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
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.