Does a judge vested by statute to subpoena a criminal defendant's treating psychotherapist-patient records, cannot over a criminal defendant's expressed privilege waive a sua sponte competency hearing to determine if a criminal defendant can represent herself when defendant did not waive her privilege to her treating psychotherapist-patient relationship?

No question identified. : In the District Courr memorandum opinion the Dissmer Court properly Acknow Ica goa thar iia case Such as this, Where r Cpiainn %S proceeding pro se , the sutticaenty ok the complaint lS measured by the stondoras | which av substantially less stingent. than +hese whron Je 514, 201. EA prokesional counsel dratts the Complamt Hanes vy. Kemer, 404 US -% ) 2d 652, 92S.Cr 54401942) and" Learc to amend should be granted even if no request" amend the pleading was made, untess the Court determines hat the Pleading COUNA ne Possibly Pte by allegaihnon of otner tacts ." Lam gives -ne teats white af F0C Aletuis, hence Use of Paper/pencil. ueshone Presented . : Q) Does a judge vested bby Stethite to Subpoena 4 Criminal defendants treahrig ; Psycho thempist— patent records, Cannet over a criminal dctendant’é expressed pene ww a Sua sponte competency heanng to determine if a criminal | detendant can repre: herse Ss when detendant did net waive present. herselt pres] 7 her Primicae to her Aveahn psychothempist —pahent velahonsh ify 7 Cctted Jalee v. Redmond, Sug U.S. L01IG4e) ana Geaamel v. United Sites, 445 US. 40 , S1(1480)). ; , (2) Dees the 41 pags of criminal dclendantS freann4 psychothermp ist— pahert records sulbpoenaca over criminal defendants oWyechion , Hen traneferred into tie posecseions of a contracted Be7antog ist by judge, halolefor actual damages when psycholagist transeriloed al Al pages en te a competency ropor® which was hen digbuted va email 40 adversial Counsel Assistant Atorncy tor dhe Uncied States C"AUSA”) Pertmnuter and other recetpients , liable for herachens for acmal Aamages sustaned by planh& and otmer remedies? (2) Did Msmet Court err when deading that detendant 6 immuned fom monetary rehet under 28 Usc sidie(eX2) asa federal actor, dismet Coury nen applrea Bwengs y, Six Unknown Named Agente. ot Federal Bureau ot Narcotics , 403 U.S. "28S CIAVD and failed tagwe prose 4n opportunity fo amena her complawnt to include damages Undertne Fecleral torte Clara fot CNPTCA when plant had plausibly alleged alsin FTCA clemane clemonta under 28 USc.5. ACCbLY 1) not ovily to state a.claw uponwhich rehet could be aranted but also forthe Court ty hare Subject mater yunsdichm, 60 even wiovign fhe Disimct Courts naling i ettect depnved it oF neaichon Ane Distneh Court Necessarily passed On the substance of an FTCA clams? (See Brownback v. King) A\t Fda 404, 2019 US. App. LEXIs 5438 Co Cw. XO Cin Mich. ) Feoruay 25,2014) (4) Did tne United States Court of Appasls for the Ninth Grout decide on the merits oF the case when they concluded thea | of Distmer Courts dectéson a Y Ppea > was Frivilons under 28 WSC. SIUS(eY2courtshall dismiss case at . anytime if Court delermines it 15 fnvilous or matics)? if iN