as i'm here this morning on behalf of mr coleman in this criminal appeal that raises one important question is whether the court below had reasonable cause to doubt mr coleman's competency at the trial proceedings and by competent that includes both his ability to assist his counsel and the defense of this criminal proceeding and also his understanding of the nature of the criminal proceeding against him y i don't assume you would concede that you pretty much cherry picked the record no your honor i wouldn't i wouldn't concede that and i would i would point out that the nature of this challenge in which the district court has a sewer sponte obligation to raise the need for a competency hearing necessarily involves appellate counsel reviewing the record for facts not that were submerged and you may have snuck up on the court but the ones that were reasonably apparent to the court below and should inform should have informed the decision to sue aspired to raise the issue of competence which of course is not a it which differs from  traditional criminal appellate error in that the statute itself places the sewer sponte obligation on the district core congress said when there is reasonable cause to doubt the present mental ability to to assist in the defense and to understand the nature of the proceedings that obligation is directly on the court i'm sorry the system unable to assist in the is there an a davit by trial counsel that indicates that your client was wasn't able to assist the counsel there's not an affidavit but perhaps there's something even more on point which is at a hearing held shortly after the trial in which the defendant having just been convicted moved say for a new counsel there was a colloquy both between the defendant in the court and also trial counsel in the court in which among other things the defense counsel said on the record that they had communicated hardly at all not until just before trial and he described this behavior of his client this inability to communicate to mr coleman's paranoia about counsel's role relative to the district court and to the prosecutor but you know if it was a significant problem i would think that there would be some evidence presented from the trial  seventy two i believe from the district court record which the transcript from that motion to withdraw all counsel in which there was it was on the record is for the district court both the client and the counsel discussed the problems that they were having one of the things you want the district judge to sue is fine to do something in this case but here we have a highly experienced district judge who's well respected i believe by this great record up here is your honor i think this this points up the distinction between the statutory standard here which calls for the reviewing court to examine the evidence before the district court that should have recently cause doubt we're not saying that he would would or should have ultimately determined that the definit was in fact incompetent but simply according to congress whether there was doubts regarding that competence and it's important to no i think that the the reasonable the standard for the review in court it is baked into the statute from congress it is not a case in which a reasonable standard has to implied in the district joerg judge was not reasonable  and that's my point we have somebody who is at least bypass very certainly and i would definitely don't think congress or the supreme court or the courts of appeals across the country would imply that a finding of the error simply for not holding a hearing implies that on a larger level this district judge or any district judge would be sort of unreasonable in recognizing the signs but what congress and the courts of appeals in the supreme court of called for is the examination of the record to say well should there have been doubt and this was necessarily a part of the supreme court's understanding and paid against robinson as codified by congress in forty two for one day that there would be instances in which even reasonable judges would reach unreasonable conclusions in failing to call for a competency hearing this this analysis i'm i'm certain is not the least bit familiar to your orders in which all sorts of talented district judges from across the circuit nevertheless will make errors that you find one reason or an abuse of discretion  true you're right it would be the opportunity for the defendant to offer whatever whatever evidence supported the claim of incompetence and certainly district courts in the ordinary course often if not always would seek the  assistance claim in this case that would be raised on direct appeal ordinarily there could be an objection to trial counsel's failure to move for a hearing in light of the record evidence regarding paranoia lack of communication inability to communicate and understand the role in the proceeding that would be a difficult counsel or not know for which is it actually an interesting point your honor that i think cuts in the direction of remain and for this reason you didn't have a situation here in which one defense counsel handled this from start to finish so all the full spectrum of mr coleman's irrational and losing all behavior in fact you had the t counsel most responsible at least for the liability facio the guilt phase one with move to withdrawal very quickly after only a couple of weeks after a physical altercation that obviously ceased communication within the attorney client relationship that relationship failed we can't expect that attorney to have understood the nature of it as mental issues said the second counsel as we've already discussed hardly spoke with him at all and then after the conviction said on the records to the judge yes he was paranoid yes we didn't speak and even that was as i mentioned an incomplete perspective so stepping back the one actor who had the full range actually is a college graduate working on these masters i do not know that i'm certainly not in a position to represent that for the benefit of the record here i am i'm sorry i'm going to good thing fin what i will say and i don't believe or not i believe my friend on the other side would would and perhaps has conceded this already in his brief that there were many factual inaccuracy about mr coleman's own personal background about the events that led to the trial and about sort of the nature of the legal proceedings against him so counsel this case is different than most legal incompetency cases that i've experienced i mean if you're arguing he was legally incompetent during the time of trial usually a case like this will have somebody who has a history of mental illness and the issue will be whether the mental illness was such a decree during the trial that he could not understand the nature of the proceedings or counsel or the mental illness you know got worse at this time is there any history at all at any time of mental illness of your client there is no medical evidence in the record at this time but i would submit that the chief reason for that is because no one has raised this issue until appeal and so there's not been an opportunity your client knows whether he was ever diagnosed as being at mentally ill i mean it's not like somebody else has i suppose my point your honor is that whether or not he whether he understands his medal history or not and i have no reason to believe that anyone has ever sought to diagnose him and produce the sort of evidence that would be appropriate at a competency hearing so with absence of evidence of any mental illness past present or you know any time i assume he's not mentally ill and your standard of a stablish legal in a competency is higher than just establishing mental illness and i mean i've had cases before that yes the defendant is mentally ill but is a mental illness does not rise to the point of incompetence and you don't even have the first step here and the reason for that your honor is i believe we're only at the first step in reasonable cause to doubt that the defendant was competent to stand trial and it was also recognized that from the onset of this case that this was a matter of strategy that the defendant chose to chose to explore a defense of challenging the course jurisdiction by espousing the fringe views of sovereign citizens tax protesters and as he proclaimed in a in a notice to the court the self proclaimed morris citizen he claimed that he could not enter into a plea of not guilty at arraignment because it would bite into a contract and he also claim that he was not a fourth amendment person and all of these  consistent with the views of this of sovereign citizens tax protesters and self proclaimed morrish nationals this is this is a person who had no history no known history of psychological problems that the as the that is true your honor and it's not uncommon for dependents to reach a sense of face to espouse grand ideas of what they're going to do if they were going to get out but i mean a statement like he's going to be on a t v show with charlie sheen has nothing to do with his political views that he's not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states it's just bizarre right i mean apps absolutely but also a sentencing he does he recognize that his challenge the jurisdiction was it was a strategy by saying that he did not mean to disrespect t and that he was doing what he thought was best in his case with the charges that he was facing and he continued to lay the record out for such an event so that if so that an appeal could be taken at the very beginning of this case when the police arrived on scene after he pulled the gun on the tow truck driver he minimized it there was nothing in the record at that time that show that he was a sovereign citizen or any type of padding type of competency deficiency or in type of mental illness he told the officer that there was no gun the ops respond the gun and then when he realized that minimizing would not work that's when he came to court with the idea of challenging the  sovereign citizen and he continued to do that throughout the throughout the entire proceedings do we think he's a college graduate or are not believe he believe he does have a bachelor's degree i believe that that was confirmed with what school that i do not he understood the proceedings when he continued to follow procedure motions and when the court bargain from doing so he ceased and started to send them through through the mail so he acknowledged the authority of the court over the proceeding see acknowledge the authority of the court over  whether or not he can file motions and he respects any respect to that as the respect of the court at sentencing now the you know the idea of that of dealing with sovereign citizens coming into court it's not something new to the core system it's happens a circus across the country and local courts around the country and the purpose of arguing and challenging the jurisdiction is to frustrate the the core system to confuse it to delay it and to create a record that allows for an appeal such that such as the one that we're facing today and that's that's that's in the case of opposite of if they stay if they truly believe that in those  didn't he did not plead guilty and urgent urges the attorney to plead guilty he strategize with his attorneys he asked that a certain document written court that could that could solve his that could solve his case so he had the ability to communicate with his defense counsel when they disagreed with the defense that's when he decided to to shut down and his distrust of the attorneys that what led to the physical confrontation or nearly physical convert a confrontation with the first attorney is consistent with the more views of not trusting court appointed counsel it's common and the more these morse national views and the views of sovereign citizens that if you accept court appointed counsel you're really getting yourself to the jurisdiction of the united states in the jurisdiction of the court and that would go against his strategic decision to challenge that that jurisdiction the other point is that i would like to make your honor is that this court has in the past recognized that that the bear record along is not sufficient to replace the judgment of the district court judge the record does show that the district court judge engaged in lengthy conversations interactions with with  with mr coleman and during those those conversations nothing at that point rose to the level of the the district court judge as in as you stated who has you know many years of experience on the bench to sue a sponsor request claim is that the judge has failed so we spotty to raise it so they are saying the nature of the claim assumes that there was not an objection and therefore playing there doesn't seem to fit raise is here in the in the in the appeal by not having that by this being the first time that is being raised point there would be appropriate abuse of discretion if if if congress he had been raised thank you roger just a couple of brief points on the standard of review i would refer the court to the rule published decision of this court which applies the abuse of discretion standard and ties it to the statutory standard as we discussed earlier in this your honor just no d that's also consistent with the standard in the second circuit the eleventh circuit and the other courts that have considered the nature of this sue a sponsor the obligation but i agree that it makes no sense no difference in this case of the ultimate outcome because quite clearly substantial rights were affected if there was in fact an error as to the judge's recognition of mr coleman's competency or lack thereof as my friend suggested what the court said on the record cannot in my submission fairly be construed as recognizing a potential issue and treating it as resolved what the district court said at the hearing in august just after the conviction was that and sorry and also in april the initial most into a draw hearing you find these e c f seventy one and seventy two which were that mr coleman showed total ignorance of what was going on in the courtroom that what he was saying made no sense so whether that was by itself sufficient to show legal incompetence i don't think we have to take that extreme position nor can this be however affirmative evidence that he was in fact compton there was at least indications on the record of a problem here and along those lines the sovereign citizens element my position is not that any sovereign citizen is even presumptively legal and competent but i believe the position that the government at least suggests and it's brief is that the district court in the court of appeals can simply set to the side of the french views and anything unusual if it could perhaps be chalked up to a fringe view then you don't have to worry about the sewer spiny obligation to account for legal incompetence it would certainly if if we did issues it would certainly open up pandora's box for future fringe views that were articulated at some point here which should perhaps at least raise a concern but certainly wouldn't be dispositive of legal competence you can point to the breakdown in communications the paranoia future well your honor i would could see that i mean you know who's to say that he did what that was and what he was doing in this case but for getting there for the moment i could see this causing a different kind of standard i certainly am not suggesting that the court move the standard in one direction or the other these are case by case determinations and on these facts are sufficient that even setting aside the sovereign citizens views you have reasonable doubt at least to investigate currency thank you for the question which is to be thank you very much for taking this assignment pursuit of the criminal justice act we appreciate your service