Talk:Susan Lindauer/Archive 1

Copyright violation removed

Here, I removed a big chunk of text cut-and-pasted from MSNBC. The only changes were to remove the words making it clear that the events she was arrested for are alleged by the government. Removing that is very naughty. This article could use a thorough neutrality- and fact-check and more careful citation. CDC (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If what I wrote did not make it clear that these are allegations, then my omission of any important words was inadvertant. My aplogies. If you look at my history, I think you will see my participation on this article makes it very clear that I care very much about this distinction. 38.2.108.125 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Susan Lindauer. This Wikipedia article about me has been cited in a lawsuit seeking punitive damages. It is proof only of outrageous speculation, and what happens when a person is denied due process of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Illness

I would like to see a reliable source cited for the claim that Carswell doctors stated in court that Susan Lindauer exhibited NO mental illness of any kind. This is not supported by the recent decision to not forcibly medicate her, in which the judge states very clearly that not only is there evidence of Lindauer's mental illness but that her mental illness is readily apparent to even a casual observer. Please note that he cites this as one of the reasons why the accusation that Lindauer could have influenced the White House was very weak. He also states in his decision that at least a half-dozen mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist retained by the government, have found Lindauer incompetent to stand trial. 38.2.108.125 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Susan Lindauer-- Here's a citation for you. "Lindauer shows no signs of psychosis, no sign of mood disturbances, no symptoms of depression or mania of any sort." That was recorded in months of court-ordered counseling in Maryland. But that's not what the Justice Dept wanted to communicate about me, because President Bush was lying about Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence and he would have had serious problems if the real story ever came out. So what to do? You destroy the person who's got the real story. I was one of three assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for 7 years. So they came after me.

By the way, the court-ordered counseling was cancelled after less than a year, because of protests by myself and the Maryland psychologists who considered it unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got citations alright. We submitted extensive documentation to the Court, showing that the Prosecution psychiatrist rewrote a number of my papers, and inappropriately redacted and reconfigured paragraphs on multiple occasions. After Carswell, we tape recorded two follow up meetings, and we showed the Court that he lied numerous times in his statements about our discussions. He also dramatically revised witness statements, in such ways as to contradict FBI documents. The lack of ethics has been truly shocking to everyone, even other psychologists in Maryland who have been deeply embarrassed by such poor professional conduct.

That's all documented and part of a civil lawsuit seeking punitive damages.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Must Be Provided

Verifiable sources for statements MUST be provided according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please note that Wikipedia also prohibits original research. Susan clearly has her side of the story, but her statements must be verified in a reliable way. We can't include hearsay. Has Linduaer in fact made any public statements about this? I have removed what appears to be to be an unverifiable statement from the "Arrest" section. Revert if I am wrong, by all means, but if you do a reliable and verifiable source must be provided. 38.2.108.125 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Susan Lindauer. I find it extraordinary that my attorney's office has tried to fix this entry several times. Several times over the years we have inserted links and provided other factual corrections. And then you guys (in this discussion area) come onto the page and arbitrarily remove the documentation. You're the ones without the citations. You're repeating wrongful, damaging information which has already been repudiated in a court of law. The Bush Administration put out lots of bad information about me. (What a surprise). Courtroom testimony smashed it all to hell. THAT"S the Citation that matters the most. We are now seeking punitive civil damages for wrongful arrest, wrongful imprisonment, a Soviet-style use of psychiatry, and we expect the government to settle! The damage to my reputation from Wikipedia is cited in the lawsuit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markovian Parallax Denigrate

I agree that this section probably has nothing to do with this Susan Lindauer, however I have removed the comment which I think belongs in the discussion section rather than the article itself. Could someone please justify the inclusion of this with something more substantial? It sounds like an urban legend to me. If it cannot be proven that this has anything to do with this Susan Lindauer, then it need to be removed completely. 38.2.108.125 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have done some research and frankly I cannot see any concievable reason why this section is included in this article. The email in question originated from Wisconsin, and nobody really knows what it is. Its gibberish. There is no evidence that it came from Lindauer. I am therefore removing it. If I am wrong, by all means revert. 38.2.108.125 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I"m Susan Lindauer. I had never heard of this until I read it on Wikipedia. This is false information like so many other things. Wikipedia is total disinformation. It is factually inaccurate at so many levels. I'm just amazed that my attorney has faithfully corrected the bad information, and this crap keeps coming in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindauer "Faces" or Lindauer "Faced"

I have changed the sentence in the first section from "Lindauer faced up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she wass convicted." to "Lindauer faces up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she is convicted. Her case is currently still pending."

This is because every source I have been able to find states that the case is still open. If this has changed (i.e., if charges have been dropped), then this needs to be stated and verified with a reliable source. Any updates? Please note that in the section under "Arrest" it also states that charges are still pending. 38.2.108.125 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Jury was not advised?

Under "Arrest", the following sentence needs some clarification and a citation: "The Grand Jury was not advised that Lindauer had worked as a U.S. Asset covering the Iraqi Embassy from August, 1996 onwards, with heavy oversight by American agencies." This to me implies that a.) it is a verified fact that Lindauer's claims are true and that b.) these verified facts were withheld from the jury. Question: Has anything been verified? Has the withholding of information been addressed in any way in court? This statement may need to be qualified. 38.2.108.125 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Please!

I think that everyone making edits here have excellent intentions and are probably right, and I hate to sound pedantic, but PLEASE cite sources when you attribute statements to Lindauer, and please do not rely on hearsay.

Example: Under Urban Legend, a previous editor stated that Lindauer said she does not know anyhting about that Markovian-whatever-it-is. Did she say this in an interview? Has she written something in which she commented on this? Or did you just sort of hear through a friend, who kind of knows her housemate, that she was walking her dog and said something about it to a neighbor? Wikipedia has firm guidelines about these matters-- please let's shoot for journalistic quality. No hearsay, and no independent research. Maybe Lindauer said this to you over tea, but for it to go in Wikipedia, it has to be sourced so that others can verify.

Thanks for listening. I am really not trying to be a wiki-bitch. I just want this to be a good and blindingly accurate article. 38.2.108.125 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since nobody seems to be able to provide citations, I have removed three unsupported statements-- including one which really has been completely contradicted in court records. I figure after six months of waiting, this is reasonable. If anyone wants to put these statements back, you MUST provide verifiable citations, otehrwise this is just hearsay. 12.148.243.99 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Susan Lindauer. This is a perfect example of the craziness of wikipedia. You're referring to something that my family attorney corrected. WHERE ARE YOUR CITATIONS!!!! YOU DON"T HAVE ANY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.84.37 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side-effects

June 18, 2008
Antiwar Activist Returns to Court for Iraq Spy Case By ALAN FEUER She rolled her eyes. She stuck her tongue out at the prosecutor.It was decidedly not the usual courtroom demeanor. Then again, it was not the usual federal case.
Nor did it did stop the woman, a former journalist and Congressional aide, from trying to persuade a judge that she was mentally competent and prepared to stand trial on charges that she worked with the Iraqi intelligence services before the United States invasion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/nyregion...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/nyregion/18spy.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

Dystonia
Class Effect: Symptoms of dystonia, prolonged abnormal contractions of muscle groups, may occur in susceptible individuals during the first few days of treatment.
Dystonic symptoms include: spasm of the neck muscles, sometimes progressing to tightness of the throat, swallowing difficulty, difficulty breathing, and/or protrusion of the tongue. While these symptoms can occur at low doses, they occur more frequently and with greater severity with high potency and at higher doses of first generation antipsychotic drugs. An elevated risk of acute dystonia is observed in males and younger age groups.

Tardive Dyskinesia As with all antipsychotic agents HALDOL has been associated with persistent dyskinesias. Tardive dyskinesia, a syndrome consisting of potentially irreversible, involuntary, dyskinetic movements, may appear in some patients on long-term therapy or may occur after drug therapy has been discontinued. The risk appears to be greater in elderly patients on high-dose therapy, especially females. The symptoms are persistent and in some patients appear irreversible. The syndrome is characterized by rhythmical involuntary movements of tongue, face, mouth or jaw (e.g., protrusion of tongue, puffing of cheeks, puckering of mouth, chewing movements). Sometimes these may be accompanied by involuntary movements of extremities and the trunk.

Both the risk of developing tardive dyskinesia and the likelihood that it will become irreversible are believed to increase as the duration of treatment and the total cumulative dose of antipsychotic drugs administered to the patient increase.

In general, the symptoms of overdosage would be an exaggeration of known pharmacologic effects and adverse reactions, the most prominent of which would be: 1) severe extrapyramidal reactions...

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/haloper.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapyramidal#Disorders

Oculogyric crisis (OGC) is the name of a dystonic reaction to certain drugs and/or medical conditions. The term "Oculogyric" refers to rotating of eyeballs,[1] but several other responses are associated with the crisis.

Drugs that can trigger an oculogyric crisis include neuroleptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculogyric_crisis

(One of the most common medications listed at wikipedia under 'Antipsychotics'- re-directed from 'Neuroleptics'- is 'Haldol'.)

Looks to me as if she's at the receiving end of some rather unusual treatment- and with that I don't just mean the medication. 83.71.25.65 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to every reliable source available, Lindauer is not taking any kind of anti-psychotic medication. She is under no requirement to do so, and the Mukasy decision made it very clear that she will not ever be require to do so. She does not believe herself to be psychotic or in need of medication. She has stated more than once that she is opposed to medication. I suspect she was just expressing her feelings about the proceedings. 66.150.206.1 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new link to that NY Times-article.83.71.25.65 (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING THE COMMENTS ABOVE ON ASSUMED SIDE EFFECTS

My name is Michael Collins. I've written extensively on Susan Lindauer's case and spent a fair amount of time with her since the latter par of 2007. I write for "Scoop" Independent News, OpEdNews.Com, American Politics Journal, and a number of other online political web sites. I frequently use and link to Wikipedia, which I find informative and reliable in almost all cases. I'm also the Wikipedia user who requested that the incorrect (and widely used) label "spy" be changed to conform with the actual charges against Lindauer in federal court. I was pleased to see that change made.

I was at the hearing where the reports above originated from NYT reporter Alan Feuer. In fact, I was seated in front of Mr. Feuer for the entire hearing. Lindauer was about 20-30 feet in front of the audience. It was a packed courtroom.

I watched attentively as the trial progressed. I didn't see any of what Times reporter Feuer saw. Lindauer was clearly very focused on the two "lay witnesses" testifying in her behalf. She was facing toward the judge at a table next to her attorney. I don't know how the Times reporter saw what he claims to have seen. Short of moving into area for the lawyers and judge, that would not have been possible.

Extrapolating from the NYT article is not a valid approach, imho, since the data upon which the reports rely is simply not reliable. The other articles on the hearing (AP, NY Daily News, NY Post) had none of this in their coverage. I reference direct evidence on Lindauer's pre Carswell mental health below. At this point, regarding Mr. Feuer's article in the NYT, I'll quote myself:

"The reporter from the New York Times characterized Lindauer in a derisive and mocking tone. If he truly believed the prosecutor's experts with regard to Lindauer's mental state, he would be guilty of behavior that is simply not acceptable in almost any circle."

The NYT "Covers" the Susan Lindauer Story

I think that this point is critical. If the NYT is covering the hearing, there's no room for the tone of the article. If the reporter really believed that Lindauer was out of control, how objective is it to deride and mock her?

I saw an entirely different picture of the two lay witnesses. Dr. Parke Godfrey, the computer science professor from York University was the kind of witness I'd want at any trial where I was charged with anything. He is an associate professor at a major university in Canada and distinguished in his field. After being asked a question, he'd pause and reflect on his answer, then give a precise description of events. If he was unusual in any way, it was a style of delivery and reasoning that was reminiscent of Mr. Spock on Star Trek. Kelly O'Meara, the investigative reporter, was highly credible in terms of her testimony and demeanor. She's worked on some major stories and has won a number of rewards for investigative reporting. How these people were seen as "suggestively odd" escapes me.

Lindauer's counseling records were part of exhibits filed with the court. She gave me permission to post them. They can be seen here Articles and Public Domain Documents. The referenced court documents below are in the link marked "Exhibits 3 Exhibits - 3 - filed with Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 1, 2008." .

Page 5 through 10 of the exhibits are a series of mental health reports from the Maryland therapist Lindauer saw over a period of months prior to confinement at Carswell. They are of particular interest. Each report noted the absence of psychosis and delusional thinking and related stress to her arrest and court proceedings. From Mukasey's Sept 6, 2006 Order and Opinion, there is no indication that he ever saw these and other reports from the DC area mental health providers.

The "Exhibits" pdf also has reports from Carswell (page 11 on).. They are of interest also. On the periodic reports, the left column consistently state "Impaired of no reality contact. Lackn (sic) insight into illness" (from the Carswell psychiatrist). While nursing observations on the right side consistently read "Good physical health. Socializes well. Good intellectual functioning." It's very difficult for people "Impaired of no reality contact" to "socialize well" and display "good intellectual functioning.

I don't mean to write an article here, but I'd be very comfortable debating any psychiatrist or psychologist on Lindauer's mental status at the hearing that the New York Times article reported. I should also note that Mr. Feuer did not cover Judge Loretta Preska's subsequent ruling on Sept. 16, 2008. Benjamin Weiser wrote that article, "Woman Accused of Iraq Ties Is Ruled Unfit for Trial Again." Unlike Mr. Feuer, Weiser actually interviewed Lindauer before publishing the article. Unlike Mr. Feuer, he refrained from using the term "spy" in his headline.

While the correlation of psychiatric symptoms with the reports of Lindauer's behavior is interesting in an academic way, the basis for the comparison is simply not there. There are my direct observations which completely contradict his claims. For the entire hearing I was seated in front of NYT reporter. Then there is the absence of any reporting consistent with Mr. Feuer's observations by the other mainstream media in attendance.

N.B. Mr. Feuer's June 17, 2008 article had two glaring errors in it. First, he referred to this as a "Spy Case," an issue that was settled here regarding the use of "spy" in direct contradiction to the indictment. Also, of real interest is this paragraph by Mr. Feuer:

"At the hearing before Judge Mukasey two years ago, prosecutors asked him to order Ms. Lindauer to take antipsychotic drugs in an effort to render her competent for trial. Judge Mukasey declined to rule on the request, saying that the case would be assigned to a new judge — which turned out to be Loretta A. Preska — and that she would eventually have to decide." Alan Feuer, New York Times, June 18, 2008.

Mr. Feuer references the Assistant U.S. Attorney's request Judge Mukasey issue an order to force medication on Lindauer. He says, "Mukasey declined to rule on the request, saying that the case would be assigned to a new judge." That's factually incorrect. On Sept. 6, 2006, Judge Mukasey denied the prosecution's request for an order to force medication. In his words denying the government's request that the court order forced administration of medicine:

" Based on the evidence presented at a Sell hearing on May 4 and May 9, 2006, for the reasons explained below, the government has failed to carry this burden with respect to one, and possibly two, of these criteria-possibly as to the importance of the government's interest and certainly as to the likelihood that the proposed medication will succeed. Accordingly, the motion is denied."

OPINION AND ORDER, MUKASEY, D.J., No. S2 03 CR. 807(MBM), Sept. 6, 2006.

MichaelCollinsDC (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest section

The entire arrest section makes claims that need to be sourced and aren't. I attempted to add requests for citations, but there are so many unsourced assertions that it bcame a muddled mess. Could someone familiar with the case either A) source the section or B) edit it so the unsourced assertions are dealt with? I am not familiar enough with this case (nor do I care to be) to make edits of the factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charges Dropped

Lots of details here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0901/S00210.htm

>>> Feds Drop Case Against Accused Iraqi Agent Saturday, 17 January 2009, 10:02 am Article: Michael Collins

Feds Drop Case Against Accused Iraqi Agent

"The Government has determined that continued prosecution of this case as to LINDAUER would not be in the interests of justice."*

Michael Collins "Scoop" Independent News

(Jan. 16, Wash. DC) The Department of Justice entered a motion to drop all charges against Susan Lindauer yesterday morning, Jan. 15, 2009. The filing (see below) at the federal district court in lower Manhattan ends the government's attempt to prosecute her for allegedly acting as an "unregistered agent" for Iraq. Since her arrest in early 2004, she has repeatedly asked for a trial to present evidence that she had been a United States intelligence asset since the early 1990's.

By filing this order, the government surrendered forever its ability to prosecute Lindauer as an "Iraqi foreign agent" and for lesser charges contained in the indictment, including a one week trip to Baghdad in March, 2002.

Lindauer made the following statement today, Jan 16, 2009: "I am disgusted by this case. They think that they have defeated me by denying my day in court. It could not be more wrong. If we can't have a criminal trial, we're going to have a civil trial for damages."

Lindauer was arrested in March, 2004 shortly after offering to testify before a Bush appointed blue ribbon commission evaluating U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraq. In late February, she informed the offices of two commission members, Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and Trent Lott (R-MS), that she could testify that U.S. pre-war intelligence was proactive and effective, not a popular view at that time.

Lindauer has adamantly maintained her innocence of all charges since her arrest. In addition to the "unregistered agent" charge, the government alleged that she had taken an unauthorized trip to Baghdad, and attended meetings with Iraqi intelligence agents at the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations. Lindauer planned an aggressive defense with evidence that showed both government knowledge and authorization of her activities plus a history of activity on behalf of U.S. intelligence.

Lindauer offered an affidavit concerning the Lockerbie bombing in 1998. Her statement was based on her discussions with Dr. Richard Fuisz, whom she named as her CIA handler. Dr. Fuisz was said to be "a major operative in the Middle East in the 1980s." Since then the Scottish Criminal Cases Justice Commission has since uncovered irregularities in the evidence against the two Libyans convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The initial indictment charged Lindauer with trying to influence United States policy by sending this letter to her second cousin, then Bush chief of staff Andrew Card. From 2000 until her arrest in 2003, Lindauer provided Card with 11 letters detailing the progress of talks to resume the U.N. weapons inspections and anti terrorist cooperation offered with the United States by Iraq. The last of this series of letters to Card was the sole basis of the charge that Lindauer attempted to influence U.S. government policies, while acting as an "unregistered agent" for pre war Iraq.

The Card letter was the "high water mark" of the government's charge of acting as a foreign agent according to former chief judge of the Southern District, Manhattan federal court, now Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey. In that letter, Lindauer urged the Bush administration to stop plans to invade Iraq and to seek engagement through negotiation. Lindauer wrote that U.S. soldiers would face stiff opposition based on Iraqi hostility resulting from a lethal ten year embargo and daily bombing during the 1990's.

She also advised Card that an invasion would create a new wave of terrorists threatening the security of the United States. This letter was hand delivered to Card with a copy, also hand delivered, provided to then Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Above all, you must realize that if you go ahead with this invasion, Osama bin Laden will triumph, rising from his grave or seclusion. His network will be swollen with fresh recruits, and other charismatic individuals will seek to build upon his model, multiplying those networks. And the United States will have delivered the death blow to itself. Using your own act of war, Osama and his cohort will irrevocably divide the hearts and minds of the Arab Street from moderate governments in Islamic countries that have been holding back the tide. Power to the people, what we call “democracy,” will secure the rise of fundamentalists." Susan Lindauer to Andrew Card, January 6, 2003*

Lindauer has consistently maintained that she had been acting as a United States intelligence asset from the mid 1990's until the invasion, supervised by handlers for the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.

In the only open hearing on the case, award winning investigative reporter and former Congressional chief of staff, Kelly O'Meara, testified that she observed Lindauer meeting with Paul Hoven on a weekly basis over a period of 16 months. Lindauer maintains that Hoven was her second handler for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Investigative reporter Leslie Cockburn wrote that Hoven had "an enormous range of contacts in the murky world of special - i.e., clandestine - operations."

At the same hearing, Parke Godfrey, PhD, an associate professor of computer science at York University, Toronto, testified that Lindauer had warned him on several occasions that a major attack would take place in Southern Manhattan in the fall of 2001. Dr. Godfrey claimed her warnings specified that the attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings and a reprise of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. She came to this conclusion based on work she describes with Richard Fuisz.

The Department of Justice argued that Lindauer was "delusional" for claiming a role as a U.S. asset. Lindauer described this as "guilt by pleading innocent." In October, 2005, former Judge Mukasey ordered Lindauer to a federal prison facility at Carswell Air Force Base in Ft. Worth Texas for psychiatric evaluation to see if she would be competent to stand trial. Lindauer was confined for seven months, and then formally declared incompetent without a hearing, over her strongest objections. The allowable period for such evaluations is four months according to U.S. Federal Code.

Carswell staff acknowledged that there were no external symptoms of mental illness. However, they proposed that Lindauer should be detained indefinitely and drugged with Haldol until whatever time she could be "cured" of claiming that she had worked as a U.S. asset in counter-terrorism. Lindauer refused, and a lengthy court battle ensued. She was transferred to Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

After four months confinement in Manhattan, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward O'Callaghan sought an order from Mukasey to incarcerate her for another four months and the use physical force to administer doses of Haldol or similar medications. This was despite an internal staff report by Carswell that there was no reason to justify forcible drugging since Lindauer was not a threat to herself or anyone else. Mukasey denied the prosecution request and ordered Lindauer to be released on bond on June 6, 2006.

Lindauer hired former prosecutor and Washington DC criminal attorney Brian W. Shaughnessy as counsel in mid 2008. Shaughnessy filed a motion to overturn the governments finding that she was incompetent to stand trial. Shaughnessy argued that Lindauer's record of doing well on her own before and after her arrest and her direct involvement in her defense made the government's continual claim of an inability to stand trial moot.

Bush appointee, Judge Loretta Preska ruled to uphold the government's position on Lindauer's competence on Sept. 15, 2009. Preska had been nominated for the federal appellate bench on Sept. 9, 2009.

Just a few weeks after Dr. Godfrey testified about Lindauer's warnings on the 9/11 attack, Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward O'Callaghan left the District Attorney's office to join the McCain presidential campaign. He began assisting Sarah Palin's legal team in Alaska. Dr. Godfrey testified that he had told the FBI her claims were truthful a full year before the Justice Department detained her at Carswell.

Ms. Lindauer's Attorney, Brian W. Shaughnessy pointed out that he could find no other instance where federal, state or local prosecutors have ever argued for a defendant's incompetence to stand trial over the objections of the defendant and defendant's Counsel, when that defendant was a successfully functioning member of the community and a full participant in her defense.

Lindauer lives in the DC metropolitan area where she is rebuilding her career and undertaking some writing projects.

END <<<

Material removed

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Susan Lindauer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

My name is Susan Lindauer and unfortunately this Wikipedia has been larded for years with disinformation. We have corrected it again and again. My attorney has tried. We are now seeking civil damages from the feds, and the harm to my reputation from false information on Wikipedia is actually cited in the lawsuit.

Everything I have said can be proven in a court of law. I promise Wikipedia doesn't want to be in the courtroom when we prove that my story has been 100% accurate in all details and I have been badly libeled.

Susan

Last edited at 06:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)