Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell

[Dr. Caligari]

If that were true, it would be a reliable defense strategy in any number of cases.

Lawyers almost never mount an insanity defense to any but the most serious felonies, because an "acquittal" on grounds of insanity results in incarceration that may be longer and harsher than many prison sentences.

[fortinbras]

I think we are all agreed that Modeleski NEEDS psychiatric care, and this is maybe the only way he will actually get any, however bureaucratic it may be.

[AndyK]

PAM (to me) seems to be a far-down-the-road sufferer of some form of mental ilness.

Perhaps if he had been diagnosed early enough, he could have been treated to the extent that he could have become functional.

Unfortunately, everyone who looked at him, his writing, and his behavior simply viewed him as a clown -- battling the universe to get compensation for his Internet-published magnum opus. No one realized, or took the time to see, that he was ill.

Untreated, some forms of mental illness become self-perpetuating. PAM seems (to me) to be a textbook case. His paranoia fed upon itself, finding enemies and conspirators under every rock, and grew to the point that he could only survive on Planet PAM.

Unfortunately, he ran afoul of the law and now must face a scenario with possible consequences.

In a rational universe, he doesn't deserve or belong in prison. He needs, and deserves, treatment, support, and housing. The likehood that he will ever be ab le to return to our planet seems to b e slim to none. That's still not a reason to cast him aside.

PAM, despite all his faults, is still a human being. As far as I know, he hasn't (outside of some of his inane law suits) harmed anyone. As a society, we have an obligation to care for the weak and sick amongst us.

PAM deserves care and treatment. He does not (now that we have realized he appears to be mentally ill) deserve scorn and abuse.

[wserra]

Time for a new thread on Mitch. The Wyoming criminal case against him has come to an end, in a manner that should surprise no one.

In late November, the psych staff at FMC Springfield wrote a letter to the Court, which is unfortunately sealed. We therefore do not know the details; we do, however, know the bottom line. The govt has moved to dismiss the indictment, and the Court has granted the motion. The reason is in the govt's application: Springfield reports that Mitch is not only incompetent, he is likely incurably incompetent. Since the govt declines to crank up the Sell apparatus - see my discussion here - it is a violation of due process to continue to hold him. Application made two days ago; indictment dismissed and Mitch released yesterday. The Court directed the USMS to provide Mitch with the necessary funds to get back to Seattle, where he was arrested.

How long will it take for Mitch to claim that he won?

[The Observer]

How long will it take for Mitch to claim that he won?

Before or after he claims that the determination that he was incompetent was the government's attempt to libel him and ruin his reputation in retribution for being a Private Attorney General?

[Judge Roy Bean]

It would seem our "system" has dumped yet another one back out into the streets to fend for himself.

[notorial dissent]

The govt has moved to dismiss the indictment, and the Court has granted the motion. ....... Springfield reports that Mitch is not only incompetent, he is likely incurably incompetent.

How long will it take for Mitch to claim that he won?

Thanks WES, exactly what i have been saying for months and being told, oh they'll get him doped up, cured, and try him anyway. So here we have it, PAM is certifiably crazy as a bed bug. I'm betting he is already working out his new mythology as we speak.

[LightinDarkness]

PAM is considered to be a preeminent scholar and brain trust in the sovcit world, so you can bet not only will this be hailed as a huge win but that more sovcits will try to copy PAM's gibberish.

The government is in a lose-lose situation here. PAM is mentally ill, certifiably so - while his gibberish has no merit, he can't actually be held accountable. But in simply dropping everything and releasing him, this will be another Rod Class style "victory" that will result in more gibberish paperwork burdens for courts as PAM's followers begin to mimic the gibberish in this case.

I'm not sure what the appropriate avenue is here except to PAM to seek treatment, but I guess the court can't do that.

[wserra]

I'm not sure what the appropriate avenue is here except to PAM to seek treatment, but I guess the court can't do that.

Not unless he's a danger to himself or others, and Springfield found that he wasn't.

[notorial dissent]

PAM really and seriously needs help, but he isn't likely to get if unless he has a major public episode, and he has been very careful to avoid those sort of situation for years. As it is, he will continue being a legend in his own mind and of little other public note.

[.]

So, if you're bonkers your best criminal outcome is to be incurably bonkers. You won't wind up not guilty by reason of insanity and locked up a la Hinckley -- you won't be tried at all -- the government will dismiss.

And then you get a bus ticket, no treatment or help, the end. That seems a bad outcome for everyone.

Not hard to imagine action(s) against his next fifty or hundred sorry-that-they-ever-crossed-his-path defendants if he goes back to AOL-mode. What would stop him?

Let him file away if he can get an actual lawyer to do so and put a license on the line. Other than that, federal and state courts might wind up wasting a lot of time dismissing junk pro se suits one at a time.

Shouldn't there be an order based on the psychiatric findings barring filing without prior court approval of any federal pro se lawsuit until he demonstrates his competence? If you are unlikely to ever be competent to understand the nature of criminal proceedings against you, how can you be competent to file a pro se civil lawsuit? Or is that too sweeping?

Seems that bogus pro se lawfare is his chosen means of warfare. Is a blanket bar beyond the power of a DC judge? Or can it only be done one district at a time?

In any case, it seems that the federal bar is too timid about this sort of stuff. Same way that they tell the average TP "We told you not to bring up this frivolous junk again, but we'll give you one more chance" and don't sanction. Then, the same guy does the same thing again and they whack him for 2K. Only after 4 or 5 bites at the apple do they get hit for 25K, if even then. Giant time-wasters. I would have thought that federal judges would prefer to spend their time (and their clerks' time) on things of more import, as imperious as they usually are.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So, if you're bonkers your best criminal outcome is to be incurably bonkers. You won't wind up not guilty by reason of insanity and locked up a la Hinckley -- you won't be tried at all -- the government will dismiss.

And then you get a bus ticket, no treatment or help, the end. That seems a bad outcome for everyone. ...

At least being found incompetent precludes being able to testify in any legal action. And if memory serves he cannot purchase a firearm.

[grixit]

So where does he go now? Does he still have a home in Seattle?

[AndyK]

Note:

The dismissal was "without prejudice."

Although he most certainly doesn't realize it, the sword is still dangling over his head.

On another (and totally cruel note); perhaps there should be established a rest home for the totally, incurably incompetent. The first two guests could be PAM and David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would add Pete Hendrickson to the list.

[.]

Although he most certainly doesn't realize it, the sword is still dangling over his head.

On another (and totally cruel note); perhaps there should be established a rest home for the totally, incurably incompetent. The first two guests could be PAM and David Merrill.

Wherever he winds up, he'll likely continue blathering the same old stuff at his earliest possible opportunity. That's not likely to convince anyone that he's suddenly become competent to stand trial. Does anyone seriously think that he'll ever renounce what he's said or done or his self-appointed "status" as a Private Attorney General? I rate the chance of his being reindicted as zero.

As for rest homes, a few days ago I had the very same (twisted) thought. All of these sad old TP gurus brought to mind that there are rest homes for old actors and actresses who are down on their luck, etc. Irwin and Ed and Elaine could all be charter members of a failed TP-guru rest home, but they're all likely to die in prison.

But, even if they were all out on the street TPs are way too cheap to finance any such thing, they can't even pay their frivolous filing penalties, never mind the sanctions for frivolously appealing them. Not to mention that if PAM and DMVP and Irwin and Ed and Elaine and PH were all in the same room for bingo night, there would probably be fights over words in the IRC requiring a call to the local police.

The closest thing seems to be the federal prison system. Three hots and a cot, but with less than optimal co-residents.

[fortinbras]

Perhaps someone who knows the system can explain, but the recent comments here suggest that, since PAM is too nuts to stand trial, he's going to be turned loose to wander the streets. I had thought that the psych determination would result in his being confined to a laughing academy. Which is correct?

[Dr. Caligari]

I had thought that the psych determination would result in his being confined to a laughing academy. Which is correct?

Had he been found competent to stand trial, but then found not guilty by reason of insanity, he would have been locked up in a mental hospital.

Had he been found incompetent to stand trial but curable, he would have been locked up in a mental hospital until he became competent, and then tried.

But he was found incurably incompetent to stand trial, so he is being released. (Had he been found incurably incompetent to stand trial but also dangerous to himself or others, he could have been civilly committed to a mental hospital, but they did not find him dangerous, only incompetent.)

[KickahaOta]

Note:

The dismissal was "without prejudice."

Although he most certainly doesn't realize it, the sword is still dangling over his head.

Does anyone know the statute of limitations for the underlying crime(s)? Saying that a dismissal is "without prejudice" is meaningless if the limitations period has expired in the meantime.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Note:

The dismissal was "without prejudice."

Although he most certainly doesn't realize it, the sword is still dangling over his head.

Does anyone know the statute of limitations for the underlying crime(s)? Saying that a dismissal is "without prejudice" is meaningless if the limitations period has expired in the meantime.

Federal crimes range from 5 to 10 years. There is no limit for a cases involving terrorism or sex crimes involving children.