly am willing to do that for the
court and for the benefit of all parties
involved including Mr Farnham
at this point I'd be prepared to release
him
um to go about his his uh practice any
objection stage defense no objection
thank you Doctor it won't thank you very
much feelings if you if your cursor
makes its way over to the red leave
button in the upper right hand corner
there too yes sir
all right thank you
um
all right
um
let me let me say this
uh before someone would be found
incompetent by the court
he has the right to make some
presentation I believe
before the before the court so I I'm
prepared to have that
direct myself to the defense is there
any such presentation that should be
made to the court at this point
I'm aware that he is objecting but um
did you want to consult with him on that
I mean we spoke earlier he's
made it very clear he is not
the party here the birth certificate he
is and the DNA documents are we are
actually discussing
he is not agreeing to be The Surety for
these proceedings
um
I think based on Dr Williamson and the
case law
I don't think we have any further like
full presentation the case law makes it
pretty clear It ultimately resides with
you to make an independent funding of
whether or not he is confident or
incompetent to proceed
regardless of whether or not the parties
have stipulated to the report or
competency itself
but I think Dr Williamson's
recommendation even
in his limited ability to repeat the
case was just from just on on my narrow
question though and I'm thinking too
about the the record of the matter
is there any other presentation by the
defendant or on his behalf
that
should be that should be put before the
court I object I'm not the defendant I'm
accused is that I have a question is
that a maritime flag there behind you
your army okay
anything else Ms Roberts
and I have should reflect on the record
that Mr Silverman refused to answer my
question about the maritime flag and
that that appears to be a maritime flag
can I ask the clerk is this the maritime
venue in which we're in
a clerk
anything else Ms Roberts
Ms before I before I talk to the state
inquire the state my impression of uh Dr
Williamson's testimony here under oath
went further than his competency
evaluation did he was more qualified in
the written evaluation
given the limitations of his uh
assessment of the defendant
and he seemed he seemed to offer a a
more
conclusive opinion
as to the defendant's incompetence at
this point
so I'm but I I want to hear your
position your presence your any
presentation any that you would have on
this matter
when I've read his uh his report not his
not the letter but the report that
followed I felt that that was sufficient
on the issue of incompetency today he
talked about that he did considering
malingering as well but that he rolled
it out and still found that he that if
there's malingering it could be better
resolved at the Circle of Care whatever
the name of the facility is but that it
was still his opinion that the defendant
was incompetent and he did go through
all of the legal
steps that he's required to address
which I believed he did in his report as
well maybe not quite as directing to the
point and I think the only issue at this
point is whether the court finds the
defendant competitor incompetent I don't
think it's helpful for a defendant who
has already we're Dr Williamson has
found him to be incompetent with the
delusions of grandeur I don't think it
would be helpful to have him appear at
the podium in in uh
have a chance to represent his views to
the court I think the additional
outbursts that have occurred today uh
I'm sure I've are of record and that
that is sufficient in and of itself and
now we just ask that the court go ahead
and make a decision I am not asking for
a second opinion and I am adopting what
Dr Williamson has said both orally and
in writing
I might add that what Dr Williamson
didn't have there was a flurry of extra
documents that my office received both
through your honor and directly from the
defendant on still more documents in
um all of them in the same vein and same
uh word salad that Dr Williamson used
without logic and without a clear
understanding of the judicial process
first of all let me address that same
point
I would not put the competency
evaluation of Dr Williamson typically
into the the public record we're not
filing in the court file but in the
event that there is some later palette
review it can be produced any objective
by considering it in this uh for this
purpose in terms of competence
determining competence Jordan Roberts no
objection I think his testimony May
elaborated on many of the factors that
would have come out in an evaluation had
there been cooperation
let me just say one more thing yes ma'am
um at the last hearing where we were the
defendant had taken the fifth and left
Dr Williamson's office your honor had
made it clear in the hearing that if you
didn't he could be taken into custody
until he appeared for the evaluation and
then all of a sudden the defendant
himself made another appointment and did
go for the evaluation now I'm not sure
that that's the chronology
um
I was under the impression that he
appeared for an appointment uh arranged
by his his counsel is that not correct
Jordan Roberts there had been an order
out there to comply with the evaluation
that wasn't originally complied with so
he had a mandatory court appearance
where he was informed he will either
appear to the evaluation or potentially
face contempt of court charges he then
appeared for the evaluation
explained he was invoking his Fifth
Amendment rights which is outlined in
the evaluation by Dr Williamson
so my point was if your honor would uh
order restoration
your position is that he'd understand
that
if he understands that that could be he
could be held in content we can cross
that bridge when we come to it if we can
do it that's that's secondary to the uh
to the threshold determination of
competence uh
I'll tell you what I'm struggling around
with it was the same question that I
asked Dr Williamson
you have someone who
the effect of what they may be doing
would would be to frustrate on
enforcement and obstruct the judicial
process
the the
there is a
I called it to Dr Williamson a movement
of such persons doing that
and
we are perhaps more tolerant as a result
of the internet and other
other
um
cultural
acceptance of
Fringe
believes conspiracy theories other
and I am reluctant
to identify in some blanket fashion all
of the people in that movement
who who so so respond as incompetent
which in a manner which
would then tend to
immunize is not the correct word
but it creates a presumption
that or at least an inference
that in the future
they would not be competent
for to proceed in subsequent some
subsequent case
I don't feel I would now let me say this
Dr Williamson directly addressed
that contention
which I and
which I
Illustrated with the quote from
Through the Looking Glass
should I be concerned
that's my question
the council about that
see what proposition I believe that he
did address it and he did make a
distinction between all the other people
he had evaluated that had the same
Sovereign citizen claim but he also
but also but also your honor
but also your honor by going to the
Circle of Care they're going to have
more uh forensic and evaluations that
are open to them and if that be the case
then he will quickly be coming back out
and or if they believe that he has a
true delusion in in can participate in
restoration they'll we'll know from
further reports
should I be concerned Jordan Roberts I
Williamson kind of touched on he doesn't
apply kind of what they're doing to the
actual facts of the case from a legal
standpoint he's aware of the movement
and how this is
clearly distinct from some of the
filings that may happen in those cases I
think
I could clarify I I do think
that he's right that this is very
distinct from some of the other people
who are in fact claiming to be Sovereign
citizens just having reviewed
different potential defenses that have
been sent to me regarding
a lot of times it's a driving law
license suspended cases there's a
logical connection from driving
I have a constitutional right to travel
it may not be an appropriate legal
defense it may not be case law that's
actually binding or persuasive it may be
something that talks about driving but
it's some IRS tax code that they found
but it it always has some Nexus to they
can't tell me I wasn't free to driving
because this talks about driving or a
vehicle
there's there's a Nexus to what's going
on with them even if it does not apply
um
here I think many of the filings have
made it very clear there is no Nexus to
the ultimate charge of resisting and
whether or not
it's none of this is a defense to the
allegations that were outlined in the
arrest report I we received a filing
this week that a presumption that
the presumption of death has been
removed
I think it's very clear there's a
distinction between the filings in this
case
and how they may appear
sort of in The Sovereign citizen vein
but I I just don't think that's the
route that was taken here
the videos that are in this case and
multiple officers on scene
support a far worse Behavior than what
you've seen
in court or even through the documents
that the videos were horrible
um as to how he acted
um
and I'm not saying that that he's not
malingering you know it could be maybe
Circle of Care can do a malingering
evaluation as well as their restoration
treatment so you don't believe from your
evaluation that he's feigning this
myself personally your honor I do
believe that he's malingering you do I
do but
I'm not the the doctor that examined him
and I'm not a doctor and the doctor
considered that and he considered the
delusions in in his
uh professional opinion he believes that
he needs to go to the Circle of Care and
I believe that because of that I don't
think any conviction would withstand an
appeal if he's not afforded that
opportunity
let me put it in a
in a fashion that's designed not to
intrude upon any
attorney-client privilege
would it be accurate to say that
there's nothing about your interactions
with him or Europe's observations of his
behavior
that
would
um
detract
from the
validity of the opinions offered by Dr
Williamson
based on
available to
Dr Williamson or the court because they
are privileged Communications
um
I would not personally
hold the belief that there is a
false
representation in an attempt to just
paid paper the state to death into
dropping it I think that
firmly believes in emotions that are
being filed
I don't think it's an attempt to get out
of anything
I obviously Dr Williamson has reviewed
many of them I think knowing based on
further conversations I've been able to
have I don't think this really
mere attempt
to get out of
the case I think there are
I think this is just genuinely
I want to thank both Council for their
advocacy in this matter
and I'm
I'm I'll draw an order
uh
at this point uh I'd like to go ahead
and continue the uh
the competency for continue matter for
docket sounding and competence to
um 8 am
p on
March 14th
direct the defendant to appear in person
for that proceeding please put that in a
minute some mandatory appearance
and the
that is uh
justified by uh the
the factors that I uh put forth in Prior
orders including but not limited to
the
defendant writing the word rejected
across and noticed to appear that he had
been furnished and then
directing that back to the court
um
we'll have an answer by that point I
won't have an answer I expect by the
clue of business today I want to think
it over
furnish that paperwork to the defendant
take it under advisement I'll do the
order that's it for now
so let's go back to the list I know
we're running late but
it was unusual to have a uh such
testimony during the course of the
docket sounding
right so on to the March 14th hearing
about this time we hear more than just
the random objection from Ronald who is
still sat in the public Gallery this
time with his mother as well as his
girlfriend he doubles down on his
arguments but the judge puts him in his
place
oh
yeah
thank you
um
I still don't have an answer in Mr
Farnham
appears to be interfering with 5 billion
contracts this is supposed to be
speaking Yeah
thank you
and that this case should be dismissed
with prejudice
it's not that I
I represent to you it's not that I
haven't thought about it it's not that I
haven't researched what the criteria is
not that I haven't done that
okay
all right
and when's our next document sounding
for the side of the uh April 12th April
all right
I'm going to continue the case to April
12th
um
if I have an answer by then
I assure you
make it's a mandatory appearance for Mr
Farnham
all right well you're going to serve me
you'll have to mail me papers I don't
receive any service in court and I'm not
Mr horny
you'll have to mail any paperwork to me
yeah
that's good April 12th
9 A.M
no ma'am I would I would ask if you he
remained to take some papers
I just want to know yeah no ma'am he
should he should remain here to get the
paperwork no your honorable
that way
um we can bring up charges or recoil
charges for wire fraud and mail fraud
because this is getting ridiculous well
let me say this I caution you
sir I may be issuing a bench warrant if
you don't appear
let me ask you does this court deem me a
U.S citizen on this particular matter
yes or no
but let me say this
charges can be brought against somebody
whether they're a citizen or not
I just need to know the answer to that
question yes or no but I I correct me if
I'm wrong state or a defense I'm pleased
to hear you but my understanding is that
uh criminal charges in State Court can
be brought against a person whether they
are a citizen or whether they are an
officers and that's correct
cause accusations and that's correct and
the state is has the prerogative to
follow the charges and the state is not
dropping the charges you're going
through a process now excuse me
excuse me you were being going through a
process or competency
that's why you should be in good contact
with your attorney
I think one of the the beauties of our
system
is that judges don't really answer
questions
well then that's dishonorable how can
you be an honor if you won't accept an
offer well initially or directly
I mean that's honor
are you satisfying obligation that you
accept or conditionally accept that's
the definition of honor and you know
that so if you're not willingness
I just don't perceive it to be my
obligations or to respond further
there's the paperwork why don't you take
that thank you
and uh
you can say it's a public proceeding and
pleased to have you remain or you can be
on your way
[Music]