I would encourage you to join the natural law view of law of the John Locke school of thought. There is something evil going on that is targeting people of all races, and especially men.
Yes there are a lot of bad judges out there, and a lot of bad criminal defense lawyers, and especially prosecutors. I am not familiar with of how the money flows in California, but that may be something you want to investigate.
In Georgia all the money, except for statutory exceptions, of probation and and fines from criminal cases end up going to the municipalities and back to the police, sheriff, D.A, and the courts. So we have a system where many innocent people are being locked up, with no bond or a high bond, and basically forced to plead guilty in order to get out of jail. Even wealthier folks may have to spend thousands of dollars per motion, or be given a choice of paying a fine and agreeing to a conviction and being released. People tend to complain about the probation management companies, but they are basically just bill collectors and convenient scapegoats for the municipal corruption. The state of Georgia cracks down on people for just about everything-especially political speech. That is the game that they play, as well as many other municipalities across the country.
It is called the police state as the police literally turn into extortionists. Those who refuse to play the plea game and assert their 7th amendment right the courts think must have something wrong with them, so they engage in moaist humiliation. They often do so without any due process in violation of Vitek v Jones. They courts can't forcibly medicate a person unless it is for the purpose of making a person competent to stand trial. But what can really stop a judge? They have absolute immunity to civil actions, and your pleadings can't be heard so long as you have counsel. They can even order people to do surgery on people and still be immune. See sparks v stumpman. Their judicial abuses is a way to punish and humiliate people who might have a valid 1983 claim or state tort claim. In Georgia, the forensic psychologic and the hospitals are operated by the state, so they tend to be protected by Qualified and sovereign immunity. The forensic psych exams are nothing more than opinions and quite often are in error, many people have been turned into mindless zombies stuck in hospitals. In Georgia you can say cite statutes and case laws and describe how you will beat your case, and they will still say you are incompetent to stand trial...even if in the end you do beat it for the very reasons you said. medicare/caid pays the state of Georgia $300-400 per day to keep someone hospitalized, even though the federal courts (with the United states suing Georgia) found the hospitals really don't do any rehabilitation at all and ordered many of them to be shut down.
If in your case, if it was about a DUI case, all that really mattered was the facts surrounding the case. It really doesn't matter how many times the LAPD may have set you up in the past, although they could have been raised in the trial, it is more about that specific incident. Telling these things to the psychologist could create a targeted individual type delusion. Saying the judge could chemically lobotomize you is an extremely unlikely outcome, and if you say that to a forensic psychologist that is going to send a few red flags too.
As far as advancing Pro se, in the county where i was from no pro se party had ever beat their criminal case who was incarcerated. I probably could have, but a first amendment professor stepped in at that point. It is better to have stand bye counsel to reduce the risk of a judge walking over a pro se party.
I am also concerned about the judge using the existence of an alleged unpaid ticket as to deny you a further court appointed assistance. If it is a matter of an inability to pay, that would reek of a 14th amendment violation. But other states would say, and I can't speak for California, that once you have court appointed assistance and you reject it then you are on your own. But of course, that get's weirder since they seem to still be trying to determine competency to stand trial which is a tier far below being able to represent yourself.
I suspect in many cases public defenders are in bed with the prosecutor too, mine was continuously threatening me for refusing to plead guilty. In my case I was arrested for appealling a civil case. The detective tampered with the evidence, but no one was bothering to try to pick up an original from the court itself. Finally, I had to write the judge threatening 1983 action against my own public defender if she doesn't remove him from the case. I guess that got the judge's attention. Finally she asked for the evidence I had requested a year earlier (which exposed the state's forgery, fake victim told the D.A. that what she received was the copy from the appellate court not what the state produced), and the judge dismissed the case later for the state constitutional reason I made in the letter. It also helped substantially that a first amendment professor joined my case the moment she learned he was going to rush the case to trial without a first amendment demurrer as a way to punish me for not pleading.
Given that it is a misdemeanor DUI case, you may want to look more into the science of DUI as well as the case laws concerning DUIs in your state including the types of diagnostics and the consent required for each diagnostic type, if the officer had training, when the devices were last calibrated or tested for accuracy. There is a chance the technology used isn't acceptable as too inaccurate, wasn't calibrated, the person administering the test wasn't qualified, or that more invasive diagnostics was obtained without consent or a required warrant. You may want to look at endogenic ethanol production. Your body can produce it sown alcohol up to .08 through digesting carbs. For some people with autobrewery syndrome. If it was an underage driving DUI, and the BAC was low a endogenous ethanol production could be used as a defense-providing there is no other evidence. Similarly if it is slightly about .08, you could attack the mens rea in that it would have been impossible for you to have known you were over.
A jury will decide the facts in your case, catching a police officer in a lie really isn't as important as people think it does. It doesn't make or break the case, unless the facts concerning that lie are material which is extremely rare. The jury gets to decide what are the facts and whose telling the truth even if the cop is 100% lying, a court of appeal will review the record in a light in a favor that the jury chose. So if you advance the argument that the police were targeting you, that should never be the focal point of your defense [unless you have nothing else] as that would be like waiving arguments about the facts in the case and on appeal the appellate court would side with the state. If you intend to advance pro se, be sure to get records of everything you can about the case and especially concerning the police officer and his training and internal affairs record, about the type of diagnostic they used, and any problems they may have had with that particular unit. You should seek out a doctor or biologist who would file an affidavit about endogenous ethanol production, or seek out a diagnosis for auto-brewery syndrome. Focus on the facts and laws that will be argued in the case.