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
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.
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!
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,
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.
Anyway, my guess would have been mentesphobia.
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!)
Correct. To proceed without taking these cautionary steps would raise new and even more genuine Constitutional issues.
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.
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.
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.
current communiques from Big Ray in jail .
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.