ORDER AND REASONS

KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge.

For essentially the reasons stated in the Government's opposition memorandum (Rec. Doc. 61), IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Gregory Broussard's prior requests relative to setting aside his conviction and having new counsel appointed are DENIED. See Rec. Doc. 60-1 and letters attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".

Exhibit "A"

Earlier today, I spoke with Ms. Virginia Schulter and Ms. Roma Kent. In particular, Ms. Kent advised me to write another letter to you expressing a desire to seek a habeas relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence.

In response to my initial request, Mr. Brian Klebba, U.S. Prosecutor for the Eastern District of Louisiana, filed a government's memorandum in opposition to my motion.

In response to Mr. Klebba's Memorandum, I wish to challenge and refute Mr. Klebba claim and denial request on the grounds that in his statement of facts Mr. Klebba is relying on falsified and "doctored" statements and documents of witnesses, and "doctored" and misleading investigative efforts of Special Agent Matthew Pederson, to include "doctored" statements of an alleged interview with me.

Second in the Procedural History, Mr. Klebba stated that I pled not guilty to the charge (as advised by Ms. Roma Kent.) He does not bring to light that Ms. Kent offered to seek that the charges be dropped after my first court appearance with Magistrate Judge William Moore, Jr. Later, Ms. Kent stated that she felt I was guilty as charged of having "knowingly and willfully threatened the President of the United States." Please keep in mind that all of these events were taking place while I was overmedicated. Judge William Moore, Jr. (magistrate) stated, "1 can tell that you are having problems with your medicine."

Mr. Klebba states, "Despite the absence of any explicit basis for a Section 2255 motion, the government will treat Broussard's letter to the court as 2255 claim and respond accordingly. My explicit basis for a Section 2255 motion, are my medical records from Dallas/Fort Worth Medical Facility to include Dr. Rattan's Psychological evaluation in which he concludes that I am not a threat to neither society of President Bush. Keep in mind this was after my medication regimentation had be changed to a lower dose that fell within a "prescribed therapeutic range." When psychotropic drugs a overprescribed the medication becomes toxic and causes severe adverse side effects which is why the Dalias/Fort Worth medical unit rushed me to the unit to do an EKG because they thought I was going to encounter severe medical complication to included but not limited to "mental impairment."

As a Tulane University certified paralegal, I can attest to the fact that Mr. Klebba uses a lot of misleading legalese in his Law and Argument section. He has a tendency of quoting various legal sources, isolates and truncates the source thereby taking the quote out of context. Then, he maneuvers by faulty reasoning that he has grounds to deny my claim. Further more, Mr. Klebba engages in false presumption that I "knowingly" entered a guilty plea; even though I now possess medical records proving that I was being overmedicated (sedated) at the time of the "alleged" offense and during court proceeding even though he was present in court when Judge William Moore, Jr. attested to the fact, "you are having problems with you medication." Judge Englehardt's legal theory was that I was mentally "impaired" at the time of the offense, but the "impairment was due to in his estimation that I it was due to not taking the medication.

In Section C, Mr. Klebba states, "Even though Broussard clearly gave a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to seek post conviction relief . . . Again I ask how can I reasonably knowingly do any thing in an impaired, sedated state of mind.

Furthermore, Mr. Klebba goes on to state, "To succeed, Broussard must show that: (1) his counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) his counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his defense. First, counsels performance was deficient in that Ms. Kent was made aware of my medication adjustment through a telephone conversation that I had with her whereby she stated, "1 can tell that you thoughts are clearer and you are less "groggy." Additionally, I signed a release for her to obtain medical records and to file a motion on my request to have the court notified of the change in prescription regimentation. When I returned to court, Ms. Kent failed to execute my request and I was summoned to court for sentencing. Second, counsel's deficient performance prejudiced my defense in that Ms. Kent's failure to inform Judge Englehardt impaired the Judge's decision to proceed in court to included sentencing. Judge Englehardt's legal theory was that I committed the alleged offense, because "Mr. Broussard forgot to take his medicine." His judgment was impaired that he did not have "full knowledge" of the facts. The evidence reveals that I had a pill case upon "voluntary" admission to the hospital with some medication taken and the subsequent doses contained in the pill case. My doctor's are held legally liable for any overmedication. The crux of what I am saying is that in spite of being overmedicated and sedated, I was making efforts to seek help by "voluntarily" admitted myself to the emergency room. While at the hospital I engaged in "poverty of speech and flight of ideas" as evidenced in hospital records.

In sum, I feel, based on what I have presented. I have reasonable grounds and rights to be provided an opportunity to have a hearing on the aforementioned motion for explicit purpose of challenging (1) false, misleading statement of the facts, (2) faulty procedural history, (3) faulty legal argument, and (4) faulty legal conclusions.

In closing, I wish to answer two questions. First, what do I think the problem is that needs to be corrected? Explicitly, the problem is that I have been prosecuted and sentenced on false and misleading facts, legal reasoning, and legal conclusions. Second, what do I feel will needs to be done to correct the problem? We need to hold a hearing to obtain the correct facts and "truth" and move to vacate the sentence, drop the charges, and expunge the record.

Enclosed, please find medical records in support of my claim as well as a newspaper article in the Morning Advocate — Friday, February 26, 2010 entitled, "Jail Leaves Woman Black and Blue," whereby a patient, with the same medical condition as I, was given relief in that her charges was dropped due to her impaired state of mind. dismissed.