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

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

[citizenK]

One more time...

I have conceded, in previous comments to IronEagle, that the judge may in fact have acted meritously in this case. However, I remain skeptical about courts "evaluating" people and the use of mental competency to take away people's rights. Are the defendant's rights in this case being taken away? Maybe not. Again, a point conceded to IronEagle previously, we don't know all of the facts of the case, and why the man has been in jail for 33 days.

The author of this article raises two issues. First is the development of the "evaluating" industry. Second is the potential for abuse and the precedent that evaluating defendants in such a manner suggests.

He is being "evaluated" because he thinks differently than most people (judge's words, not mine). Doesn't every criminal think "differently" about the law, hence they are willing to break laws? Can you not see how this system can be abused, especially in the context of crimes committed because of underlying political beliefs? Look at some of the responses in this thread - people want to persecute and/or disregard the rights of this man because of what he believes, and even worse, for how he looks.

[Poohbah]

He is being "evaluated" because he thinks differently than most people (judge's words, not mine). Doesn't every criminal think "differently" about the law, hence they are willing to break laws? Can you not see how this system can be abused, especially in the context of crimes committed because of underlying political beliefs? Look at some of the responses in this thread - people want to persecute and/or disregard the rights of this man because of what he believes, and even worse, for how he looks.

According to my personal interpretation of the Constitution, you owe me $1,000,000,000 a day. Pay up or else.

[oldfart]

Just one of the problems that would be encountered if anyone tried to take them to task is the fact that all the lawyers in the state (being officers of the court) have taken the same oath. Any suit to try to do anything about the situation would have to be filed in a federal court or you'd be admitting that the state courts did indeed have jurisdiction. I think you'd also need some pretty deep pockets.

[William Terrell]

But that's your choice, isn't it?

It should be, yes, and it was when our nation was a healthy representative republic. You keep an eye on thing as they develop, and mark my words. The license to drive will increasingly be denied or pulled for more and more "offenses" to the state, which have nothing to do with driving. More and more requirements will be attached to getting a license, many of which will have nothing to do with driving.

One small kudsu seed planted will cover a whole forest and you will find yourself covered up in spite of your good intentions and support for your state. There will come a time when the added requirements for renewing your license will make you sick to your stomach with a fear you can't quite put your finger on. It will be the reduction of your natural liberties that finally cut to the quick and you'll not be able to acknowledge it because you will be too invested for too long.

[Catspaw]

Oh, how dire. But it's your choice to drive without a license. It's your choice to go to jail. And if you hit me with your car while driving without a license, I can and will sue you for every penny you have. I will make your life a living hell. Jail, in fact, will be a vacation for you. And that, again, is your choice.

[justshe]

1)What rights does this man lose by being evaluated?
2)Since bail was allowed, he doesn't have to sit in jail, so why is he?
3)Since it is NOT the judge doing the evaluation, are you suggesting collusion between the courts and the mental health department with your comment..."potential for abuse and the precedent that evaluating defendants in such a manner suggests" ?
4) Do you not see that the judge, in ordering this evaluation, is protecting the rights of this individual? What if he IS mentally impaired?
5)Why do you automatically assign an 'industry' based on other comments on this thread from someone who lives in Josephine county, giving you the 'facts' of the Josephine County budget (facts the author of this piece either lied about or exaggerated)?

[citizenK]

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.

The reason I mention his looks is because there have been other comments on the thread regarding toothlessness and his picture has been posted a couple of times. The man's looks have been used to discredit him - he "looks" unbalanced, so he must need "evaluation" - get it? That's why the comment was addressed to you.

My comment about not finding anything obvious about people's motivations and the things people believe applies to everyone, the defendant, the judge, and even you.

I think it would have been fair for the judge to warn the defendant, based upon the courtroom behavior, that he is facing a charge of contempt along with the single felony and two misdemeanor charges if he continues. Once he is set for a test for mental competence, how can the judge allow him to go free on bail - he might be a danger to himself or others, and we won't know until he is tested by a "third party" (this is just speculation about how the system can be abused - see? - so you don't have to come back and say it's unclear why I am saying this to you).

Apparently the budget for Jos. Co. is in dispute. That's fine. But everything in America becomes an industry...and government bureaucracy and ancillary functions (like psychological evaluations, specialists for court testimony, drug testing, and even abortion). Industries integrated into systems of government are open to corruption and abuse - even if they are perfectly "legal" by society's standards.

I suggest you attempt to limit your responses to only those points made by the poster.

I addressed your questions in previous posts (as in my last post to you where I inform you of the concessions I made to IronEagle). I suggest you read someone's comments across an entire thread before trying to jump into the discussion. Otherwise don't complain when someone doesn't respond to you in the way you wanted.

[justshe]

For your information.........I have been posting on this thread.....and have read the entire thread. You ASS-ume much.

And no, I don't think that an evaluation means the person doesn't get bail........bail was granted, 10,000, $1,000 is the standard amount (10% required to get out...with a bail bondsman).

So get over yourself, bucko. And try keeping the debate cordial. Asking someone questions--or disagreeing---is NOT an attack. So drop the attitude, OK?

[Iron Eagle]

(Hint - rights cannot be legislated away, not by the states or the federal government.)

Which rights can't be legislated away by the States or the Feds? Answer. All can be to a degree -- ALL.

That's right, even the enumerated rights could be "legislated away" by Constitutional Amendment.

As for those rights not enumerated, they are affirmed, re-affirmed, and legislated away regularly. The fact that those rights belong to the people give the people - like it or not that means your government -- the right top enact laws that are not enumerated in the Constitution. (Of course, many rights, not enumerated in the Constitution are judicially created -- e.g. abortion).

Honestly, I actually do get it.

[Zon]

Why doesn't the judge simply rule on the jurisdiction issue (in writing) as required by the law instead of questioning the man's mental capacity?

Same question I asked myself.

The answer is because this judge (typical of judges across the country) is in command of tremendous hubris that makes him think he is the law himself, not an edjudicator of the law itself. The moral of the story is that if you have a dispute with a judge, even on a strictly legal matter like jurisdiction, then you can wind up being declared mentally incompetent and detained for an indefinite period of time. Don't you think that runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?

Same answer I came up with. My simple short answer is, a man's in jail because he requested the judge to abide by the law. Also, the mental stability issue as the judge apparently framed it is enough to make a person puke. It's probably just one of a list of excuses the judge asserted to take the law into his own hands. Arresting a man in front of witnesses in the very court room the judge is presiding over without reading him his Rights is blatant ego-justice, which the arresting officer gave into rather than honor his oath to uphold the law.

I refrain from opining on the driver's license issue.

[Zon]

Here is some free legal advice. (Normally $300 per-hour).

Just a thought here... That you found the need to say that as an obvious means to attract credibility, well, it pretty much answers that question.

Do I agree or disagree with your advice? The answer is irrelevant to The Point.

[Zon]

Good post -- thanks.

[Iron Eagle]

I am an attorney.

I don't know the actual language of the Constitution backwards or forwards. I don't know any counsel or judge who does. Most attorneys do not ever deal with a Constitutional issue in their life. (I have).

Attorneys don't practive by rote memorization of the law. They practice by understanding how the law has been applied to the facts of cases in jurisdictions where they practice, and then establishing how the facts of your present case fits into the existing case law, if any. Most litigators deal with common law or state or Federal statutes. (Most of which have adopted the principles of common law on torts and contracts.)

Most Constitutional practitioners deal with criminal law or first Amendment law.

In any event, merely reading the text of an Amendment tells you nothing about how a Court has applied and interprested that Amendment. Only through case law, dealing with actual facts, rather than abstract ideas, does a Court rule. Fropm those rulings, we gain our guidance.

[Iron Eagle]

Guilty as charged. I hate when people are obnoxious. My apologies. But I get so frustrated by people who comment on subjects about which they no nothing. It appears to happen too frequently here, but I keep coming back because, sometimes, the reading is interesting.

[Zon]

Not a problem. Many people come here ignorant and most leave better off with the learning.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Of course you don't have to have a driver's license -- but you can be prohibited from driving on public roads if you don't have one.

[agitator]

I'm posting this for your reading pleasure - or not. Take what you find here or leave it because I'm not going to debate what's at this link, it speaks for itself. The fact that I'm posting this link on this thread has nothing to do with the individual mentioned at the beginning of this post - I take no position in that matter because I haven't had time to research it.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[GovernmentShrinker]

Let this nut starve himself to death if he likes. What a trip -- a retired "dedicated police sergeant" claiming he doesn't have to have a license to drive on public roads! I wonder how many people he stopped and demanded a license from during his dedicated career?

[GovernmentShrinker]

There is no legal requirement that he be "Mirandized" -- and since he is a retired police officer, the court can reasonably presume that he is aware of the rights contained in that warning.

[GovernmentShrinker]

This nutcase was driving on PUBLIC property, and the probable cause for stopping him was that he was blinding other motorists with his high beams.