Replies

but I am wondering why you think the judge plays the mental health card and doesn't simply follow the law with respect to the issues presented to him in the case.

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!)

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.

Correct. To proceed without taking these cautionary steps would raise new and even more genuine Constitutional issues.

If you go to the guy's own website posted up above and scroll down... he does tell his side of what happened leading to, and after his arrest. I haven't read all of it and have to go now, but he paints a picture of what happened and who we are dealing with...

http://www.budget.net/~primrose/Jailed.htm

Big Ray arrested in JoCo Courthouse !
by Peter Sparacino ©2002 - editor/publisher of Behind the Scenes in JoCo

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.

Editor's note: To help clarify these rather unusual concepts here are three URLs for reference:
Redemption/Strawman > http://www.bbcoa.com/ .
Pro > http://www.freedomcommittee.com/5576/freedom/redemption-ab1.pdf .
Con> http://proliberty.com/observer/19991006.htm .

current communiques from Big Ray in jail .

back to my main page .

Indeed, we have a problem in that the article does not provide all of the details of this case.

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.