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
It is. Just get out of the buffet line.
TANSTAAFL
In isolation it seems excessive to focus all kinds of money on one guy over a traffic ticket... But the alternative is anarchy if all were allowed to subvert the system by proclaiming the government, its laws, its licenses and its courts "unconstitutional because I said so and I don't have to obey it".
Picture a release of this guy because these charges alone aren't worth it. And then picture the scenario next time, when this guy, boosted by his victory, becomes this guy..., and a young cop is killed because this guy believes he didn't have the "right" to make a traffic stop.
A new plank for the Libertarian Party platform!!!
But aren't we talking about misdemeanor crimes here?
What are the typical punishments for these types of crimes (failure to dim and failure to produce license)?
Is the judge holding the man in contempt of court or something else? (Rhetorically asking this, as you have indicated that we don't know the Other circumstances of his arrest or what transpired in the subsequent proceedings.)
You say the judge is being smart here - maybe so, that is what I am trying to ascertain. I don't particularly care for the idea of the state whipping out the mental incompetency tactic to incarcerate people they don't like.
Isn't the judge being a little overly cautious with the competency issue with respect to appeals? It's not like it's a capital offense to fail to dim your lights or even give a cop attitude about showing your license. Seems like a waste of time and money to enter the fray of mental competency for traffic offenses.
Again, I think you are right about us not knowing the full circumstances of this guy's arrest and courtroom antics. If the judge is making an example of this guy I think the judge is taking the wrong course of action, and he should adjudicate the manner fairly, legally, and at minimal cost to the taxpayers in the area. Maybe I am missing something, but I think this guy p'd off the judge, and the case is becoming a "federal" issue when it sounds like it should be more simple to resolve.
That explains the 28 million.
"If you believe that, you will believe anything."
Alternatives to "anarchy" exist in cases like this. The judge could have ruled on the jurisdiction issue (some have said it must be written, others said the judge can simply rule...) and then proceeded with the trial, verdict, and sentencing. If the defendant has a case with respect to jurisdiction or with respect to challenging the authority of the court, then he should be able to make his case, whether you call it anarchy or whatever. If the courts are acting outside the law, people like this defendant are doing us a service (notice I said IF here).
I see from another posting that the man is charged with one felony and two misdemeanors. So, the felony charge does make the case more serious. I did not suggest that the judge simply release this individual. His guilt for the crimes charged against him should be determined and the judge should hand out a sentence. I think the defendant has raised the ire of the judge, and now the judge is (ab)using his power to make an example of the defendant. Judges are not supposed to make examples, they are supposed to adjudicate the law and foment justice - hence it's called the "Justice System" not the "Example System." However, given the felony charge, perhaps the judge is acting appropriately to protect the defendant against his own misjudgement as suggested by IronEagle in a previous post. I remain skeptical.
Can you cite a couple of cases? 
Screw 'em, they don't deserve the time and trouble of answers or respect.
I'm not sure if they started it, but the US Supreme Court has sure been clear that states can restrict the privilege of motoring on the public roads to people with valid licenses. For example, Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610; Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535; Kesler v. Utah Department of Public Safety (1962) 369 US 153; Ex Parte Poresky (1933) 290 US 30; etc. The smart money bets that they know the Constitution better than you.
This judge needs to be thrown out.... this judge could easily find himself assuming room temperature.
That's the kind of highbrow analysis that demonstrates your keen insight into legal questions.
I will add a few things: Arresting someone for non-appearance in court, even though he's in the courtroom but refuses to answer or come forward when called, is a pretty good method for reducing the risk of repetition of this form of obstructionism. If Karczewski wants to challenge jurisdiction he can jolly well appeal his case to a higher court - in the meantime his childish behavior is putting him in the corner. You'll notice that he doesn't come out and say which court ought to have jurisdiction if not this one. The fact that he was found driving on Oregon roads without a valid operator's license (from any state) is a violation of Oregon state law and is enough to give the Oregon courts jurisdiction.
I have absolutely no clue as to how the Miranda case got mentioned in this. Miranda only applies in instances of arrest - not mere interviews. In this case, the state law (and the laws in every state) require not only that a motorist have a valid license but, when driving on the public streets, he have it with him and show it on request from a law enforcement officer; this has been repeatedly upheld. The instant this guy failed to present his license to the traffic cop he could have been taken into custody - without having said a word. Instead he got a ticket and failed to come forward when called.
As for the so-called hunger strike -- judging from the photos, he can easily afford to lose that spare tire, but four weeks of fasting seems a bit improbable. I am not surprised that someone who stages a fast - presumably lasting four weeks - over a traffic ticket should get a thorough psych exam. But I am a bit foggy on when Hitler had people with opposing views "incarcerated under mental health"; I had heard he had different methods.
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.