good morning everyone it's a pleasure for us to be here in alaska it's a beautiful city just wish the skies were a little bit blue or i'm going to call a kiss is just as they appear on the calendar will start with number one united states of america versus vernon quickly address the first whether or not he waived his right of the government was the drafters of plea agreement and as such they bear the burden of any lack of clarity in the agreement and i at most there's a minor lack of clarity with regard conviction and sentence imposed under this agreement and will waive all rights to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence except on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or the voluntariness of the biggers about them well the government asserts that that waiver  except provision only applies to the second part which is the collaterally attack but i submit that that except provision provides to the whole paragraph the whole sentence and there's three reasons why the government's position doesn't make any sense at all one is just on public policy grounds that the voluntariness of a plea is not something that can be waived upfront before it is entered it doesn't make sense to ahead of time agree that my plea was voluntary when you haven't let me get back to the question i asked you before which is what difference does it make if if you're here and you're claiming that the plea was a depleted primos in voluntarily entered into we're hearing that argument if you if you convince us that the plea agreement was in voluntarily entered into then you're entitled to relief if you're not then you're not entitled to it so really doesn't matter under which theory tell me what what why we should conclude to play that was in voluntarily entered into  defendant when there's an issue as to what was the read the whole transcript of the change of pleading hearing and you know there are there are parts and bits and pieces of his statements to the court during the colloquy that indicate that he was a pretty strong believer in his political views the thought of sovereign he's a sovereign citizen but other than that what is the other evidence that what took place during the course appearing to suggest that he was mentally without able to understand the proceeding through the district court himself stated that quote your questions indicate to me that you don't understand how our legal system works in this system and how it goes along so the court itself was concerned that mr vernon was not understanding what was happening he made s he didn't know what was going on some of the statements he made that he had deposed the court system but that opponents did not show he clearly did not understand jurisdiction i suspect truly almost jurisdiction over him and big judge had to produce a written affidavit from someone to somebody could could any sovereign citizen ever plead guilty i'm not basing my argument based on the soccer well but i made you wrong because you're basing your argument on his lack of understanding of the federal of the criminal justice system and his view the criminal justice system is it doesn't apply to me correct but i think a bigger part of my argument is what the court was required to do once he was once mr vernon informed him that he was being deprived of his medications that imposed a duty on the court to inquire as to what medications were and how did they effect got more and versus giddiness in that case weren't weren't wasn't there some evidence that the absence of the medications affected medical competence here the absence of the medications may have affected his health he was taking medications i understand for some medications he was taking and what how they affected his ability to understand the proceedings here the court also didn't inquire if the flip reversed because he was he was being deprived of them but we don't know if it's only speculation that it was  waive his rights to appeal and direct but he doesn't waive on collateral room view so that the issues because isn't  properly presented yes it's true on collateral if you there is the opportunity to to attack this however the voluntariness of a clique can only be attacked on collateral review if it was first attacked on direct sense and the third reason that it didn't doesn't make any sense is because another part of the agreement was that if vernon withdrew his plea he agreed that the facts admitted could be used against him in a new trial so there's another when he needed him to withdraw he noted by the court that he wanted the drugs plea correct and then we showed up he said he really didn't want to drop his attorney notify the court that he did and then and i think the bit that suggests an irrational behavior but then you cannot read that sentencing hearing without saying that this is a this play his wife benefits from the plea he a bunch of charges against him were dropped and you can argue whether or not you know whether or not you would have taken it had you been to position but there are benefits that accrue from this place i agree but that's not the morning and welcome to anchorage yes thank you for me going to be here may please the court my name is even and i'm here on behalf of the united states of america and with the u s attorney's office here in anchorage regarding the last point that was being discussed regarding the benefits of the plea agreement it's clear that there were a number of benefits obtained by lonnie vernon it was a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action here where he was really facing a life sentence with his age no matter what he pleaded to was you know he was at fifty seven at the time of sentencing right and facing something like twelve or thirteen or fourteen years the parties agreed to a sentencing range a binding range in this in this range in the first case case twenty two and as part of the plea agreement in the second case case twenty eight is the court mentioned the united states dismissed a number of counts including one nine twenty four c count that carried with a mandatory consecutive term you read this transcript you can see that the judge is having a very difficult time because the defendant wants to want to give speeches but the judge is obligated to make sure that to please momentary unity that the defend understands it just what a judge supposed to do here exactly exactly what judge brian did here senior united states district court robert bryan from the western district of washington presided over both of these cases he heard the suppression and pretrial motions hearings in january two thousand and twelve where he heard lonnie vernon's post arrest interview recordings the statements of those recordings of those statements he presided over the six week trial where he heard numerous hours and other evidence admitted during the course of that trial of john brennan's recorded conversations he was well aware of the sovereign citizen believes that were held not just by lonnie vernon but the  she would tell them there's a point in time where the defendant just has to be quiet is your question yes or no we can't do that but what what makes this record hard is the judge yes a direct question and he gets a twenty five minute disquisition in return how do we want ryan exactly provided lonnie byrne into voices statements but went through a lengthy quali query with him and then at the conclusion of that change of plea hearing made specific findings at the end of that change of plea hearing judge bryant stated on the record that it appears to him to me that both defendants are competent and capable of entering an informed plea they understand the nature of the charges and the consequences of their plea there is a knowing involuntary basis presented by the defendants which contains each of the essential elements of the offense charged in count one of the superseding indictment the pleas are knowing and voluntary and they should be accepted and so now i will make a finding that both parties are guilty of count one of the district judges make the record under score support those conclusions but what i'd like to have you address is the question i posed to the council for a mr vernon which is the logic of the structure of the plea agreement one assuming that there are two independent clauses the direct appeal and the collateral  disagrees with that position it is clear that all guilty pleas must be knowing involuntary and taken in compliance with the rule eleven requirements but there is no requirement that a challenge tennis of the so for example when defendants have claims that they are guilty pleas were the result of a threat or a promise or some other kind of deceit the record normally isn't fully developed during the hearing for the court to assume that those matters on direct appeal and those can be challenged directly in a twenty two five and twenty two fifty five collateral attack and there is no requirement that those first must be raised in a direct appeal the case that the appellant was relying on with the supreme court case in bows lee and that case the challenge was truly whether it was a knowing or an intelligent a guilty plea and in that case the court can hear that on the try to do your opponent i take it burdens argument on appeal is the same or give me with respect to the voluntariness of the place exactly and there and there is nothing there is no evidence in this record that lonnie vernon suffered from any kind of mental disease or defect or that mental disease or defect somehow caused an inability to understand the proceedings during the course of the trial in the prior case was there ever any hint or any suggestion that the that his mental competency should be or none at all only how long would the trial last it was a six week trial and how soon after the trial did the plea for it was two months later the jury verdict came in on june eighteenth two thousand and twelve and it was on august absolutely the court looks at the his entire history with this defendant in addition the court inquired of defense counsel the same defense counsel represented lonnie vernon in both cases and had numerous opportunities to observe lonnie vernon during the course of that representation and always when the court asked defense counsel whether she thought that funny vernon fully understood his rights and the nature of the proceedings she answered affirmative i also would like to address that one point there was a suggestion that there was a motion to withdraw the guilty plea there was never a motion to withdraw the guilty plea at one with an indication by his counsel was in there to the court there was some kind of communication in a was never a motion to withdraw his guilty plea it is clear that lonnie vernon was angry during the course of these proceedings but his anger and his comments regarding his sovereign citizen believes were not an indication that he didn't understand the proceedings or didn't was not competent he clearly and knowingly it greed that he waived his appeal rights and his appeal waiver should be upheld here thank you thank you to address the question what is the court supposed to do the course supposed to have a competency carrying when it's presented with a situation like this whenever reasonable judge would be expected to have a bonafide doubt as to the defendant's competence do pro process requires the court to conduct a competency hearing so a spontaneous and so that's that address is that the case that i rely on for the argument that the voluntariness of the us and i think it's important to remember that at the but by the status hearing that happened in month after the change of plea as well as the sensing mr vernon wasn't even speaking to his attorneys that the court was informed of that  and so he really wasn't being represented at the sentencing hearing the attorneys had nothing to say and so communications had broken down and i just think that that indicates a further level of you know that the court should have inquire separate appeal pending in the first