Greetings & Good Hello. Two days ago saw an unfortunate meeting with my attorney, although one that began with a taste of good news. The good news is that the prosecution is open to a potential recommendation of probation, which may pave the way for a return home. Everything went downhill from there – and it went downhill in tedious, predictable ways that leave me wondering if I need to find new counsel. Thus, three weeks before my arraignment, I find myself planning to draft a “motion to remove counsel” and have that at my fingertips if I need it. Of course, in so doing it would be nice to have my previous “motion to remove counsel” and my follow on “Motion for appropriate relief” available for reference – however, those are currently in the midst of a second, tedious, and equally predictable battle with the Columbus County Sheriff – one, I might add, which could be avoided if my attorney was not an obstructionist clown. The second battle is required to open the flow of mail in support of my defense, which is generally not a problem if that mail is sent by your attorney.
To jump to the end of the story next, my current counsel just seems committed to the core principle that I produced a “disproportionate response to junk mail” and refuses to frame events in any other light. While I understand this argument, for it is the prosecution’s argument, what I do not accept is the inability and unwillingness to articulate specifics about that argument, such as (a) what was the specific harm done, (b) what were the specific events/junk mail in question and when did it occur, (c) why do the various law enforcement agencies bear no responsibility for failing to respond to my requests for assistance? When I asked about (a) and (b) I get vague answers like “the threats” and “the mails” – but I can not get deeper than that. For (c) I get actual sighs of exasperation as if I am being unreasonable. In fact, that phrase comes up in an almost pleading tone – my attorney pleads with me to just accept that I am being unreasonable in my claims. I do not know why, but this “master of argument” seems to have nothing better to offer beyond a mewling need to beg me to accept my guilt. Prior counsel tried to strong-arm it down my throat. Neither one can even outline my basic argument, which I believe is important – if not for defense, then for sentencing mitigation.
Thus, my non-counsel defense network and I continue to plow ahead. My attorney is focused on trying to force me into a plea, ideally guilty, on the 10 of April, or at least a tentative agreement to enter a guilty plea via agreement in May. If either of those happens, my sentence will be declared in July or August and it will be a wrap. The weapon my attorney wields is his ability to block information from me, just like the court has blocked my access to legal resources by moving me to Columbus County. Now, to be clear, technically, because I can touch the law library for a few minutes a week, I “have access” and therefore the court has not deprived me of anything, but realistically I cannot use the law library in any meaningful way – so the court, via the weaponized procedure, wins. Likewise, my attorney argues that the information I want would not influence him if he were to make a decision about a plea, therefore, I do not need it. In this way, since he is a legal expert and I am not, his ideas about how I should make my decisions govern what information I can have. In this way, the court and my own defense counsel can put pressure on me to “wrap this up” by simply accepting a guilty plea. Perhaps this is what also drives counsel to plead or strong-arm me into “a belief in my inherent guilt”.
Thankfully, with the assistance of my non-counsel defense network, we continue to build my case – in preparation for either a trial or sentencing mitigation regardless of the antics and antagonism of the court and defense counsel. Thankfully, as well, I can use the 21 hours a day or solitary punishment to wage war against the “unintentionally illegal” actions of the Columbus County Detention Center. I say unintentionally illegal because I do not believe the actions of the Columbus County Sheriff’s Office are malicious – I just think that they do not understand the law very well. This is a very rural, very small town, southern “slave state” country. I kid you not, the town is called “Whiteville” – and while there are many black sergeants, the town is not named after picket fences. These local yokels simply lack common sense, have poor education, and are flummoxed trying to run this very, very small facility. The two dozen federal prisoners warehoused here confuse them greatly – and perhaps that should be a topic for a humor post. For example, a few weeks ago, upon receiving a thick bundle of mail, the “Lieutenant” 1st Sgt Jenkins, not knowing how to deliver it, simply put it in my property bin and forgot to tell anyone about it. Expecting this kind of behavior, we sent the mail as certified mail, so we know it arrived at 16:00 on the 4th of March. The facility “lost” it for over 2 weeks, but eventually a dozen stories came forth – the most probably one being the one just related. This is what I mean by “unintentionally illegal”, the “Lieutenant” 1st Sgt Jenkins just didn’t know any better, and faced with complexity, took the easy way out – which was – unfortunately, illegal. These folks are as sharp as river-washed boulders.
The Columbus County brain trust does know how to deliver mail from registered case attorneys – which brings us back to how easy this could be if my defense counsel actually served as a fiduciary agent. Since my defense counsel, like most attorneys, uses restriction of information to manipulate their clients, having a strong non-counsel defense network providing information is not in their interest. Although the attorneys will not admit it, their actions place them firmly on the side of the jails – who also seek to limit prisoner rights. The reason jails do this was explained to me by one staff member as follows: “If you don’t like how you’re treated, stop committing crimes.” I wrote back something about being pre-trial, thus pre-conviction, but this does not matter since, in federal court, arrest = conviction!
Unfortunately, I do not think I will win the mail war in time. I have reached out to a half dozen agencies at the state and federal level and am initiating a lawsuit (pro-se) under Title 42 section 1983, even though the facility is blocking access to legal resources. I may again attempt to stall my case on the 10th of April, pending resolution of this issue and/or file my motion to remove counsel – however, doing so is not without severe risk of triggering a trip to the medical campus for political reprogramming. Not joking – rules 4241-4246 were narrowly avoided in Dec/Jan because of just this move, and a second attempt could very well result in a 1-2 year trip to FMC Butner, or life imprisonment with a chemical lobotomy for not “playing by the rules”. This is another risk of not accepting the federal arrest = conviction idea. So let’s look at the stand off…
Since July I have had two primary motivating factors: (a) to find a path home, and (b) to ensure a clear and accurate public record. This is substantially different than almost all other defendants, which causes a problem for my attorney – and for the system as a whole. The system assumes that all rational people objectively want the same thing, therefore, defense counsel necessarily automatically knows the defendant’s best interests. According to the court it is not possible for me to have the above priorities, and, even if it were it would be a sign of mental defect insofar as those were not the “objectively known” priorities pursued by defense counsel. Defense counsel has not been able to articulate my priorities to me, I just have to trust that he subjectively knows what these objective, unspeakable, priorities are – and that he (and prior, and future counsel) pursue them without fail. The extent to which this view is supported by the court is unbelievable, since my commitment to (b), truth above verdict, was, literally, taken as grounds for mental instability requiring ideological reprogramming under rules 4241-4246 in Dec-Jan. My support and respect for current counsel stems from him saving me from that fate, and arguing that someone’s commitment to accuracy of record above technical guilt or innocence could potentially be considered a sign of integrity rather than insanity. This put him at odds with 2/3rds of the officers of the court present that day. Yet, despite that early synergy, we still can not connect on my key priorities – after three months.
In order to find a path home, I need to coordinate with my government’s immigration. My government, being the one that has protected me and my family supported our social needs, including health care and consular services, and to whom it is my honor duty, and privilege to pay taxes, requires me to hold a visa while I am in country and has set forth conditions for the award and maintenance of that visa. It is incumbent upon me, as I have stated consistently since July, to evaluate the outcome of any plea agreement in terms of the conditions imposed by my government. In order to understand the effect of various outcomes, I reached out to an immigration attorney, and am in the process of reaching out directly to the immigration ministry. I believe there is a narrow path that may be satisfactory to both the prosecution and to my government, one which will allow me to return home and will not result in an effective death sentence. My defense counsel often does not believe such outreach is relevant. I say often because defense counsel is highly equivocal – his opinion changes rapidly and cyclically.
When it comes to the matter of establishing a clear and accurate public court record, my current counsel is unequivocal – that has no bearing on my defense and is not his concern, therefore I can receive no procedural guidance from him regarding how I can clean up errors in the record such as those created by AUSA Greg Radics in my May 30th detention hearing. However, should I enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, I accept that record as fact and waive my right to dispute it. Moreover, the Bar association prohibits other attorneys from providing legal advice while I have representation on a a criminal case, so my only option for procedural information is the law library, which has been blocked by the USMS via moving me to Columbus County Detention Center.
Yet another element in this drama comes from one of the boilerplate paragraphs of the plea agreement, which blocks my investigation of circumstances, such as those surrounding my passport problems, should I plead via plea agreement. Toward this end a drama, again begun in July, continues to unfold. In July I attempted to obtain my surrendered passport via my ethically-challenged attorney, Christian Dysart. Dysart simply lied to me about his attempts to get it from the prosecutor – stating I was requesting it for “sentimental reasons”. Dysart continued to lie. No efforts were made and the passport was destroyed. The passport directly refutes many of the errors made by AUSA Greg Radics. Current counsel has had better luck, but current counsel is focused on “obtaining the passport” and refuses to (a) obtain a digital scan of passport or (b) obtain evidence of the events leading to its seizure – e.g. when was it revoked or cancelled, or were other actions taken? If so, what were those actions?
My current counsel refuses to assist me in uncovering details about my passport beyond the thread he dug up – he humored me enough, it is gone – end of story. The fact that the information I seek helps me to clear the record and to work with my government are irrelevant to him. My interest in these issues is a sign of mental defect requiring political re-education in the eyes of the court. Meanwhile, my non-counsel defense network is fighting to get me the same answers. They are proving much faster and more resourceful, but are hampered by the Columbus County mail blockade – which again, is supported, ultimately, by defense counsel. Thus, while I want to dot my I’s and cross my T’s before signing a plea deal or committing to a course of irrevocable action in a court of law, it is primarily my defense counsel that stands in opposition.
To make things even worse, most discussions with my defense counsel are like the Ministry of Arguments from Monty Python, where my attorney just disagrees with anything and everything I say – as a matter of course. This is why I say his positions are often equivocal. For example, if I lead with a position that it is important for me to know what immigration will say, he will take the opposite stance, so if that is the position I want him to hold I have to assert the opposite to get him to commit, then I have to flip. This is very, very tedious when trying to have a productive conversation – it is like talking to an angry little child, not a 62 year old man. A great deal of this behavior seems to come from the insecurity of dealing with international issues, and so it devolves into rote argumentation. This is still better than my first attorney, who was far less engaging and substantially more childlike.
So that’s the stand-off. I have a highly adversarial attorney who just wants me to accept my inevitable guilt (in federal court, everyone is guilty, always, arrest = conviction) and who just wants to argue with everything. My mail is blocked off illegally and I am blocked from accessing legal resources that give me insight into procedure. My defense counsel refuses to honor my priorities because he has absolutely no obligation to do so. He is trying, along with the court, to press me into a plea – and I am fighting, not to avoid the plea, but to make sure all the groundwork is done correctly. My defense counsel is my primary obstacle and our once a week phone calls are increasingly worthless. I desperately need a legal fiduciary – someone to assist me in understanding legal procedure, my legal options, and to help me prepare my defense.
Let us get one thing clear here – I am not saying my defense attorney is doing a bad job; I am not saying that at all. My defense attorney is doing an excellent job at what he is supposed to do. Defense counsel is not a fiduciary role. Defendants to not have a voice in the criminal justice system. I was mistaken believing we did – we do not. Defendants do not matter, they have no place in the American system. In federal court, there are only officers of the court and the guilty.
Eric Charles Welton
Prisoner #94911
Columbus County Detention Center
March 23, 2024