However, the strange case of Dr. Sell has already been in the national news. In fact, it has been all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But there are some aspects of the case that have not been publicized. I think that is partly because papers like the New York Times fight for the constitutional rights of our enemies in Iraq who actually have no constitutional rights. But they care less about their countrymen who actually do have constitutional rights.
Over the span of the next column or two (or however many columns it takes), I will try to get papers like the New York Times to take a short break from their campaign against the re-election of George W. Bush. Hopefully, during that break, they will find some time to cover some disturbing aspects of Dr. Sell?s case.
I begin my coverage with the full text of a motion that Dr. Sell submitted to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals:
The United States of America v. Dr. Charles T. Sell
Motion for authorization of independent psychiatric evaluation and fees and expenses.
Comes now, the defendant, Charles T. Sell, DDS, acting pro se, to respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant fees and expenses to obtain an expert psychiatrist to perform an independent psychiatric evaluation to determine competency and mental state of the defendant pursuant to 3006A (e) (1).
In support of this motion the defendant states as follows:
I. The defendant, Dr. Charles Thomas Sell, has been held without a trial for nearly seven years at U.S.M.C.F.P. and the reason for this is because the government?s doctors deem him incompetent.
II. The defendant has lived his whole life being competent, from being a Major in the United States Army Reserve and a professional dentist in private practice.
III. The defendant is physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially exhausted from the seven years of abuse that the government has put him through and cannot pay for an independent psychiatric evaluation.
IV. The defendant sent a letter to his attorney with instructions to file a motion to obtain a psychiatrist by the name of Mark Schiller to be an expert witness but to no avail; his lawyers did not comply.
V. On October 8th, 2003, the Court ordered the U.S. Attorney and Dr. Sell?s attorneys to each submit a memorandum stating each party?s position as to (1) the current state of defendant?s competency to permit the trial to proceed, (2) the probability that in the foreseeable future, the defendant will attain the competency to permit the trial to proceed, and (3) the nature of the treatment, if any, best suited to maximize the probability of restoring the defendant to competency.
VI. In response to this, Dr. Sell?s attorneys, against his wishes, petitioned the Court for fees and expenses for a C. Robert Cloninger, MD to examine him.
VII. In order to address the issue of Dr. Sell?s competency to stand trial, it is necessary for him to obtain a psychiatrist that will conduct an independent evaluation, and who is unbiased.
VIII. The defendant has chosen the psychiatrist that he wishes to conduct the competency evaluation: Dr. Mark Schiller.
IX. The defendant does not have a curriculum vita on Dr. Schiller and does not know what his hourly rates would be. He has limited access to telephone and, his attorneys appear to have an agenda of their own; but his address is (deleted).
X. For the above stated reasons, the defendant cannot, at this time, estimate the amount of time or funds he will need to hire Dr. Schiller, however, it is certain the amount will exceed the $1,000 maximum mentioned in 18 USC Section 3006A (e) (3).
Wherefore, the defendant, Dr. Charles Thomas Sell respectfully requests that the authorization be granted for the fees and expenses of Dr. Mark Schiller to perform an independent psychiatric evaluation to determine the defendant?s competency,
Dr. Charles T. Sell.
To be continued?
Mike S. Adams (www.DrAdams.org) is the author of the new book, ?Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel.?