Cover Letter To Counsel Pro Se Parties: Fill & Download for Free

Please read your state’s Introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct, softbound. Attorneys have no liabilities. If they had any, the judges will abuse their discretion anyway. Attorneys in Colorado have been declared to be entirely unregulated.There is the Attorney Regulation Board, obviously a front. It is like writing letters to Santa. You imagine there is someone looking out for you. There is none. The courts want to make money - fast. If you have equity they’ll take it. If you don’t they’ll use you to access public funds.The way it works is that you write your complaint. Lisa Frankel in Colorado then sends a list of questions to the attorney in question. If you hit on any actual points (and there are hardly any) she’ll twist your complaint so the attorney can respond to a fabricated question. Then you get to answer. Then your complaint is dismissed.Below is my answer to Robert Wolf’s Response:Lisa FrankelColorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel1300 Broadway, Suite 500Denver, CO 80203RE: Reply to Robert Wolf's Response, Case No. 14-1353Dear Ms. Frankel,I have no doubt that the public has no interest in the Rules of Professional Conduct. I'm sure the Rules aren't publicly available because someone would have caught on that DORA should regulate attorneys. I'm writing this for the public and legislators. When I file my civil law suit against Wolf I will specify to the Judge that any decision by the Bar Association should be disregarded.Wolf's performance:·Engaged in unethical filing of redundant and inefficient motions·Clueless regarding litigation·Did not disclose "attorney of record" - consumer fraud.·Misrepresented that immediate substitution of Shields to prevent GAL·Denies requesting a GAL without a hearing, but records show otherwise·Fraudulently denies the domestic assault·Misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, pursues Offender/Petitioner's intersts.·Lies about the dual protection order, can't misconstrue that it is in my interest.·Denies the domestic assault in order to transfer my case to division 4 to avoid Magistrate Moss, who saw me in court and heard Temporary Orders·It is unconstitutional for him to "decide" on justice.·Consumer and billing fraud·Putting party in physical danger, abusive, manipulative and unethical.·Misrepresents facts·Misrepresented that I've previously been removed form the court, referring to the time witnesses changed place at Temporary Orders·Misrepresents the Magistrate's position and rulings.·Lied to the party in regards to his dealings and goals, denies them, and didn't send electronic communications, stating that he needs to scan them first.·Libelous, abusive and dangerous.Regarding Wolf's PerformanceOn 3/4/14 I told Wolf that the Offender had a deferred sentence for third degree domestic assault with intention to cause harm. He said that since there is an arrest report and record of my injuries that he will easily get me the civil protection. He boasted that he an experienced litigator.He also claimed that unless I hire him "there will be a GAL," that he needs to substitute Shields instantly to prevent her from further intervention in my case. I signed a retainer. (Exhibit 23 - 3/4/14 date of retainer, 3/10/14, date of entering representation)Wolf's conduct shows that he is entirely unknowledgeable on the matter of the divorces and a GAL. Since he is extremely manipulative and abusive, this could be a cover-up for more serious behviors.Wolf denies requesting the appointment of a GAL without a hearing, however, Exhibit 1 shows that it was his pleading to appoint a GAL without a hearing that was accepted.Instead of preventing Shields from proceeding, he pursued the 3/10/14 phone conference with Shields, kept me in the dark about his activities, denied the domestic assault in contradiction to the police report (EXHIBIT 3) and MRI (EXHIBIT 5) and x-rays. The information regarding the misdemeanor case didn't change so Wolf can't explain why he changed his opinion all of a sudden. The truth is that Wolf and the Offender's attorney worked in tandem to increase litigation costs. Wolf kept himself on record by filing of redundant motions and his misrepresentation was denied by the court. On May 11th I mentioned the word "appeal" to Wolf for the first time and he got himself dismissed right away on 5/19/14, knowing that although the Bar Association will support attorneys preying on parties, there is an appeal system.I spoke to Wolf from a surgeon's office once, so he knew I was in need of cancer diagnostic surgery and that I suffer skeletal injuries.Regarding Damage to the Marital HomeShields threatened that I will pay for damages to the marital home. Wolf falsely alleged progressive damages to the marital home and Zapor was prepared to hire an advocate to charge my accounts for the alleged damage and sign my legal entitlements in a mediation agreement (Exhibit 10 - email of 5/27/14) Zapor falsely stated that she can't communicate to the court that seven neighbors testified no damage exists. Short of my appeal with the Appeals Court, I would have been out in the streets with a annular rapture, in need of cancer diagnostic biopsy, no safety, deprived of my savings and real estate titles as well as my marital estate.My Appeal was accepted by the court on 5/15/14 and I traveled there twice on 5/19/14 to make sure it is filed. That as the day Zapor got authority to sign any documents on my behalf. Due to the Appeal and a Motion to Stay Case Zapor didn't substitute Wolf with another self-serving attorney to collaborate with the fraud scheme. Instead I was able to file a Mistake, describing Wolf as a neglectful person. Exhibit 25. On 6/17/14 Judge Arkin stated that Shields disliking the party doesn't justify a GAL (oral telephone conference). The dislike was mutual, as x-generations consider baby boomers to be twisted.The position of the Attorney Regulation Board is that attorneys can file anything they want and the judge can decide on it. Lisa Frankel ignores the fact that the attorneys engaged in liable while preventing the party from communicating with the court. The entire thing is a consumer trap and DORA should assume attorney regulation. For attorneys to prevent victims of domestic violence of safety, security and all of their constitutional rights for increased litigation fees is in line with their notoriety in popular culture.In his Response to Motion for Periodic Inspections from 4/30/14 (EXHIBIT 8) Wolf does not mention that I'm a property manager by profession, he does not address the fact that the real concern of the Petitioner was that his office was disorganized. He invites mistakes, and encourages the Petitioner's attorney to respond for increased litigation costs instead.In Section 2 Wolf states "It is unclear why Petitioner waited nearly 6 months to become concerned about the property in Respondent's possession."The truth is that I'm a victim of domestic violence and the Petitioner/Offender should never get within a 100 yards of me or my residence. Wolf put my life in danger. The Offender is a sociopath and can't understand that a messy office is not on a par with life threatening situations. In the end, the Court ignored Wolf's filing and I was allowed to file a Reply pro-se after Zapor asked to resign.Exhibit 12 - In his email of 4/29/14 Wolf is interested in the periodic inspections. He wants a key to my residence for the Offender. He states that "some of the requests in the Motion are not unreasonable and are likely to be granted by the court... if the inspection is to be allowed, it should be... with you not in the house." Wolf knew that at the time there was an expensive bourbon collection in the house. The Offender regularly offers bottles to friend. I assume that beyond collaboration with another criminal attorney, Wolf was also waiting for his share of the bourbon.Wolf had photographs of my two immaculate premarital condos in my file. I lease and manage them myself. He had copies of my leases. I write my own Amendments. He knew that I filed a Response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage myself, complete with financial disclosure. Exhibit 6 is my pro-se filing of a Response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Exhibit 7 shows I've represented myself pro-se at a telephone conference and scheduled Temporary Orders myself. Additionally, he had in his possession the transcript of the Temporary Orders, proving that I can instantly calculate profits; I can hire vendors and manage tenants, study, and am licensed as a real estate professional.Exhibit 2 is the transcript of Temporary Orders, 1/27/14. Page 32 line 2- to page 36 line 25, I'm the witness: "A: I receive rental income from two properties. I pay HOA's on two properties.... I know that I filed my financial disclosure there was all these numbers up to September so there's only a few more months that you're not seeing.... the (mold) remediation was done sometime in October...I do have the receipt for that, yes.... Everything is receipted and documented and I'm happy to share anything that you would want...."Zapor falsely denied that she can bring it to the court's attention that seven neighbors had testified that there is no damage to the house. Wolf was also in a position to advise the court of the same but refused.In reality, an attorney of record is an unconstitutional entity created by the Bar Association as consumer trap and our legislators need to intervene.Regarding the GALMr. Wolf is lying - he specifically requested the appointment of a GAL without a hearing.EXHIBIT 1 - 4/20/14 - Status report filed by Wolf.Section 4. It is the position of Petitioner's counsel that a Sorensen hearing is not required before appointing a GAL based the determinations already made by the Court.Two faults - Wolf isn't representing my interest, but collaborates with another criminal attorney to increase prestige and litigation costs. He is invites mistakes by suggesting that the court made previous determinations.On 3/10/14 the Magistrate stated that she will give me time to be heard and that she would like to get the case back on track. Zapor's claims that I refuse to participate in hearings and that I've previously been removed from the court are probably in response to the Magistrate's expectations.I'm not sure how the attorneys moved the case to division 4. It could have been part of their interest in denying the assault. Judge Arkin never met me and has not been involved in the case. She didn't have the knowledge that Magistrate Moss had.Section 6 - Counsel for the Respondent agrees that appointment of a GAL for Respondent is appropriate and necessary.Bonnie Shields tried to fraudulently justify the appointment of a GAL, Wolf denies requesting it. He pretends to be ignorant to get off on lack of skill and care. It could be a regular technique for him. Exhibit 1 shows that Wolf's request to appoint a GAL was granted and that he is a liar.Since Magistrate Moss knew me, saw me representing myself three times, and heard testimony at Temporary Orders Wolf only had to say that the GAL is not necessary and she would have been happy to get the case back on course. Wolf had the transcript of the 3/10/14 telephone conference and would have known that much, except that he insists on misrepresenting the conversation.Mr. Wolf did not direct the court to vacate the GAL, nor did he direct the court towards a final decision on the matter of GAL. He is supposed to guide the case and represent my interests, but instead has the Offender/Petitioner make all the decisions.Wolf didn't strike the Motion for Periodic Inspections. It was unacceptable to the judges because a final hearing on the matter of the appointment of a GAL wasn't made. He didn't request that Offender pay for mental evaluation. He misrepresented all of his dealings to me knowing that he can keep himself using the retainer for as long as he would want. He had the Offender's attorney chose a GAL. I need a mental evaluation for the purpose of maintenance at Permanent Orders. Wolf specifically denies using the mental evaluation for this purpose.Exhibit 15 - Status Report of 3/21/14, Section 3 - this is the record Wolf did not send me for three weeks. It is electronic filing he falsely represents that he needed to scan it in order to mail it.Exhibit 27 - Response to Objection Motion to Withdraw - Wolf states "counsel can no longer effectively represent Respondent."Wolf is obviously manipulative, misusing the legal system for personal profit in a regular cooperation with the counsel of the opposing party. 'On the Matter of the Protection OrderSince the details of the criminal case have not changed: a third degree assault, a confession by the offender, x-rays recording injuries, etc; since I told Wolf I'm afraid for my life; and since he represented that he can easily get a protection order - how does he explain suddenly changing his story? He was retained because he said he could easily get a protection order. However, he wanted to move the case to division 4 and obtain victory for the Offender.In contradiction to Wolf's statement, we have never discussed the details of the assault even once. All he knew were the technical details - the charges and the injuries. The billing record reflects the same. He claimed to fly to Texas right after being retained and said he'd take the file with him on the plain. He came back ill and never returned any of my calls. 'Additionally, the Offender's confession to the police that he assaulted me because I asked questions is in line with the Incident Checklist. According to the checklist I submitted all incidents of violence were related to asking the Offender questions. So Wolf clearly lying, as he has confessed to the Judge.Rose Zapor falsely represents that the Magistrate dismissed the protection order because the assault can't be verified. This despite the fact that she knew there was an arrest report and documentation of the injuries (Exhibit 9 - email from 5/8/14.) This is in complete contradiction to what Wolf said - that he can easily obtain a protection order because there is an arrest report and documentation of injuries. Zapor states that I can't make my own decisions whenever she wants to pursue her interests. The Board refused to review a complaint against her stating that she can have any opinions she wants, despite documentation to the opposite. I would like the Board to reconsider their position and let me file a complaint against Zapor.Wolf wanted to change the date for the civil protection hearing because he wasn't available on the 17th, or because the Offender's attorney was in Israel on the 17th. This, although it would have worked in my favor that the Offender's attorney was gone and the Magistrate didn't allow him to participate via telephone. Exhibit 26 is the minute order. Knowing Wolf, it is possible that he denied the March 17 date as a favor to the Offender and his attorney. He has been exploitative since I signed the retainer agreement. But, of course, that is what the Attorney Regulation Board endorses and protects.Wolf either misunderstands court proceedings or pretends to. He was asked to handle the matter of the final appointment of a GAL first. He told me that Shields convinced the Magistrate that I'm a liar and that I must clear my name with a mental evaluation first. He said since my criminal protection was going to expire, that the Offender will sign a stipulation for a one sided temporary protection. He said that the Magistrate will revoke his license if he engaged in a frivolous motion for Civil Protection. He then proceeded to ridicule my need for protection. All these lies to keep me in the dark about his pursuit of the appointment of a GAL.Wolf engaged in a Motion for Periodic Inspections to allow the Offender back into the marital home. He pushed a two sided protection that puts my life in danger.Exhibit 20 - email from 3/24/14, just before asking Wolf to terminate services. I was under the impression that Wolf is filing for a protection order.Because of my skeletal injuries and the weight of paper, filing was impossible for me until August of 2014. I accidentally filed my only copy of the complete police report with the District Court in July as part of the domestic relations case. I ask the board to read the Offender's confession to his motivations to the assault. The policeman interrogating the Offender states that the Offender denied the assault at first, but later admitted to it.Mr. Wolf's claims that I'm dangerous to myself or to others are fraudulent and frivolous. I've seen a counselor continually since the assault, and on and off since 2010. All of the counselors are sworn to immediately report if they believe that I'm a danger to myself or to others. None of them ever have. Wolf Is libelous. Exhibit 21 is a treatment plan from Dr. Funt. Exhibit 22 is treatment plan from Dr. Zarou.Additionally, there is no record of us physically meeting after the 3/4/14 - so what is the basis for his allegations on? I once told him that if reading emails at $60 and $70 per email asking him to stop fraud constitute harassment then he should file for a protection order. The emails are enclosed as Exhibit 28. It shows Wolf is guilty of misrepresentation.Regarding the MagistrateWolf is counting on the Board to not read any of the Exhibits, or else he is counting on the Board to protect consumer traps and misrepresentation.Wolf has the transcript of the 3/1014 telephone conference. He is knowingly misrepresenting the facts. On 3/3/14 Shields said she would file a Notice of Withdrawal by 10:15 on 3/3/14. Based on her promise I went to court and filed a restraining order. I was told that Magistrate Moss is engaged in a long hearing and that I should go to division 2 instead. There a Magistrate granted temporary protection.On 3/10/14 Magistrate Moss apologized to Shields. She said that the electronic records from that day are missing and that she would not have heard my request for a protection hearing pro-se, since Shields was the attorney of record. This confirms Shields' claims that she is a neighbor of Judge Arkin. Magistrate Moss behaves as if she is afraid of Shields manipulative and vengeful endeavors with Arkin.Exhibit 19 is the transcript for the 3/10/14 telephone conference with Shields. Page 3 line 21- "THE COURT: ... and by the way, I did not grant the TPO, Magistrate Dumler was actually covering for me because I was home with a sick child, so I didn't even know about the TPO until I returned and this all came to a head, because obviously, I wouldn't have granted that, knowing that Ms. Shields is represented by, or excuse me, Ms. Stein was represented by Ms. Shields."However, magistrate Moss went on to authorize my pro-se request for the hearing and dismissed the Motion to Strike from Offender. It was Wolf who didn't vacate the Motion for GAL and therefore had to organize a Sorensen hearing - which he was entirely unqualified to do. He therefore charged me for issues which the Court rejected, and pursued the Offender's interests for lack of better understanding.Knowing how Wolf operates, I now believe that Wolf came up with the false allegation that "I was previously removed from the court." He must have been referring to the moment at Temporary Orders when witnesses were asked to step down and allow the next witness on. By his logic, the Offender was also "previously removed from the court."If Wolf, for whatever reason, felt that the transcript of Temporary Orders was important for purpose of the protection order, why didn't he disclose that before being retained?Regarding Temporary OrdersWhen Shields decided to file the Motion for GAL fraudulently, she prevented a strike against the Motion by stopping to collect house maintenance. Wolf was asked to file a pleading with the court to enforce temporary maintenance.Wolf didn't disclose that he may not be a divorce attorney at all, and may have no knowledge on the matter. He overcharged me for the transcript and didn't do anything.Regarding Billing FraudWhen Wolf sent my records over, I received nearly 10 copies of each pleading from both sides. This is an accounting fraud. Since the records are all electronic - why does Wolf represent that he needs to scan them before emailing them?He overcharged me for transcripts and emails and was incapable of handling the case anyway.He was asked to extend the date for the Motion for Periodic Inspections so I can respond to it once he is dismissed. He wasted my retainer extending it by a few days and then responding to it himself. Exhibit 4 is his Motion for Extension from 4/22/14 to 4/30/14. All the while, the court ignored him because he didn't arrange for a final hearing on the matter of the GAL.He filed a Motion for Withdrawal when he should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal. He then kept filing redundant motions every 20 days to prevent a decision on his withdrawal.Substituting Wolf was pointless as by now I realized that attorneys are self-regulating and respond to the same financial and social personal interests.Wolf's Reputation and ReviewsWolf's reputation in the divorce attorney community was bad before I hired him. Some attorneys may have taken a stronger stand to protect the public now because of his unethical, exploitative, manipulative and abusive misconduct, misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.Online he is only registered on paid websites and controls all reviews. He must have had family members write a couple.Shields counted on Wolf's misrepresentation when she tried to scare me into removing my online reviews on her. This is telling of his nature and networking. Exhibit 13 shows Shield's and Wolf's unethical collaboration to mislead and exploit their party.Regarding Keeping Himself on my RecordMr. Wolf, due to conflict of interests, did not respond properly to Mr. Japha's Objection to his withdrawal. Exhibit 10 is Petitioner/Offender's Objection to Wolf's Withdrawal.Section 2 - the Offender's counsel falsely represents that Wolf is in the middle of negotiations, knowing that Wolf should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal instead. There were no negotiations, because the dual protection that Wolf tried to bully me into signing puts my life in danger and gives the Offender a chance to kill me while excusing himself. Exhibit 18 is the stipulation for dual protection. It is impossible to claim that it represents the case correctly, or that it represents my interests.Wolf didn't state that he is unqualified to handle the matter of the GAL. It is likely because he knew he can't pursue the appointment of a GAL, knowing that I have an adjustment disorder, so he pretended to be ignorant.Wolf didn't state that since he was retained he spent time in Texas and then was ill and didn't even have a chance to look at the records. He states thus on 3/17/14 and doesn't remind the two judges of this fact.Exhibit 14 - Status Report, Section 1 - Respondent's counsel was traveling out of state from March 12-15, 2014.Section 4 - Respondent' counsel is currently out sick and has not yet had an opportunity to ... familiarize himself with the case..."It was March 24 when he was asked to terminate services after trivializing my need for safety.Just as the judge was going to make a decision on Wolf's 3/24/14 Motion to Withdraw, Wolf filed his "Motion to Reconsider Motion to Withdraw." Exhibit 16 - 4/20/14. Wolf isn't stating anything new to the court, but is creating a new cycle of motions. He was able to prevent his dismissal until 5/19/14. Exhibit 24 - Wolf finally dismissed.The two attorneys did everything in their power to create as much activity as possible and stay on the case. On May 11th I informed Wolf for the first time that I have an appeal in mind. He got himself dismissed at the first opportunity (5/18/14)In ConclusionAttorneys regularly misuse the legal system for profits and connections. If the GAL fraud scheme fails, the attorneys will tell Rabbi Deborah Bronstein that they tried their best and they will remain friends. However, Colorado citizens are left with pain, suffering and deprived of their constitutional rights. Two friends of mine told me that they had to back out of their marital estate and all of their legal entitlements. I hold the Bar Association accountable and will sue it.Shields fraudulently filed the Motion for GAL pretending that she didn't know the facts, Wolf pursued the same while pretending he has no understanding of GALs and court proceedings, Zapor played her part trying to prevent me from infiltrating the electronic record, deny me my marital estate, safety and savings.The Judge awarded Zapor full powers to sign anything on my behalf, ignoring the intention of the statutes. I am seeking a sponsor to revise them.I'm happy to supply any additional records to the Board upon request.Based on Wolf's demeanor as a bully he is likely to become more offensive, libelous and dangerous. However, I will not be intimidated. DORA will regulate attorneys eventually. Wolf will be sued in small claims court as well as Zapor. Shields will be sued in District Court. As soon as I'm able to get diagnosis and treatment for suspected cancer I will hold luncheons and educate people, and I will be able to collect signatures for a petition.As I've said, I'm in a position to sue the Bar Association and the Attorney Regulation Board for abuse of the public and personal pain and suffering.

I am not familiar with “Harvard and the Unabomber,” so I do not know how the trial events are portrayed in the book. It is possible that Judge Burrell made a rhetorical statement similar to that, but that idea was not the actual basis for his ruling. If you want to know the details, read the appellate opinion of Kaczynski's appeal of the denial of his motion to represent himself, which he contended then coerced his guilty plea, which had to be vacated if his right to represent himself had been wrongfully denied (the law is clear that the guilty plea was invalid if his request to represent himself was wrongfully denied).In a nutshell, he had repeatedly waived the right earlier with full knowledge of the issues concerning the mental health evidence that his attorneys intended to present, and then made a very belated request after weeks of trial proceedings. Taking over as counsel for himself would have caused a massive delay, and the trial judge properly denied the motion as untimely and not in good faith. That is not about a “speedy trial" so I doubt Judge Burrell used such a legally sloppy phrase. I suspect that is something invented by writers to explain what happened using a familiar, but in this context improper, phrase. The court is entitled to prevent undue delay in the trial caused by a long delay in asserting the right. Prior case law had held that the right was waived if first asserted after a jury has been selected. And the delay could not be justified because he had just learned about the mental health defense. He had known about that for months.United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Theodore John Kaczynski, Defendant-appellant, 239 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001)I have copied the discussion of events from the opinion, which involve Kaczynski's turgid conduct and long delay in raising the issues [footnotes not included].On June 24, 1997, Kaczynski filed a notice under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2(b) of his intent to introduce expert testimony of his mental condition at trial. According to his § 2255 motion [motion to vacate guilty plea], Kaczynski consented to the notice reluctantly and only to allow evidence relating to his “mental condition”-not to a “mental disease or defect.”   He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler, who did not think that he suffered from serious mental illness, to testify.Jury selection began November 12.   Six hundred veniremen were summoned, and 450 questionnaires were filled out.   Voir dire of 182 prospective jurors took sixteen days over the course of six weeks.Kaczynski alleges that he learned in the courtroom on November 25 that his attorneys intended to portray him as suffering from major mental illness (schizophrenia), but that he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government. Evidently by December 17 it had become clear that Kaczynski would not go for an unconditional plea and the government would not accept a conditional one.   In the meantime, Kaczynski was giving thought to whether he wanted Tony Serra, a San Francisco lawyer whom he believed would not employ a mental state defense, to represent him.   On December 16, he received a letter indicating that Serra would be available, but on December 17 Serra withdrew from consideration.On December 18, Kaczynski's counsel gave the district court three letters in which Kaczynski explained that he had a conflict with his attorneys over the presentation of a mental status defense.   The next day the court held an ex parte, in camera conference with Kaczynski and counsel, as a result of which he and they undertook to confer over the weekend.   On December 22, Clarke and Denvir advised the court that a compromise had been worked out:  They agreed to withdraw the Rule 12.2(b) notice and not to present any expert mental health testimony at the guilt phase of the trial, while Kaczynski accepted their control over the presentation of evidence and witnesses to be called, including mental health expert witnesses and members of Kaczynski's family, in order to put on a full case of mitigation at the penalty phase.   Kaczynski told the court that he was willing to proceed with his attorneys on this basis, and that “the conflict at least is provisionally resolved.”   In response to the court's query, Kaczynski also said that he did not want to represent himself.   Jury selection was then completed and (to allow for the holidays) opening statements were set to begin January 5, 1998.On January 5, Kaczynski told the court that he wished to revisit the issue of his relations with his attorneys.   He said that he had learned from a preview of the opening statement the evening before (January 4) that counsel intended to present non-expert evidence of his mental state in the guilt phase.   Clarke and Denvir explained that they intended to introduce evidence of Kaczynski's physical state, living conditions, lifestyle, and writings to show the deterioration of his mental state over the 25 years he lived in Montana.   Kaczynski also raised for the first time with the court the possibility that he might want to have Serra replace Denvir and Clarke.   The district court continued the trial to January 8, and appointed Keven Clymo as “conflicts” counsel for Kaczynski.Another hearing was held January 7. Kaczynski withdrew his January 5 request for Serra to represent him because Clymo had convinced him it would not be in his best interests;  however, later the same day, Serra “faxed” a letter indicating that if Kaczynski's present lawyers were recused, he was willing to substitute in.   Kaczynski told the court that he would like to be represented by Serra, but said:  “As to the question of when he would be able to start, he stated that, of course, he will not be able to start trial tomorrow.   He would need a considerable time to prepare.”   The court refused to allow Serra to take over because of the delay it would cause.   After discussing Kaczynski's continuing differences with counsel over mental status evidence, the court also ruled that counsel could control the defense and present evidence of his mental condition over Kaczynski's objection.   Again in response to a question from the court, Kaczynski said that he did not want to represent himself.   He explained that “if this had happened a year and a half ago, I would probably have elected to represent myself.   Now, after a year and a half with this, I'm too tired, and I really don't want to take on such a difficult task.   So far I don't feel I'm up to taking that challenge at the moment, so I'm not going to elect to represent myself.”However, the next day (January 8), Kaczynski's counsel informed the court that Kaczynski wanted to proceed as his own counsel.   Clarke explained that Kaczynski believed he had no choice, given presentation of a mental illness defense which he “cannot endure.”   Clarke also indicated that Kaczynski had advised her that he was prepared to proceed pro se that day, without delay.   Both sides thought that a competency examination should be conducted, given defense counsels' view that his mental condition was Kaczynski's only viable defense.   The court also noted that it had learned from the U.S. Marshals office that Kaczynski might have attempted suicide the night before.   Accordingly, it ordered a competency examination, to be completed before ruling on the Faretta request.   The trial was continued to January 22.   A court-appointed psychiatrist examined Kaczynski and concluded that he was competent.   All parties agreed on January 20 that this resolved the issue.On January 21, Kaczynski again asked to represent himself. The court denied the request on January 22, finding that it was untimely because it came after meaningful trial proceedings had begun and the jury had been empaneled.   The court also found that Kaczynski's request to represent himself was a tactic to secure delay and that delay would have attended the granting of the motion given the complexity of the capital prosecution.   Although Kaczynski did not request a continuance, the court found “it was impossible to conceive” that he could immediately assume his own defense without considerable delay for preparation of an adequate defense.   This, in turn, would risk losing jurors and having again to go through the arduous process of selecting a new jury.   The court also found that Kaczynski's conduct was not consistent with a good faith assertion of his right to represent himself, as he had long known of his attorneys' intention to present mental health evidence and had agreed on December 22 that they could do so at the penalty phase.   Accordingly, the court concluded, Kaczynski's conflict with counsel turned solely on the moment when mental evidence would be presented.   Finally, the court declined to exercise its discretion to permit Kaczynski to represent himself in spite of the untimely request, noting that to do so would result in Kaczynski's foregoing “the only defense that is likely to prevent his conviction and execution.”Immediately after the Faretta request was denied from the bench, Denvir informed the court that Kaczynski would unconditionally plead guilty to both the California and New Jersey Indictments if the government would withdraw its notices of intent to seek the death penalty.  (Kaczynski alleges that this condition was counsels' idea, not his.)   A written plea agreement was entered into shortly thereafter, and the plea was taken by the court the same day.The key to the dispute was just how late in the process Kaczynski asserted his right to self-representation. He had known for an extended period of time that his attorneys wanted to present mental health as a defense or mitigation of his penalty. He had authorized it in the penalty phase, and had witnessed voire dire covering that issue with potential jurors, as well as reviewed the draft of his counsel's opening statement. By waiting so long to assert the right, it assured a large delay in a trial underway.The dissent is interesting and worth reading. It was a difficult case involving weird circumstances and competing concerns without a clear principle governing the outcome. It is also interesting how Burrell's thinking changed as he was not initially inclined to deny the right of self-representation, but later rested his decision on untimeliness and bad faith. But it was clearly not about the government's right to a speedy trial. It was about the court's right to protect the process of trials from belated requests that massively disrupt the proceeding. I think Burrell ruled properly as I believe Kaczynski was manipulating the process.Update: Fixed link to opinion