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