Posted on 10/15/2002 5:12:15 AM PDT by madfly
Ho hum. How long have you been a mind-reader?
Luckily for you, the good people of Oregon have a toll-free number for out-of-state busy-bodies to call and complain about the way they self-govern there: Call 1-800-WHO-CARES.
You are saying the court has not obligation to explain "diddly" (btw, that's a legal term with which I am not familiar), but others say the court does have such an obligation.
You should do the reading...
See the final paragraph I wrote in post #110
If it's obvious he is a crackpot, then why bother with the process of testing his mental capacity in a formal way? If the man's argument had no merit, the judge could have warned him not to waste the court's time, and that other such "crackpot" behavior in his court would be answered with a charge of contempt.
BTW, I have all my teeth, and in fact I have my wisdom teeth too.
If you can't respond to a discussion in a civilized manner sans the pedantic insinuations that I am some kind of toothless rebel hick, then please don't bother. It is you who should move along.
Once it became possible that the man was unbalanced, the Court was obligated to safeguard his rights even on the most mundane of charges by mental health evaluation and appointment of a public defender.
But there is no reason to think they judge has done this. Instead, there is every reason to think the judge made the right decisions when confronted with a hostile and mentally challenged defendent. Why ignore that and jump to the conclusion that there is some bigger issue here?
The article, written by Paul Walter, is the one who suggests there is a larger issue here.
From the article:
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?
I thought this was the issue of importance raised in the article. If you read my previous post, you will see that I found merit in IronEagle's comments regarding the validity of the judge's rulings. However, as a generic tactic by the state (used by the judge here) I remain skeptical about courts declaring people mentally incompetent so the state can detain them (short of proving they are dangerous to themselves or others). We don't know that the man was charged with contempt, and we don't know some of the other circmstances surrounding his arrest. This whole discussion is therefore "academic" and should be treated as such. Again, see my post #110 - if the guy is a crackpot, then the judge should basically say so, make a ruling, and continue with the trial, verdict, and sentencing for the traffic violations.
I admit that was not my most artful job of paraphrasing. The point is, of course, that the State Government retains the authority to address those rights not enumerated. That is to say, those that are not enumerated are left for the states, i.e. the people. (That doesn't mean you the people don't have them, it means that you the people -- at the state level -- may self-govern).
Amendment IX, as you well know, was put in there in fear that merely listing certain rights would leave future governments to assert that such enumerated rights are the only rights to which people are entitled. A valid concern.
Amendments 9 & 10 contemplate that nonenumerated rights are rights of the people to decide for themselves through their elected local government what other rights they have, and how they are to be administered. (By the way, Amendments 9&10 are the reasons why abortion is not Constitutional, but also not unconstitutional. It is a right on which the Constitution is silent, and therefore it is the province of the individual States -- Scalia subscribes to this correct theory, and he has read these Amendments even more than you and me!)
As for properly quoting the Amendments, it is better to understand them, then to merely be able to quote them. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have from my earlier post.
No he shouldn't. If the judge did that then he'd have people yelling about taking advantage of a mentally ill person! The judge did the right thing. He was confronted by a defendent who shows obvious signs of being unbalanced so he had him evaluated before proceeding. That was the RIGHT thing to do in this case, no matter what "generic" concerns you may have.
I have no idea who Paul Walter is or what he thinks, but if he takes this crackpot seriously then he's a crackpot too. In any case, just becuase some person chooses to write about it and publish it in some obscure place doesn't give credibility to whatever "issue" the writer wants to throw in.
Sorry, the judge was right, the defendent is a nut and it was handled properly. If you want to argue about some generic problems in the system then I'd advise you to go find an actual example of such an abuse and make your case. Let this one go, it's a loser.
This process protects the defendant AND the court
Apparently, it also supports a 28 million dollar bureacracy/industry in the community of 80,000. Which means each person in the community pays $250 per person per year for this "protection." I have addressed my concern with respect to this defendant previously, see the last sentence in my post # 56.
He takes every crackpot seriously.
I'm not discussing his article, I'm discussing the issues the article was about with my friends here on FR.
I'm sure you can come up with a better response than that. If not, maybe it's time to let this one go.
Pony up. You made the conclusory statement, now prove it.
Of course, its likely given your defense of these crackpots that you're a crackpot yourself, and in dire need of those same services, all while resenting it.
You may be correct, but my bad pun doesn't work with that charge.
That number is not true because the author states it. He is loose with fact and high on false givings. The most that they spend is about $6 million and the vast majority of that comes from state and federal grants. Only $800k came from their general fund in 2000. Josephine County's total general fund was less than $26 million, so $28 million funded by the residents seems quite unlikely.
I suggest you re-read Amendment IX.
You still don't 'get it'
(Hint - rights cannot be legislated away, not by the states or the federal government.)
Forgive me, but attorneys should know the actual language of the constitution - backwards and forwards.
Astonished.
Since I didn't address anything re: this man's looks...and I DID take the time to check out his website...I am unclear why you are addressing the above comments to me.
~~~Frankly, I find nothing obvious where it comes to the motivations of people and the things they believe.~~~
So....follow your own logic. If you want fairness and you distrust motives (in this case you are referring to the judge, I suppose, as that was the only person I referenced in my post to you), then what could be more fair then having this man's mental capacity evaluated by a qualified 3rd party?
I also didn't address the budget for mental health in Josephine County because there was no proof offered to support this author's assertion.
You just used a shotgun approach to attempt to answer my ONE and ONLY point..throwing out MANY issues I did NOT address. I suggest you attempt to limit your responses to only those points made by the poster. Which, btw, you failed to do in my case.
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.