Michael Bentley, III v. United States

Forced Withdrawal of Counsel, Restricted Self-Representation, and Imposition of Counsel Whether the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause are violated where appointed counsel withdraws after refusing to present a defendant’s jurisdictional and constitutional defenses, the defendant is forced to proceed pro se under threat of being left without counsel, the court then restricts the defendant from presenting those defenses or declines to adjudicate them, and appellate counsel is thereafter imposed while the defendant is barred from proceeding pro se or filing his own submissions.

Court-Entered Plea Without Consent Whether the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause are violated where a court enters a plea on behalf of a defendant who refuses to plead, without a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of rights, and before adjudicating the defendant’s jurisdictional objections.

Failure to Adjudicate Jurisdiction and Authority to Proceed Whether due process is violated where a court proceeds to conviction and sentence without identifying the jurisdiction under which it acts or adjudicating objections challenging its authority, including challenges concerning the absence of an injured party, corpus delicti, or other jurisdictional basis.

Refusal to Recognize and Adjudicate Trust and Party-in-Interest Filings Whether the First and Fifth Amendments are violated where courts refuse to docket, recognize, or adjudicate duly submitted trust instruments, trustee-capacity filings, affidavits, notices, financing statements, and related documents identifying the real party in interest, and instead return, ignore, or mischaracterize such filings without ruling.

Obstruction of Filings, Writs, and Record Development Whether due process and the right of access to the courts are violated where filings are returned without docketing, including jurisdictional writs such as habeas corpus and quo warranto, where pro se submissions are refused, and where transcript access is obstructed, thereby preventing the creation of a meaningful record for appellate review.

Failure to Decide Issues While Depriving Liberty Whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause is violated where a court deprives a person of liberty while refusing to adjudicate or provide reasoned rulings on dispositive issues, including jurisdictional objections, defense claims, and challenges to the court’s authority.

Exclusion of Critical Defense Evidence Whether the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause are violated where a defendant is prevented from presenting expert testimony and other evidence concerning mental impairment, voluntariness, and diminished capacity central to the defense. 8. Prosecutorial Misconduct and Argument Outside the Record Whether the Due Process Clause is violated where the prosecution relies on testimony contradicted by physical evidence and investigative records, advances arguments not supported by the evidence, and expresses personal or speculative assertions of guilt, resulting in conviction based on argument rather than proof.

Conviction Based on Contradicted Testimony and Absence of Objective Evidence Whether due process is violated where conviction rests on testimony contradicted by physical evidence, investigative records, and the absence of required objective recordings, and where material inconsistencies are not resolved before verdict.

Sentencing Based on Protected Conduct and Disproportionate Punishment Whether the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are violated where a sentencing court increases punishment based on a defendant’s filings, asserted legal positions, jurisdictional objections, religious beliefs, or perceived views about government, and where such considerations result in a sentence grossly disproportionate to the actual conduct and record evidence.

Structural Error and Fundamental Breakdown of Due Process Whether the cumulative effect of forced or obstructed representation, court-entered plea, refusal to adjudicate jurisdictional objections, rejection of trust and party-in-interest filings, obstruction ofjurisdictional writs including quo warranto, suppression of the record, exclusion of defense evidence, reliance on contradicted testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and punishment based on protected conduct constitutes structural error requiring reversal.