State v. Menefee, 268 Or. App. 154

Defendant (pro se) advanced a "flesh and blood" / sovereign-citizen jurisdictional theory and refused to accept the court’s framing of the indictment or to say whether he wanted court‑appointed counsel.
On the first day of trial the court warned defendant about risks of self‑representation and repeatedly offered appointed counsel; defendant at one point said he was "ready to proceed today without a lawyer."
During opening, defendant repeatedly asserted his jurisdictional theory, interrupted the court, insulted the judge, and said he would continue to do so; the court ordered him removed for disruptive conduct.
The court found defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived presence because his disruption was intentional, then proceeded with trial in defendant’s absence and, because defendant was pro se, without any defense counsel for multiple days.
The jury convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in finding he waived counsel, (2) the court erred in removing him from the courtroom, and (3) the court erred in continuing the trial without him or appointed counsel. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Menefee's Argument	Held
Whether defendant knowingly and intentionally waived right to counsel	Court adequately warned; defendant repeatedly refused appointment and expressly said he was "ready to proceed without a lawyer" — waiver valid	Refusal to say ‘‘yes’’ to appointed counsel was not an intentional waiver; objections show no waiver	Waiver upheld: totality shows defendant knew of right and intentionally relinquished it
Whether removing defendant for disruptive conduct was lawful	Court may remove persistently disruptive defendant; Allen and state precedent permit removal	Removal improper because disruptive acts were assertions of legal arguments in his attorney role, not conduct warranting exclusion	Removal upheld: record supports that conduct was obstructionist and intended to disrupt trial
Whether court could proceed in defendant’s absence without appointing counsel after removal	Court may proceed if defendant voluntarily absents himself; prior OR cases (Harris, Skillstad) permit proceeding when absence is voluntary	Proceeding without counsel violated federal constitutional rights because removal was court‑ordered (involuntary) and defendant did not forfeit right to representation	Reversed: after involuntary removal of a pro se defendant, court must secure waiver of right to representation or appoint counsel before proceeding

State v. Langley, 351 Or. 652 (discusses knowing, intentional waiver of counsel)
State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (prerequisite that defendant knows right to counsel for valid waiver)
Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (court may remove disruptive defendant after warning; means to preserve order)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self‑representation; judge may terminate self‑representation for serious misconduct)
United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2004) (removal of pro se defendant does not forfeit defendant’s right to representation; proceeding without counsel is structural error)
Badger v. Cardwell, 587 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1978) (distinguishes removals for non‑attorney‑role misconduct from conduct tied to pro se advocacy)
State v. Harris, 291 Or. 179 (statutory‑right context: defendant’s absence may permit proceeding)
State v. Skillstad, 204 Or. App. 241 (statutory‑right context: proceeding when defendant voluntarily fails to appear)