Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell

[Gregg]

IANAL but it seems like trying to get the local County Solicitor to read this history might be a start. I'm also a bit out of time on following him, but I think he just might have some kind of restraining order or vexatious litigant ruling that prevents him from filing cases without leave, which would probably only apply in the jurisdiction where it happened, but at least would provide some background to head him off before he gets too crazy around you.

[YiamCross]

I think this must be the same guy. An amusing tale from some internet archivist he tried to sue for $2 billion, worth a few minutes of your time I'm sure. https://youtu.be/KSWqx8goqSY

[notorial dissent]

Oh yeahs, that's good ole PAMy. He used to sue for bazillions at the drop of a hat, for some reason he had a fixation on $2B for some reason, until he got well and truly bounced from the courts a good number of years ago and told to NOT NEVER EVER darken their doors without a real lawyer filing for him. side note, PAMy doesn't like real lawyers and won't talk to them, even when they help keep him out of Federal Prison.

[fortinbras]

The last info I have on Modeleski/P.A.M. is from January 2015, when he was cut loose from a criminal case because of psych incompetence.

Does anyone have any more-recent news about Modeleski -- where is he, what's he up to, has he gotten into/made trouble since Jan. 2015, etc. ???

[notorial dissent]

Pretty much what I've heard. He tried really really hard to talk himself in to a prison sentence for conspiring with the real criminal in the matter, and the mean old illegal unoathed judge and the psychiatrist/psychologist said he wasn't competent to be charged or stand trial, essentially too delusional/out of touch with reality. So he got cut loose from the case despite his best efforts to get to go to jail. I can't personally imagine that went down very well with him, but pretty much crickets ever since.

[fortinbras]

It would be out of character for Modeleski to stay out of trouble for such a long time (nearly 4 years), so I'd like to know what's been happening with/to him since January 2015. Does anyone know??

[Gregg]

I don't know why but I thought he had assumed ambient temperature.

[norrha]

The last info I have on Modeleski/P.A.M. is from January 2015, when he was cut loose from a criminal case because of psych incompetence.

Being ruled mentally incompetent is just court slang for "we failed to obtain jurisdiction", either to his actually being a total nutter or didn't consent to the court's jurisdiction. Makes total sense when you think about it: when a man fails to act as a "person before the law", or pay reverence to those laws, he's viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws. It really is nothing more than hackneyed conceit on the part of that society.

[fortinbras]

The most recent info I have on Modeleski is from December 2017, describing him as having brought another lawsuit against a rural Oregon tax official.

https://www.nrtoday.com/news/governmen ... fd72.html

It would seem that progress in that case, or his demise, should have brought subsequent news but no more recent articles have been posted on the Internet.

[Famspear]

Being ruled mentally incompetent is just court slang for "we failed to obtain jurisdiction", either to his actually being a total nutter or didn't consent to the court's jurisdiction. Makes total sense when you think about it: when a man fails to act as a "person before the law", or pay reverence to those laws, he's viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws. It really is nothing more than hackneyed conceit on the part of that society.

It's not a question of whether the Court has jurisdiction, and it's not a matter of conceit -- hackneyed or otherwise -- on the part of society.

It's also not a question of whether the defendant in a criminal case (1) fails to "act" as a "person before the law" or (2) fails to "pay reverence to those laws" or (3) fails to "consent" to the Court's jurisdiction. None of those three categories of conduct will, in and of themselves, relieve a defendant from the burden of a charge, a trial, a conviction, a sentence, and a prison term. None of those things, in and of themselves, necessarily result in a ruling that the defendant is mentally incompetent -- either at the time of the offense or at the time of trial.

[BBFlatt]

I don't know why but I thought he had assumed ambient temperature.

I was thinking the same thing, but I may have been confusing him with David Wynn Miller, who is rumored but not yet confirmed, deceased.

[Famspear]

First, we consider the issue of the laws in the United States on insanity or incompetence at the time of the alleged offense. The precise wording of the law on the insanity defense may vary from state to state. The M’Naghten rule (the “right-wrong” test) for insanity of a defendant may be summarized as follows: The defendant “cannot be convicted if, at the time he committed the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, as not to know he was doing what was wrong.” Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, sec. 4.1(a), page 304, West Publishing Co. (Second Edition, 1986).

Some states have had laws that provide that insanity is a defense “when the defendant had a mental disease which kept him from controlling his conduct.” Id.

Some states have had a law such that “the defendant is not responsible if at the time of his conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Id.

Again, in the United States, check the law of your state for the applicable precise definition.

Next, we consider insanity or mental incompetence under the same laws, as applied during the legal process:

(1) to determine who is incompetent to stand trial;

(2) to determine who is incompetent to submit to execution;

(3) to determine who is to be committed following a successful insanity defense; or

(4) to determine who is ineligible for release following such commitment.

--Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, sec. 4.1(a), page 304, West Publishing Co. (Second Edition, 1986) (footnotes omitted).

Again, the mere fact that a defendant (1) fails to "act" as a "person before the law" or (2) fails to "pay reverence to those laws" or (3) fails to "consent" to the Court's jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the Court will conclude that the defendant meets the applicable definition of insanity or mental incompetence.

[fortinbras]

Competence to stand trial (or to be one's own advocate) is different from the standard for insanity (either M'Naughton or Durham). Competence to stand trial requires sufficient memory and awareness (and stamina) to arrange or assist one's lawyer in arranging a defense. For example, someone seriously alzheimered cannot remember the facts nor have the attention span to assist his lawyer notwithstanding that, at every moment, he knows the difference between right and wrong and has sufficient self-control to do right; so that person is not competent to stand trial altho he would be considered sane.

At one point the courts regarded anyone capable of sufficient mental clarity and stamina to be competent to assist an attorney to be also be, by the same token, sufficiently competent to handle his own case pro se. I am sure almost everyone will doubt the truth of that assumption. But there is yet no formula to indicate to judges how much difference exists or ought to exist between the competence level to be pro se and the level to assist a lawyer.

[.]

From the linked article, PAM would have us believe that he is broke and getting broker. Which might be true. Which might tend to send him further around the bend. If that's possible.

As for whether he could effectively assist his lawyer or act in a pro se capacity in a future case, I could only guess based on his previously dismissed case due to his psych incompetence. Odds are probably not good.

But, as we all know, he being the marvelous, omnipotent Private Attorney General and fabulous, unsurpassed and mighty legal scholar and litigant (although held to be vexatious by some court, I forget which one) that his mind whispers about to him, he'll always prefer pro se.

What could possibly go wrong?

[norrha]

Notice how Famspear did not actually refute any of my statements. He merely posited facts under which the court might rule a defendant incompetent to stand trial, or argue insanity defense. He did not prove those facts exhaustive. He has essentially proven that A implies B, A being those facts, and B the court's action mentioned above. He has yet to prove that B implies A though.

Is Famspear employing the device 'affirming the consequent'?

[notorial dissent]

The last info I have on Modeleski/P.A.M. is from January 2015, when he was cut loose from a criminal case because of psych incompetence.

Being ruled mentally incompetent is just court slang for "we failed to obtain jurisdiction", either to his actually being a total nutter or didn't consent to the court's jurisdiction. Makes total sense when you think about it: when a man fails to act as a "person before the law", or pay reverence to those laws, he's viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws. It really is nothing more than hackneyed conceit on the part of that society.

The fact that the court DID rule that PAM was bonkers mentally incompetent showed they did have jurisdiction. If you're in the court they probably have jurisdiction over you, and if you were in jail, which PAM was, prior to their appearance, jurisdiction it is pretty much guaranteed.

Jurisdiction means that a particular court has the authority/power/status to hear a particular matter. A dog pound judge has NO authority to hear mortgage cases, a parking/traffic court cannot try a murder case, a Federal District Court has the authority to Federal fraud charges, which is what this was all about, and as such it had the authority to determine if someone was competent to stand trial. That's called JURISDICTION.

[wserra]

Is Famspear employing the device 'affirming the consequent'?

Nope. He probably just felt that your babble didn't require detailed analysis.

At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.

Emphasis supplied.

There's the standard. Nothing about jurisdiction. Nothing about consent. Nothing about paying reverence. Nothing about hackneyed conceit.

[Famspear]

Notice how Famspear did not actually refute any of my statements. He merely posited facts under which the court might rule a defendant incompetent to stand trial, or argue insanity defense. He did not prove those facts exhaustive. He has essentially proven that A implies B, A being those facts, and B the court's action mentioned above. He has yet to prove that B implies A though.

Is Famspear employing the device 'affirming the consequent'?

Well, yes, I refuted your statements.

No, I didn't "posit facts under which the court might rule a defendant incompetent." In "fact," I didn't posit much in the way of "facts" at all. I didn't need to do that.

You're confused about what I wrote, and in particular you're confused about the concepts of "facts" and "proof" -- and about how things work in American law.

In jurisprudence, we have what are called questions of fact and questions of law.

An example of a question of fact is: "On December 1, 2018, did John Smith make a mark on this document with present intent to authenticate that document?"

An example of a question of law is: "Assuming that the answer to the prior question is 'yes', does John's mark constitute a signature as defined in the law?" [EDIT: See below.]

I didn't "posit facts", because I don't need to "posit facts" (in the sense that I believe you're thinking). In explaining what the law is, a person does not need to "prove" any "facts."

You were incorrect about what the law is. I refuted your statements by explaining what the law is. That's my job.

EDIT: A more precise formulation of the example of the legal question I presented might be: "Under the applicable law, does the making of a mark with present intent to authenticate a document constitute the making of a signature?".

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] Is Famspear employing the device 'affirming the consequent'?

The short answer to your question is no.

It sounds as though you have read some stuff somewhere on the rules of logic, including stuff about fallacies in logical arguments. Here's what I suggest you consider doing.

If you haven't already done so, get admitted to an accredited college or university, enroll there, study for four years, and obtain at least a bachelor's-level degree -- in something. Then, if you have not already done so, take the Law School Admission Test and apply for admission to an accredited law school. Get accepted, and enroll in a law school, preferably one accredited by the American Bar Association (or, if you're in California, at least one accredited by the state of California). Be sure that the law school you attend offers a course with a title such as "Logic of Legal Discourse." Not all law schools offer it. Take that course, and work hard and earn an "A" in that course. If you can find such a course, you may learn about how different forms of logical arguments are used in legal analysis. You may learn about fallacies in legal logic. Be advised that law school is not generally like college. Study hard for three years, reading thousands of texts of actual court decisions and statutes. Study constitutional law, contracts, torts, property, criminal law, legal research, civil procedure, evidence, and many other legal subjects. Finish your law school courses, and earn and receive the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence.

Sit for the bar exam in at least one jurisdiction, pass the bar examination, and obtain a license as an attorney and counselor at law.

Then, you should be able to pontificate -- using questions that show you actually know something.

[norrha]

Step one: look up 'appeal to authority'.
Step two: read Famspear's last posting.

Nope. He probably just felt that your babble didn't require detailed analysis.

Yet somehow Famspear felt the need to write extensively about this "babble".

At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.

Emphasis mine!

a person or group against whom a criminal or civil action is brought

, emphasis mine.

one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

to accept as settled

Oh and by the way, law is just a set of inference rules, WHICH ARE FACTS.

Yawn, this is getting way too easy!