Posted on 10/15/2002 5:12:15 AM PDT by madfly
GRANTS PASS, OR. -- Sixty-five year old Ray Karczewski, a retired police sergeant from Pacifica, California, whose wife of 43 years describes him as "steadfast in what he does" and "very focused" is in the Josephine County, Oregon jail because of his constitutional beliefs.
On September 5, 2002, Mr. Karczewski was stopped for a minor traffic violation. His violation? He failed to dim his high beam headlights. When the officer asked Mr. Karczewski for his driver's license (and other documents which he had), Mr. Karczewski replied, "I don't need a license for private purposes on a public road, in a private vehicle." Then a series of escalating events took place that ultimately led to his arrest in the courthouse hallway.
On September 12, 2002, Mr. Karczewski appeared in court with his wife and numerous witnesses, including myself, who just happened to be there. Mr. Karczewski's case was the last one called. After reading the charges, Judge Allen H. Coon asked Mr. Karczewski to enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. While remaining seated in the gallery, Mr. Karczewski informed the judge that the judge's jurisdiction over this matter was being formally challenged and then had the court bailiff deliver to the judge the appropriate papers with the stated allegation. The judge ignored the papers and then proceeded to inform Mr. Karczewski that if there was a question of identity, and according to Mr. Karczewski that person was not here, then he (the judge) would issue a bench warrant for failure to appear to the person to whom the original charges were directed. Then the judge abruptly got up and left the courtroom. We all left the courtroom and stopped at the courthouse water fountain.
On Judge Coon's orders, and in front of numerous witnesses, including myself, Mr. Karczewski was arrested and handcuffed by Corporal John Justema and Deputy Malin, without having his Rights read to him, and not answering Mr. Karczewski's question "in whose name is the warrant issued." Mr. Karczewski was then taken to the county jail. What makes this case so weird is that Judge Coon had Mr. Karczewski arrested for NOT appearing in court when Mr. Karczewski WAS there in front of Judge Coon AND numerous witnesses.
Due to this injustice, Mr. Karczewski, being a man of principle with steadfast beliefs decided to go on a hunger strike. Today marks his 33rd day. Local media, the Grants Pass Daily Courier, kept silent on Karczewski's hunger strike. Due to pressure from concerned family, friends and citizens, the Courier finally ran their first article on Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 28 days into the hunger strike.
Anita, Mr. Karczewski's wife, released the following statement from her husband:
"According to the law, when the court is challenged to prove jurisdiction, the court must do so in writing... Until then no proceeding may continue... The question Americans who value their freedom must ask themselves is do we or do we not live under the Constitution. When the court can make up their own rules as they go along and pay no heed to the Constitution, we live in a lawless land."
On the 10th of October judge Coon allowed, for the first time, to have Mr. Karczewski address the court with his legal issues and asked Mr. Karczewski to produce case law, which he did, to see if they had merit. At Mr. Karczewski's last hearing he supplied case law to the judge who promised to read them.
The judge said he wanted to accommodate the state with conditional release papers, which Mr. Karczewski refuses to sign, stating he refuses to do anything until written proof of jurisdiction is established, which the judge refuses to do. According to Karczewski's wife, they'll either let him out of jail or he'll take the hunger strike to its ultimate conclusion.
Judge Coon said he didn't understand Mr. Karczewsk's legal issues, then imposed public defender, attorney Peter Smith, on Mr. Karczewski against Mr. Karczewsk's wishes. According to the Courier Judge Coon wanted Attorney Smith to gain an opinion on Mr. Karczewski's mental stability. The judge was quoted as saying, "I still have some concerns about the defendants mental health...the defendant has some ideas which are different...I don't have a problem with ideas that are different, so long as those differences are the product of a healthy mind."
This situation, spotlighting the close relationship between Josephine County's Mental Health and the court system, is a frightening specter. If a judge can order a psychological evaluation on a person for being different, then we are all in danger because we are all different. This is extremely alarming. Is this why $28 million is being spent on mental health in Josephine County, with a population of only 80,000?
This sets a dangerous precedence. The same philosophy was practiced within the Third Reich. Adolph Hitler had people incarcerated under mental health simply for holding an opposing view. The Soviet Union used mental health to control dissidents and political opponents.
Mr. Karczewski, a dedicated police sergeant, took a bullet in the line of duty. Is this the thanks he is receiving from Judge Coon? Former Josephine County, Oregon deputy, Jerry B. Mathel, was caught with a large collection of child pornography, yet he received only probation, dismissed from the force and to my knowledge received no psychological evaluation. This is only one example, there are others to numerous to mention. Is there a double standard here?
Community concern has apparently expedited a trial date of October 15, 2002, at 9:30 AM, at the Josephine County Courthouse, since the Courier published a November 1, 2002 trial date.
On October 14, at 4:15pm I interviewed Anita Karczewski at their home in Cave Junction, OR. where she made the following predictions: "They're going to convict him of something, then release him for time served." Why, I asked: "To save face and avoid proving jurisdiction" replied Anita. Anita can be reached at: anitak@internetcds.com
© 2002 Anita Karczewski, photo by NWV
© 2002 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
At that point, the judge has two options: the first is to simply accept and adjudicate the guy's arguments at face value, whereupon the gentleman is now guilty of failure to appear AND the original misdemeanor charge--because he completely ignored both the law of the state of Oregon and argued on an irrelevant tangent. However, the result is that this gentleman can later argue that the judge did not take into the fact that he's off his chump.
However, to simply accept the arguments offered and then adjudicate them is very much NOT in this gentleman's interest, and he should (being a retired police officer) know that his arguments are specious and the consequences thereof. Therefore, to safeguard this gentleman's rights, the judge is going to ask whether he is mentally competent to stand trial and argue his own case.
He's not going to be locked up merely for his political beliefs. Either (a) he's going to be found competent, and he's going to go to trial and lose, or (b) he's going to be found NOT competent, get court-appointed counsel, and he'll have a slightly better chance of getting off. The only way he's going to be locked up is if the court-appointed pshrink believes he poses an imminent danger to himself or others--and that requires this guy to express suicidal or murderous ideation during his evaluation. At that point, the pshrink would STILL have to go o a judge to get this guy committed.
BTW, according to my personal interpretation of the Constitution, you now owe me $2,000,000,000, plus a penalty of $4,000,000,000 for expressing a desire to have this case argued before the corrupt judiciary. There's a common-law court convening in the trailer park tonight; this case will be adjudiated by REAL 'MURICANS, and you'll be found guilty of high treason, barratry, jaywalking, and spitting on the sidewalk.
I see that you are convinced otherwise, so I bid you farewell. I'll not bother you again with the notion of natural rights.
May your chains rest lightly...
Charles Manson might agree with you, but the so-called 'freedom' of someone enslaved by cruel delusions is not something conservatives applaud.
Why, just two days ago in my town, we had a guy who was pulled over for driving without his headlights at 12:30 a.m. A deputy sheriff had the audacity to pull him over for this violation. The guy didn't have a license, so he got into a shootout with the deputy; the deputy shot back and missed (he fell down while trying to back off). Neither one was shot, but the perp took off and stashed himself somewhere. Schools in the area were locked down until he turned himself in. I suppose one could say, at least according to some of those on this thread, that he had the right to do so because of his ideology, that traffic laws aren't constitutional and that, of course, the attempted first degree homicide charges against him should be dropped because he had a right to defend himself against illegal stops and unconstitutional laws.
No peeking at the story all you Constitutionalists. Tell me if the perp was right or wrong. After you give your answer, then read the story.
The story's at this link
In eighteen short years Mr. Shoen has acquired the combined knowledge of Ray Whathisnameski, Wilbur Gaston and the dead scum psuedo-costitutionalist who shot the deputy. What a genius.
The problem is, that merely being born with and being entitled to certain rights, doesn't grant those rights. Governments, through the people hopefully, insure those rights. A civil government by the people is ballest that keeps the ship of liberty afloat. Otherwise, we would sink into the dual oceans of Tryrany and anarchy.
So you are born with natural rights. Me too. So are Iraqi children, Saudi children, and others. Whether one actually gets to enjoy those rights is determine by one's ability to exercise one's rights. Governments, hopefully liek our democratic repulic, are the tools of free preople to ensure and protect those rights. (Of course government intrusion limits some rights. Call that the tax for enforcement) Obviously, the balance between government intrusion and personal liberty is a constant struggle, even in our democractic republic.
The problem is, no one has provided me with a thougtful, coherent plan as to how one can enjoy freedoms and libety, with out some civil government. In the absence of a governing system, natural rights become theoretical rights. And as many in the world can attest, theoretical rights ain't worth squat.
Indeed.
Actually NO every american should be able to enterpret the Constitution of the United States as long as they have a basic grasp of the principles of the bill of rights and dont abuse that privalege
The biggest problem we have is lawyers and judges rewriting laws from the bench and people not banding together to protest it kicking them from their higher office istead of ignoring it as if it didnt matter!
So what are you going to do if you're driving on a public road and are stopped by the police for a traffic infraction? The young man in my post #186 had his bail set at $500,000 for attempted first degree homicide because he decided that it was better to attempt to shoot a sheriff's deputy who pulled him over for not having his headlights on at 12:30 a.m. Are you willing to shoot a cop for your beliefs? Are you willing to go to jail, perhaps for the rest of your life? What would you do if you were stopped by a cop?
I'm curious, though: in the story to which I linked, the guy didn't have his truck lights on at 12:30 a.m. This was in the city, not the country, and was in an area that was well-lit. Did he have the right to drive with his lights off, although there are laws that mandate that one drives with headlights on during certain hours, although there was ambient street lighting? Do others? What if he was not in a well-lit area? Did he have the right to have placed a renewal tag (obtained from who knows where) on his license plates although he didnt' renew his license plates? Do others? Does he have the right to refuse to register his car? Do others? Did he have the right to drive with no license? Do others? Did the sheriff's deputy have the right to pull him over for these traffic infractions? If so, why? If not, why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.