Replies

Since the judge won't address the issue of jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by the law, we don't know enough to determine if the judge is acting outside his jurisdiction with respect to the original charges set forth against the disgruntled ex-cop who failed to produce his license. However, this episode exposes the abuses of the judicial system with respect to the incarceration of people based upon the judgement that their differences in opinion about a given law consititute mental illness that justifies their detention.

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?

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?

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?

Because that isn't what the law says, and the man is an obvious crackpot.

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?

Because that isn't what the law says, and the man is an obvious crackpot.

There is one more thing. But first-- everybody get out your dictionaries and look up two words: "support" and "honor."

According to the Constitution of the U.S. (Art. 6, paragraph 3) all judges and state officers must swear an oath to "support" the Constitution of the U.S., which is (according to the preceding paragraph in Article 6) 'the supreme law of the land.'

The oath of office that is used in Oregon only requires office holders and judges to "honor" the Constitution.

On the shelf next to my dictionary is a thick book of synonyms. When I look up those two words in it, I find long lists of words that can be used in place of either of them, but neither word is listed as a synonym for the other. Does that mean that Oregon's elected officers and judges are serving unconstitutionaly? I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

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.