Whether a criminal defendant can represent themselves pro se, or does a defendant have to waive their privilege to their attorney-client relationship?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : : ac \ Queshon #4: Wetiner a Tudge VesteaA boy stertite to enna ~ mcasing c eann defendants <xpress objection mt a sua eponte compctency hs) henth Whether a cnminal defenalant Car represent Memselves Pro Se, w ones defendant dra nok waive New priviledge Fo her peyeine th pet Patent retahonsiip? (see Jattce v. Redmond, S18 US. 4) We sh 42%, (125 L.€d. 223 DSF C14%6) Vecognizing a Psychotheapist ~ pahent pricleage WW Fed. Rutes of Exdence BOI, provides idance but neron poem @ 2 : ; ueshondt 2 Whether a StaANA~loy Couns) appaintet by the Court to Ass\ot+ a Baan Seek breaches attemey~ chent Confidentiality wee = ‘i yy counse\ TS A “Motion of Intent"! C Appendi B) 40 es ; : trod Por witness of Po se defendants Heating Peychratmet and shares confidential tnfermahon with tal Court \udae an Pose defendants authonzahon OV Consent 7? ( See an aan By Exhibit ag pe tra F ) | * AF 6 n , aAnA Tanua (IS 20> septs of Septcm beer 21, 2020 Heanng CB. Ac) a ¥y 1202| Weaning CE. &)) BuEshevi #5. Whether a new Count . CR No. 21-cooag, LASSIE New case number =A Unitcd States Distce+ Courtot Ha v A Pica AA cement When twal court cA ‘ “th neee oe aii dated the Without Ffivet holding aA Favret Hence 4 i" wae ok on ; aa rev thn Process , Suctual Violahon aaains J ast mn ake V. Shes i) nst pro se defendant? (See Cassa — FP 12921 U.S. App. LExis 180 = Civ, 2020) Waiver of counse\ HA 2024 Fe. BPP. OEP Cth : wi + | : Mew count 1S a due preceas wileoe: holding a Favetta Neanvig — Questor #A: W OP BOA NS Shrctuel). Uo en neAiner tne twat COUME dectsimn, te United States Atlomey's OfGce CAUSA”) he cx allow tne ; ctess , oF Prison ( *Roev) W thou in formed Consen = ™ the Bureau ; Uneonsti-nchonal 120A allowed AUSA Rel =" ~ a Hever , was IA paace o <ceax flutter +t ¥ pro se defendants Peycholagical /medicat vr read al| She te not qualificd +o do) fora all ccvcey oo PACER CWhretn Pro Se defendant Merely Slated Ww her pleading th * ed wien Was dAcclinin, and Unable to s i on fools, Weovarp hone a violator ok coat et Ae Ne ne Plahom ef Sul : ‘ , ’ 2 (See United States , Oa Cot eae nimal Rights: vivi| mares’ Stakes v Mura | St4 F. BA C4, CBO(C BM Cie. 2018) ay Priv edac WS not waived loy Merely Atsclosing facts to Hird Pavhes . QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Coontinued ) at tral ,unices Provider Cconvereathoni \between proider and hert 1s Disclosed ten ine puviledge Le wauwed Cgee also United Ptetes Vv. Portilla > Avd F. 2A 144 Cots Ci’. 2020)). Queshon *S : Whether the imal Judge yrotatea criminal defendants Suet = ; } . conetiiunena| rants by alow Asoistant United States Atrowney Rebecca neste 40 vequest “twal cout Sulpomas," Know tng that the mal courte would mor OCON” Cendenced by KUSH Fertnatior ave (2) ecauenna! IndiermentS over the years “beginning ii 201%) and falscly represannng +0 Subpoenaed witnesses that “they wer Wavand Tuy ” subpoenas and that Wcy could Ccompiy with the wavand Jury » Subpacnas before the Grandjury heanng loy prom'ding requestca records and documats to AUSAS Fatcval Agent who would ren aenros Hts information to the Feteval ces: atl pwc mae nok uu "4 bue 4 flney Were fuial Court Subpoceenas co Appmati¥ ; A deliberate, act oy, MUSA In +o dence (which prolonged eye eulter Ugo SEVOrA complyivic order Minds Ceugint= to Financial Dritae Act; eae Sedu les Crim. Dibelcdnee Rul \ ~ . y hers BOGS. dding indictments (Ashi les ©) Ne, | 20) fo buitd Govts. case ana ARAL TE ALN | ing expedition ) anotahory of Octendants Const. |