1
1
1
"Dr. Kleinman's reports and testimony allege that Ms. Lindauer is incompetent to assist properly in her own defense in part because of her allegedly "false fixed belief" in her innocence, her allegedly "false fixed belief" that she acted as a long-time Asset for the U.S. Government, and her allegedly "false fixed belief" that a jury of her peers would find her not guilty. In short, Dr. Kleinman expressed his opinion that Ms. Lindauer is incompetent because she has pleaded 'Not Guilty' to the charges." (Emphasis mine) Motion, p. 3
Lindauer maintains her innocence. She asks for a trial to prove that she was an intelligence asset who worked for the United States of America for nine years. Then the judge says in effect:
Oh, you're pleading innocent. Sorry, but we can't allow you a trial, since your claim of innocence indicates that you're not legally "competent to stand trial."
In order to maintain this position, both Judge Preska and Dr. Kleinman, M.D. must know that Lindauer will be found guilty of the charges. But, of course, that can't be the case. Yet both maintain that Lindauer should have no trial because she pled "Not Guilty" and planned an affirmative "Public-Authority Defense," as per Rule 12.3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure..
The details of the decision and motion to reconsider are well worth reviewing and can be found in the attachments from the court record.
As to the fundamental argument that Lindauer is not able to assist in her own defense, the attached Declaration by Susan Lindauer, filed with the motion, is perhaps the best evidence of all. In this sworn declaration, Lindauer skillfully and coherently dissects the prosecution case, the ruling, and demolishes the notion that she's unable to assist in her own defense. Her closing argument in the declaration summarizes her defense and explains why she's so adamant in seeking a trial.
"The Defense advises the Court that psychiatrists lack the expertise in intelligence matters that would be necessary to evaluate whether my operations were effective or not. I have been indicted for establishing high ranking contacts inside the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations, and that I stand accused of conducting preliminary talks with Iraqi officials on the return of the weapons inspectors. Whatever Dr. Kleinman thinks of my approach, the facts of the case show that it most definitely did enable me to establish high ranking contacts with various Middle Eastern diplomats at the United Nations." Declaration by Susan Lindauer, Sept. 30, 2008
Before his formally concluding request that Lindauer be found "competent" and before asserting Lindauer's right to a "Speedy Trial," defense counsel Shaughnessy states:
"A good indication that Ms. Lindauer is competent to assist properly in her own defense is that Ms. Lindauer herself prepared much of the attached Declaration of Susan Lindauer and wrote substantial portions of this Motion for Reconsideration. Although Ms. Lindauer certainly is an exasperating client with whom to work, she is certainly "competent" by any and all standards."
Something Is Very Wrong with This Ruling
What does the government fear from a trial? Could it be the witnesses and their testimony that there was adequate prewar intelligence regarding Iraq? We've been led to believe otherwise in the usual display of obfuscation by the White House. Would another side to the story, based on evidence examined in open court, be a threat to someone?
On September 11, 2008, both the defense counsel and the new assistant U.S. attorney waived the in-court testimony to be offered by prosecution psychiatrist Stewart Kleinman, M.D. at a planned hearing on Sept.15, 2008. They left, assuming that this would be accepted by the judge.
But Judge Preska surprised both by proceeding with the hearing on the 15th with Kleinman testifying in open court. Preska must have surprised them even more when, at the end of Kleinman's testimony, she read her already-written decision on Lindauer's competence from a teleprompter-like computer screen at the judge's bench.
The previous judge on the case, former Chief Judge of the District Court and current U.S. Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, took four months to review the evidence before ruling on Lindauer's competence and the prosecutor's motion for forced medication. What motivated Judge Preska to write her decision on Lindauer's competence before Preska had even heard Kleinman's testimony and defense counsel Shaughnessy's cross examination of Kleinman? (Mr. Kafka, would you please respond to the question?)
Yet, as though Judge Loretta Preska had "psychic powers" to anticipate the testimony of Dr. Kleinman and defense counsel Shaughnessy's cross examination, Preska delivered a prepared opinion immediately after Kleinman's last words of testimony at the Lindauer's competency hearing.
And then there's this. By declaring Lindauer to be "incompetent to stand trial," Judge Preska may have set up the possibility that Lindauer will be returned to in-patient psychiatric "treatment," as if Susan Lindauer is some sort of government chattel, instead of a free citizen of the United States of America with all the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. See the language of 18 U.S.C. § 4241 regarding at "Determination of Mental Competency":
