RETIRED POLICE SGT. HELD IN JAIL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS (OREGON)

NewsWithViews.com ^ | Oct. 14, 2002 | Paul Walter

[Kevin Curry]

He was not Marandized, according to witnesses.

If true, then his attorney will bring this out at trial, his words will be suppressed, and the prosecutor will try to convict him without the words. Maybe he can still be convicted without the words, maybe he can't. The absence of a Miranda warning does not mean the prosecutor is prohibited from using other evidence.

The absence of a Miranda warning in and of itself is not a Consitutional violation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you must receive a Miranda warning. Its purpose is to ensure an interviewee has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before his words can be used as evidence.

In requiring a Miranda warning, the Supreme Court assumes, by legislative fiat, that everyone is bone-dead stupid and uninformed about the Fifth Amendment without inquiring into whether this is actually the case. Arguably a more rational approach would be to inquire into whether the interviewee was at the time of the ihe interview already aware of his right against self-incrimination. If he was, a two-minute mini-course on the Constitution by the police shouldn't be required, should it?

This guy, being a former police officer and "Constitutional expert" and all, clearly understood before he ever opened his mouth that he had a Fifth Amendment right to keep it shut. Whining that he was essentially "mugged" by the police because he wasn't informed of his Fifth Amendment rights is the kind of complaint only someone utterly ignorant of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment could make. But the Supreme Court will allow him to make it. And so it goes.

And then there is the small historical point that the Fifth Amendment was originally designed only as a brake on federal power--not state power, and was made applicable to the states by judicial fiat via the 14th Amendment in the 1960s by a liberal SCOTUS. I can live with the decision. It does more good than harm. I just find it amusing that the "original intent" fanatics here are so quick to claim Miranda as holy writ. They apparently know nothing about Miranda and how it came to be.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant so many of our self-proclaimed "Constituional experts" on these threads actually are.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You oughtta put that picture up on every thread about these ersatz "Constitutionalists".

[Chancellor Palpatine]

.

[RonKY]

Here is the best thing. I know that in Kentucky, you are not required to be Mirandized at time of arrest for a misdemeanor offense. You must only be Mirandized before you are questioned. This is definitely a misdemeanor, as contempt derives from the original charge, which in this case was a traffic offense, and therefore (at least here) no Miranda warning would be required. There is no requirement in the US Constitution for Miranda Warnings anyway. Just another case of the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds and writing law instead of interpreting it.

[citizenK]

I agree with your free legal advice/assessment, but I am wondering why you think the judge plays the mental health card and doesn't simply follow the law with respect to the issues presented to him in the case.

[TheOtherOne]

This guy is a crackpot - he is fighting for his sanity, not the constitution.

[Catspaw]

Has he been practicing, "No One Knows The Trouble I've Seen" and banging his tin cup on the jail cell bars?

[HairOfTheDog]

why you think the judge plays the mental health card

I think there is ample evidence on his own web site and in his behavior that the mental health card is not just a bluff!

[Copernicus]

It is probably too late, but it would be useful if the signal-to-noise in this thread remained high as opposed to a cacophony of ad homeniem slurs and meaningless remarks which drown out all sensible discussion.

If someone has intelligent questions or meaningful non dogmatic comments about this cluster of topics please post them so other like minded thinkers can review and discuss them.

I fully expect this thread to find it's way to the Smokey Backroom before I even get a chance to review the (meaningful) contents.

It is very frustrating.

Best regards to all,

[Kevin Curry]

The judge had alternatives to the mental health issue (like actually responding to the matter of jurisdiction in writing as prescribed by the law)

You're assuming the judge failed to follow the law with respect to jurisdiction. If he did, it is up to the whackjob's defense attorney to raise this challenge--and he should. Has he? If he has not, that ought to be a clue of some kind.

Yes, I know. Someone above "proved" this nutball is being prosecuted unlawfully, and "proved" it by citing a SCOTUS case in isolation of its facts and other relevant cases. However, this is piss-poor legal research technique and won't move a law student's Constitutional Law grade from an "F" to a "D-" even at a piss-poor and marginal law school.

[Kevin Curry]

What is "logomania"? I know what it means literally. What does it mean in this guy's case?

Anyway, my guess would have been mentesphobia.

[Iron Eagle]

but I am wondering why you think the judge plays the mental health card and doesn't simply follow the law with respect to the issues presented to him in the case.

Clearly, this defendant has exhibited odd courtroom behavior. He also is representing himself, apparently. Based upon the papers he has filed and his other arguments and antics, not really enumerated in the article, the Judge senses that the Defendant may be incompetent to represent himself. (Thus, he appoints a Public Defendr and requests a medical examine for the protection of the Defendant.)

This is a smart Judge doing the right thing. He should not proceed if he has any cause for concern that the Defendant is mentelly incapacitated and cannot make decisions for himself. Defendant would be at the mercy of the state at that point. In addition, by having him cleared to represetn himself, he eliminates future grounds for appeal.

My guess is the man is competent, in the legal sense. He is probably just some anti-government wacko who has spent too much free time on anti-government webpages that trade in misinformation about the law and legal rights.

I would love to know the actual charges as well as the Other circumstances of his arrest. There are so many missing facts here. If he is on a hunger strike for 33 days, it seems he is not spending time just fo failing to produce his license. (If he is, he ought to fire himeself as his lawyer!)

[Kevin Curry]

This is a smart Judge doing the right thing. He should not proceed if he has any cause for concern that the Defendant is mentelly incapacitated and cannot make decisions for himself.

Correct. To proceed without taking these cautionary steps would raise new and even more genuine Constitutional issues.

[pawdoggie]

There's an old saying about fights, Constitutional or otherwise: "Pickin' em is fifty percent of winnin' em." This guy sure can't pick em. P.S. Both he and his wife look certifiable.

[Huck]

What is "logomania

I was going to look it up. I think it means he should keep his ignorant mouth shut, because the logos that come out betray his mental illness, but I could be wrong.

[citizenK]

I think there is ample evidence on his own web site and in his behavior that the mental health card is not just a bluff!

I don't think the mental health card is a bluff at all. It is a tactic used by courts all the time. As mentioned by others on this thread, it is a tactic employed by dictators and tyrants throughout history too.

If the judge is bluffing, it sounds like it will fail because this guy seems pretty determined to make his point. If the judge is serious about the mental health issue, then we need to determine what sort of threat this guy really presents to society.

I think this guy is protesting against the excessive use of force and control in the society, and the judge's action just proves his point. The judge should just make the appropriate rulings, find the defendant guilty, impose a sentence, and then let the defendant go, just like would happen to anyone else committed these misdemeanor crimes. If the defendant then continues to act out on his beliefs, then you deal with such offenses when they occur. If the defendant escalates his anarchism to the level of presenting a danger to society (like he threatens or assaults someone with a gun or something) then maybe the mental health card would be a more appropriate course of action for the judge to take.

I have a problem with the government wasting resources on a malcontent like this guy who does not appear to be a threat to anyone when rapists and other pathological criminals are freed all the time by the courts.

[HairOfTheDog]

If you go to the guy's own website posted up above and scroll down... he does tell his side of what happened leading to, and after his arrest. I haven't read all of it and have to go now, but he paints a picture of what happened and who we are dealing with...

[madfly]

http://www.budget.net/~primrose/Jailed.htm

Big Ray arrested in JoCo Courthouse  !
  by Peter Sparacino ©2002 - editor/publisher of Behind the Scenes in JoCo

---

   I was present at Raymond Karczewski's arraignment 9/12/02.  Big Ray had the Bailiff give his legal papers [ see  ] to Judge Allan H. Coon, who until then had had an uneventful, routine session arraigning various petty offenses.  Under Karczewski's legal theory Judge Coon did not have lawful jurisdiction to hear his matter and was unlawfully using Karczewski's private property, his copyrighted name.

    Judge Coon saved Ray for last.  In response to receiving Ray's papers the Judge had the Bailiff put a single sheet of paper on the rail in front of Ray. Ray refused to acknowledge or to touch it.  It was the charges leveled against him by the state; a felony and two misdemeanors. The Judge simply said if you are not the right person to be arraigned before me this date then I shall issue a bench warrant for whoever is to be here, and he shall be arrested for failure to appear.  Ray didn't budge.  The Judge declared that the court was in recess, then left the room.

    John Taft [ see ], Investigative Reporter for THE OREGON OBSERVER [ see ], was seated next to me. Paul Walter, publisher of NewsWithViews  was seated on my other side. Ray's wife Anita was present along with two other witnesses unknown to me.  We sat for awhile then all decided to go to the other end of the courthouse where the water fountain is located.  It was only a few minutes until two deputy sheriffs (Justema and Malin) approached and announced that they had a warrant to arrest Ray.  He asked what was the name on the warrant. They refused to answer and instead began putting handcuffs on him.  He repeatedly demanded to know what name was on the warrant. As Ray is a large man the handcuffs were not easily applied.  It was clear that both deputies were not going to answer Ray's demands.  Ray told his wife to take his wallet, but one deputy intervened and said whatever is on his person stays on his person. And with that he was whisked away to jail where bail had been set at $10,000.00.

    In these times of uncertainty where 9-11 has kindled draconian measures, such as curtailing our protections numbered in our Bill of Rights,  men of principle, like Ray Karczewski, test the health of our Constitutional protections. Either we are a nation of law, or not.  Local, legal  heel fly, Jim Rossi would say, not.  Rossi says  Oregon has no law, only the pretext of law; and that his ongoing R.I.C.O.  suit [ see ] proves his belief.    We shall see what Big Ray's case reveals.

---

Editor's note: To help clarify these rather unusual concepts here are three URLs for reference:
Redemption/Strawman >  http://www.bbcoa.com/ .
Pro >  http://www.freedomcommittee.com/5576/freedom/redemption-ab1.pdf .
Con>  http://proliberty.com/observer/19991006.htm .

   current communiques from Big Ray in jail .

---

 back to my main page .

[Aric2000]

I have to bookmark this thread.

Last time I checked the Bill of Rights does not guarantee me the right to drive where I want, when I want and however I want. As a matter of fact I don't think the constitution says a thing about it.

THe guys a whackjob as far as I am concerned, although southern Oregon does worry me, their judges and police are a little whacked out as well.