Greetings & Good hello. Today I want to talk a little about hobbling, silencing, the weaponization of court procedure, and how the mechanics of the clear court record – as defended by the officers of the court and their presiding custodian, serve to propagate the myth of a functioning, fair, robust system to the point of confusing even other officers of the court. That is, so effective is the veil of deception that even the court itself believes its own delusion, much in the way an alcoholic or other drug addict is often quite blind to their own addiction. It is to the discredit of the court and a disservice to the society the court serves that such tremendous effort is marshaled to engender and sustain this judicial anosognosia. Even questioning the functioning of the court appears grounds for findings of contempt or ideological reconditioning via psychiatric interventions attached to the mechanics of mental defect.
With such severe threats in place, it is downright dangerous for a defendant to speak directly to the court – instead, a defendant may only safely speak “by and through” counsel, where counsel is an appropriately vetted member of the fraternity dedicated to the protection of the court’s delusion. Counsel, which is specifically incentivized to maintain submissive relations with each courtroom, is therefore unlikely to take any action which might challenge or expose the failings of the institution. Although such counsel exists, it is not the norm – and this can be documented, albeit not from within custody.
The lack of effective access to information and modern research tools is a remarkable condition which is maintained through the tools suggested above. Using the internet, assembling a quick precis of actors – professional counsel – antagonistic to the status quo, would take no more than an afternoon. In fact, I can recall listening to two such presentations via “podcasts” while warehoused at a facility which granted limited access to selected media. I recall a TED talk and, I think, a segment of an NPR radio broadcast – both describing legal organizations taking on the collapsed status quo, and both coping with a system that appeared ignorant of its own illness. As I have since been moved, for unknown reasons, to a facility lacking any such access, I can no longer look up the details of these two programs.
Moreover, my ability to interact with even the evidence of my own case is severely limited by indirect conditions of detention. For example, in my case I seek to track down an attorney I communicated with, briefly, almost 3 1/2 years ago. I do not recall her name. I believe I have emails in my cloud account, and I recall the city of her practice and several other facts about her career. With internet access I could make quick work of gathering the information I need. However, after 9 months of detention and one change of counsel I am still in the position of working to motivate my counsel as to the potential strategic relevance of this piece of hypothetical information relative to the pragmatic value of simply pleading guilty. In other words, by hobbling my access to information resources which typify the modern age, the detention system has effectively taken a small issue of my saying “here, counsel, this is what I mean” and turned it into a nine month battle of abstract hypotheticals because of the cost of overcoming the detention obstacle. This is a bitter pill to swallow given the extent of the lies and deception upon which the detention argument was built in the first place.
The reality of hobbling and silencing is hidden from view by virtue of the fact that, by the great benevolence of our courts, a defendant is never without representation. Thus, in the public facade, the defendant is always championed by a dedicated specialist fighting the cause of the defendant – therefore, by definition, overcoming any supposed hobbling and, by definition, giving voice to the defendant. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the court record, which clearly captures the voice of the defendant, speaking “by and through” counsel. The fact that the defendant may be diametrically opposed or wholly unaware of what they are saying “by and through” counsel is hidden because the actual voice of the defendant is silenced under severe psychological and procedural duress.
The extent of the court’s self delusion on this matter was driven home to me when I wrote a pencil letter to the clerk of the local court asking for any assistance or materials for filing a Title 42 Section 1983 lawsuit against my facility. I wrote that letter because the clerk of the court was the only address I could think of off the top of my head, since I have no access to any other information resources and since the issues of my detention are, strictly speaking, out of scope for my court appointed criminal representation – they are civil law matters. The clerk responded, correctly, by pointing out that they could not assist directly in the filing of lawsuits but did provide me with an address of a prisoner legal services group. Bingo! This is the two-week pencil-and-post guesswork equivalent of a 21st century internet search.
The clerk also suggested I look through the nccourts.gov website for many additional resources. I wound up writing the clerk back, just to let them know, because apparently they did not, that detainees did not have internet access.
The fact that the clerk of the court did not realize that inmates lacked internet access speaks volumes as to the severity of the delusion maintained by the court about the reality of its actions. It is in this light that we must understand the court’s “weaponization of procedure”. The court weaponizes procedure in the way a smoker takes another drag, an alcoholic orders another drink, or a junkie pursues another fix – they are in the grip of a self-destructive habit that hides the damage from themselves, often too embarrassed or otherwise simply incapable of breaking out of the deadly spiral.
Using my case as a typical example, I, against my will and wishes and without my direct knowledge and consent, spoke to the court “by and through counsel” to request delays in my arraignment. Apparently I did so in order to give the government time – a total of 6 months, to prepare a plea offer. During this time no effort was made to secure evidence in my defense, and I was, as I was hobbled and silenced, unable to do a damn thing about it – despite my efforts. When I did speak out, “around” counsel, I was found by the court, “sua sponte”, to be at risk of a mental defect because I did not play by the rules – and my counsel had no option but to quit. My new counsel saved me from psychiatric re-education, but at 9 months he made it clear that the court needed me to either plead guilty or risk a trial. Risking a trial would more than triple the sentence – and, if I did not plead guilty, the court, having “granted” me 9 months of delay, needed to “wrap things up”. I still had not gathered a single piece of evidence nor had a single discussion about my defense – in 9 months, I had dealt only with court procedure, hobbling, and silencing. No facts of my case had been discussed – at all.
At this late stage in the game, the chance that I will be able to mount any kind of defense at all is frightfully slim. Key and critical factors that should have gone into the sculpting of the original plea offer were never even on the table. Should I bring this to the court’s attention I risk psychiatric reconditioning and political re-education simply for having embarrassed the institution. The court is pressing upon myself and current counsel to simply “accept the plea” on the table so it can clear a case of the books. There is no consideration at all to the facts of the matter, the weight of the punishment given the events, or the behavior of the court and the institutions supporting it in getting to this point – none. The machine is blind, and in its blindness it denigrates and mocks the system of justice it purports to implement. The united states federal court system is a source of grand shame for our society, and I am certain that I have only begun to scratch the surface of the fetid decay of this essential branch of our failing state.
So what can be done? Sadly, the decay is so pervasive that there are no simple solutions – we are suffering the results of deep, long-running commitments to poor social practice. The American de-valuation of education, for example, as resulted in a labor force of tremendously stupid law enforcement officers who fail, at every step, to operate detention facilities. Our underserved self-love of our institutions has left us hobbled with a blinding and unsustainable pride that infects our judiciary – they simply cannot bear to accept that they are not as godly and faultless as their army of sycophants leads them to believe. But perhaps therein lies the key, as with any addiction – or any unpleasant or inconvenient truth – the first step is admitting you have a problem.
Eric Charles Welton
Prisoner #94911
Columbus County Detention Center
February 24, 2024