just sent stu and hunter the following update since stu apparently called mom and reminded her that the hearing was coming up - and she said I should contact him - so I said ok - she knows he has not done the contract needed - clearly needed - so all are of like mind - anyway - I am with regard to my contract rights - others - not so - moo t sh owe ... so the below sent simms ... wonder what he may ... respond ... with ... hmm you know to the work in progress ... he is a lawyer ... one would think he can write a contract ... and even better has research staff ... etc. anyway ... hope springs eternal ... for some no so much for od err ss .... To Stuart Simms,ESQ Adam Hunter,Marie Park, and 3 More... Today at 11:12 AM and said the hearing is coming up ... as I am preparing the contract you would not write ... for best practices ... also to show unequivocally ... the second the contract is signed ... competence ... even if not signed ... competence ... anyway working on the work in progress ... which you have not performed ... which causes me grief ... but hunter a lot more problems ... course he could do the continuing duty to disclose ... job stuff .. hiss el f ... and maybe save hiss el f ... cause there are more than enough grounds to have the charges dropped ... cause of malpractice by the court the prosecutor the pseudo shrink and of course hunter ... care to comment on the job done so far ... you are supposed to know how to contract must I finish this work in progress below ... ???? with it sent certified to the court ... and all other parties??? pretty embarrassing ... when the threats and coercion and criminality are ... rampantly appearing on the record ... and now we also have he latest court transcript ... altered ... and that can be proved too ... going a lil overboard in the treason realm ... in their prosecution ... malevolent prosecution cause ... they lost already ... if you look at .... the 14th sec 3&4 which says there can be no officers of the court ... that can maintain their authority ... if in treason ... and violations to the Constitution in these matters ... to such ... degree ... clearly is treason ... so maybe they should drop the charges ... think you can convince ... traitor hunter ... that he may wish to .. remove himself from conspiracy by ... trying to do the right thing ... hmm think the Judge Bush by now has read the record ... that Judge cheater didnt ... that would be demeo ... did you know that my appeal was successful ... tho they didnt let me ... present my arguments ... cause they still wanted to cheat ... did you know that that also was an illegal breach of my rights ... get real stu ... gov has no case ... sure as there is a jury ... and jury ... pool ... so care to finish up the below efforts ... bet you could do just as good a job ... even better ... if you really wanted to you know go straight ... eh ... I just wanna see ... if there is ... hope ... that would be for you ... the others ... methinks are simply lost ... maybe you can set a good example for them ... I dont have the time or the desire ... I just want them gone ... you know better things to do .... yup ... oh would be nice to have a quality response ... one that deals with the issues ... I need dealt with so not savaged by grubby thieving barbarians ... under color of law gruesome ... nope .... dont need them ... not for a quality dai anyway ... getting sloppier cause came to the conclusion I needed more content ... so have to pop it in and then ... you guessed it ... stroke the word until ... like mind ... can be attained ... you know aka ... the other guy can read it and agree to the terms ... and everyone on the same page for ... good faith performance and thus contract ... termination ... with all parties ... hmm ... in good conscie...nce knowing they did a good job ... yup yup ... so got sloppier but will be even more .. detailed! clause provisions wise ... we like ... provisions Contract for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation for Competence to Stand Trial preamble purpose of contract: To provide Mr. Sebastian with documentation of his competency to stand trial, by observation and thru the generation of: one, a video tape of such observations and thru, two, of a forensic psychiatrist report, (based on review of the court transcripts and annotations on a video Sebastian will present the psychiatrist), report also based on a one hour observations of Sebastian in interactions with a lawyer (Hunter, who will attend such meeting as per court statement on ct. transcript - see transcript), three with video taped documentation of any subequent questions by the forensic psychiatrist, as well as documentation video tape of all the answers given by Mr. Sebastian. Contract performance shall be deemed attained upon delivery of above described report to Mr. Sebastian. The report shall contain at minimum the following statements of fact. 1. Mr. Sebastian has shown by oral and written means correctly shown that he understands the object and nature of the court proceedings. 2. The report shall state the the Psychiatrist evaluator has witnessed Mr. Sebastians ability to aid in his defense thru oral and written and reasoning skill means . This done thru first hand witness observation of the content and nature of the interaction between lawyer hunter and sebastian; and 3 The report shall controvert the perjurious rohrer report on the grounds that it is perjurious and clearly shows upon scrutiny fatal flaws inclusive of perjury flaws and ommission flaws, and flaws of ehtical judgement, and flaws in reasoning skills,, and flaws in due diligence when discovery information is presented for analysis and the analysis is either ommitted so that fabrications can be presented, or laws ignored so that false statements can be put into the record thru lible and color of law means under rubric of legitimate inquery into competency to stand trial. 4. The report shall contain a statement acknowledging that Sebastians Constitutional due process right to standardized proceedures were denied in the following areas (statement shall be based on review of the record/court transcripts): a). that Sebastians right to networth finding was denied b). that Sebastians right to networth finding investigators was denied c.) that Sebastians right to self representation was denied.] d.) that Sebastians right to have the judge review evidence presented on the record for a: finding of each fact and conclusion of law, was denied because the judge never read the information presented her thru the clerk of the court and said so on the record that she never read the evidence presented her in due process lawful and timely fashion - e.) that Sebastians right to have the prosecutor present impeachment evidence was denied tho prosecution stated they would find such requested discovery of impeachment evidendence; requested thru use of discovery due process standards of law correctly and in timely fashion as seen on the ct transcript record and verified to have been made, by psychiatrist evaluator having read the court transcripts and statements made in such transcripts by the prosecution - and statements made on the court transcripts made by the evalue that also show and are documented, that evalue, party of the first part also defendant, thru appropriate and seasonable and timely and lawful due process form, presented discovery request clearly made, and clear response of prosecutor in the affirmative in terms of made known, with avered consent, in the affirmative to perform and produce additional discovery, response of/by prosecutor to look for such impeachment evidence. Evidence that was never produced tho that clearly is in the hands of the prosecutor, as well as available to the court - so the report shall say that the prosecutor failed to produce such due process required evidence - and the result was - one of the results was - breach of Sebastians rights, were denied for deficiency in terms of prosecutorial due diligence and deficiency in prosecution honoring discovery rules ... and deficiency in prosecution allowing a fatallyflawed report to take the place of an honest investigation - since malevolent prosecution is also ... a breach of Sebastian rights - and the concerted deficiencies seen on the record - amount to circumstancial evidence conclusions that show motive opportunity and means wehre by theft by extortion can be maintained thru terror and coercion tactics while denying the victime his due process right to speedy jury trial and rights to controvert allegations against him . The report shall makes statments pertaining to this all since, since such evidence presented by the prosecutor would have unequivocally shown fatal flaw in the Rohrer psychologist report - by authenticating documents she stated were dubious and by authenticating documents the prosecutor presenting them in that light ... authentic and authenticated would have also controverted the statements made ...statements apparent that are in the Rohrer report, and that are perjurious because clearly upon scrutiny ... done scrutiny by the new psychiatrist and presented in the report ... as contractually agreeded to and mandated herein ... with new shrink sig ... she either twisted in perjury or ommitted so that she could make the findings she made ... which were perjerious and which was also seemingly sanctioned by - the judge - the prosecutor - and the advisor hunter who also did not object to such perjury and who also was aware of the discovery evidence that showed more than just competence to stand trial - and the report shall state that hunter clearly had to be aware of the simms motions authenticity since simms had said and the psychiatrist heard the tape of such ... simms saying he had told hunter that the motions were authentic ... public documents. and that hunter seems to have some problem with distinguishing whatt hearsay evidence is ... and what an authentic already authenticated document is as seen by his review of the tape presented him for review - wherein prior to court hunter refused to introduce impeachment evidence or to honor the rule of law dealing with continuing duty to disclose requested impeachment evidence if and when it does become clearly available ... and that hunter also seemed to have difficulty honoring the rules of law dealing with continuing duty to disclose networth information when it becomes available. and already was ... available. This all done, to meet the entailed above described needs (competent to stand trial) which such documentation will provide Sebastian, thus meeting his verbal obligations statement wise (ie; i told the judge i would contract a psychiatrist for competency report which would ... prove competency) for current pretrial mister meaner ... matters. Further Mr. Sebastian alleges he 1 understands the object and nature of the court proceedings ... and states that the object and nature of the court proceedings is to bring to bear the truth finding function of court in the adjudication of the misdemeanor charges (of possession of cds, with maximum sentence if found guilty of one year) to determine thru the use of due process standards codified if Mr. Sebastian is culpable with regard to the governments allegations and charges found in the Charging documents. and 2. Sebastian alleges that not only can he understand the role of: the court, of the prosecutor, of the judge, of the jury, of the defense lawyer and of the defense; but also Sebastian alleges that he can discuss such with the lawyer, as well as discuss the charges, discuss the laws pertinent, discuss what the pertinent evidence is that is in his, Sebastians possession, and transmitt all such information to the lawyer, thru the use of language, and the use of facts, and the use of evidenciary documents ... that are authentic and authenticated already by law, as well as present the lawyer laws, read such laws the lawyer may wish to present Sebastian, go over all such laws and their meaning ... in meaningful discusstion. and that Mr. Sebastian is prepared to show AND document - such understanding of the object and nature of the court proceedings and show his ability to aid in his defense ... with use of a qualified lawyer ... all in front of a qualified forensic psychiatrist, who is prepared to observe such interactions, and is prepared to read all relevant transcripts that Sebastian alleges shows no breach of presumption of competence( on the record - see law ... presumption of competence is determined from the record) on his part. CONTRACT I Christopher Sebastian (evalue herein known as party of the first part) and I Dr. ________________ (examiner herein known as party of the second part) agree to the following contractual terms upon offer, acceptance of offer, and consideration for good faith performance of the following agreements, contracted, and solely those agreements contracted are to be executed with seasonable and documented good faith perfromance. The following agreements for good faith performance to be as follows: 1. in return for the sum of _______________ paid by Mr. Sebastian evalue party of the first part; the forensic psychiatrist Dr. ________________ party of the second part agrees to the following: a: To hold an evaluation according to the best practices system/standards, defined in the below and referenced at/from the mental competency dot org site at: mentalcompetency.org/model/model-sec-I.html I. INITIAL COMPETENCY Observation and Use of Best Practice standards: When the issue as to whether a defendant is mentally competent to proceed is raised, it is a best practice for the court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to find for a competency evaluation of the defendant: and this shall be done by review of the record to see if there is a breach seen on the record that would indicate that the presumption of competence of the defendant has been documented on the record that may show lack of competency of the defendant in terms of understanding the object and nature of the court proceeding; to ensure the competency requirements are met thru observation entailed in best practices, standardized in the following best practices procedures detailed and entailed in this contract/agreement thus ensuring thru adherance to the best practice detailed herein below that good faith performance upon the parties are sufficient to meet the court ordered needs of party of the first part, Sebastian in his bid to show competency to stand trial therefore. 1 the doctor shall make available. a video tape or camcorder tape capable conference room. The room shall allow sufficient space for three persons to be seated around a table. the table shall be large enough to hand documents back and forth between parties as well as a location for camcorder to record all parties interactions for one hour; this; for the party of the first part evalue Christopher Sebastian to sit with the party of the second part, the forensic psychiatrist, who will watch to see if Mr. Sebastian can show by his interactions, with the party of the third part, the lawyer Hunter (the lawyer the court has assigned to assist Mr. Sebastian in the presentation to the court, of his Sebastians, ability: to show competence to stand trial according to the requirements of law detailed herein below): 2 The party of the second part, forensic doctor shall, observe the interactions between: evalue, Sebastian, and lawyer Hunter, (party of the third part) - (i.e. party entailed by court agreement, see court transcripts - attached, to participate in advising how to show competence as detailed in the below paragraph) and such observation will be done to see if: the below competency requirements of law are met, by the party of the first part, Sebastian, as well as to see and document the obligations of rules of law met vis the lawyer in the information/participation interaction -(which clearly ALSO require the competence of the party of the third part - in lawyer in fiduciary and in ethics duty to uphold due process rights, of defendant in any and all, advisory capacity, and specifically to: not withold material evidence, legal or law wise, or factual, facts evidence wise, and or represent anything otherwise than the truth, in all aspects of the court proceeding, from networth finding issues to all other due process issues, including seasonableness, which may and do affect the rights of a defense, when in such ethical or unethical defense advisory capacity - see aba rules of ethics - appendix): In Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part standard for determining competency to stand trial: first, a person must have the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and, second, he or she must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her. Id. In other words, as the Court held, it is not enough that the defendant is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events. Id. Otherwise said, “a person whose mental condition is such that he [or she] lacks the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him [or her], to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his [or her] defense may not be subject to a trial” or plead. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975); Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401-02 (1993). ---- F. Questions Specific to Adjudicative Competence The distinguishing feature of a competence evaluation is the assessment of the functional abilities needed to proceed with criminal adjudication. To make such an assessment, the psychiatrist asks questions that will lead to a determination of whether competence-related abilities are “sufficiently present.” Bonnie182 has characterized these abilities as falling into two key functional domains: “competence to assist counsel” and “decisional competence.” Competence to assist counsel encompasses the defendants abilities to understand criminal charges, the implications of being a defendant, the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, and the role of defense counsel. Competence to assist also includes the defendants ability to work with and relate pertinent information to defense counsel. Decisional competence refers to the ability for the defendant to participate autonomously in making important decisions that arise in the course of adjudication. Among these decisions are whether to testify, whether to plead guilty, and, if the case goes to trial, what strategy should be used. Examinations of adjudicative competence are concerned with defendants case-specific capacity to proceed with criminal adjudication, as distinguished from their general legal knowledge, actual current knowledge about the case, or willingness to proceed with adjudication. A defendants ignorance of some aspects of how the legal system works, the charges faced, or possible penalties does not necessarily imply incompetence. The defendant may simply not have been provided this information, but may be able to incorporate and use information in making decisions after being told these things. To distinguish mere ignorance from incapacity to learn, the psychiatrist may use structured interviews (discussed later) or other teaching and retesting approaches that involve instruction on factual legal matters. In cases in which the psychiatrist has learned that a defendant has had problems in collaborating with defense counsel, the psychiatrist should try to learn whether the defendant could work with an attorney and participate in defense planning, but has chosen not to do so for reasons not related to mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental limitations. Assessing and documenting a defendants functional status usually requires asking specific questions that systematically explore the defendants general knowledge about criminal proceedings, his understanding of matters specific to his legal case, and his ability to relate to defense counsel. Areas that the psychiatrist typically assesses during an interview include the defendants: knowledge about the roles of principal courtroom personnel (the judge, jury, witnesses, defense attorney, and prosecutor) and of the evaluees role as a defendant; judge noun a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment - official with supervisory duties, ju·ry1 ˈjo͝or1. a body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. the jury returned unanimous innocent verdicts --- pros·e·cu·tor ˈpräsiˌkyo͞otər. a person, esp. a public official, who institutes legal proceedings against someone or an illegal one under color of law malicious prosecution etc. === About the Model Rules The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983. They serve as models for the ethics rules of most states. Before the adoption of the Model Rules, the ABA model was the 1969 Model Code of Professional Responsibility . Preceding the Model Code were the 1908 Canons of Professional Ethics (last amended in 1963). Rule 1.1: Competence Client-Lawyer Relationship Rule 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. PREAMBLE AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT CANON 1. A LAWYER SHOULD ASSIST IN MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY AND COMPETENCE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION Ethical Considerations Disciplinary Rules DR1-101 Maintaining Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession DR 1-102 Misconduct DR 1-103 Disclosure of Information to Authorities CANON 2. A LAWYER SHOULD ASSIST THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN FULFILLING ITS DUTY TO MAKE LEGAL COUNSEL AVAILABLE Ethical Considerations Recognition of Legal Problems CANON 6. A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT COMPETENTLY Ethical Considerations Disciplinary Rules DR 6-101 Failing to Act Competently DR 6-102 Limiting Liability to Client CANON 7. A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW Ethical Considerations Duty of the Lawyer to a Client Duty of the Lawyer to the Adversary System of Justice Disciplinary Rules DR 7-101 Representing a Client Zealously DR 7-102 Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law CANON 9. A LAWYER SHOULD AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF PROFESSIONAL IMPROPRIETY Ethical Considerations Disciplinary Rules DR 9-101 Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety DR 9-102 Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client witness - a. One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident. b. One who furnishes evidence awareness of being charged with a crime and facing prosecution; misdemeanor poss of cds and pleading innocent with no plea bargain and desire for speedy jury trial - since prosecution evidence is impeachable see impeachable ... definition in law ... ------------------ impeachment information, however, has been generally defined as impeaching information which is material to the defense. This information may include but is not strictly limited to: (a) specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking the witness credibility or character for truthfulness; (b) evidence in the form of opinion or reputation as to a witness character for truthfulness; (c) prior inconsistent statements; and (d) information that may be used to suggest that a witness is biased. 11. Continuing Duty to Disclose. Each agency plan shall include provisions which will assure that, once a request for potential impeachment information has been made, the prosecuting office will be made aware of any additional potential impeachment information that arises after such request and during the pendency of the specific criminal case or investigation in which the employee is a potential witness or affiant. A prosecuting office which has made a request for potential impeachment information shall promptly notify the relevant agency when the specific criminal case or investigation for which the request was made ends in a judgment or declination, at which time the agencys duty to disclose shall cease. ------------ Impeachment in Criminal Law In a case, the defense attorney may attempt to impeach a prosecution witness. The process of impeachment is intended to discredit the witness as a reliable source of information. Successful impeachment of a witness renders the witness less worthy of belief by a jury. The most common method of impeachment is the showing of a prior inconsistent statement, action, or omission by the witness. The showing of a prior inconsistent statement by the witness demonstrates that the witness’s current testimony contradicts their own previous statement or actions. In essence, when a defense attorney impeaches a witness by using a prior inconsistent statement, the attorney is showing that the witness has changed their story and seems unreliable. Prior inconsistent statements damage a witness’s credibility because they show that the witness has changed their story. A second method of impeachment is the use of character evidence. This form of impeachment is used to show that a witness has some particular trait that renders their testimony less credible. For example, the defense attorney in a case may show that a prosecution witness is a convicted felon or suffers from some psychological problem, such as a serious memory defect. In essence, this type of impeachment may be used by a defense attorney to show that a witness is not trustworthy because of some personal issue. The most common forms of characteristic impeachment include the conviction of a crime, a defect in memory or perception, and past untruthfulness of a witness. A third method of impeachment involves gathering information that makes a prosecution witness seem less reliable within the context of the particular trial. A defense attorney may gather information about the witness that shows that they have a financial stake in the outcome of the case or that they may be prejudiced against one of the parties in the case. In essence, this form of impeachment may be used by a defense attorney to show a jury that less weight should be given to a witness’s testimony because of their particular relationship to the case. A defense attorney may attempt to impeach the testimony of expert witnesses in the case. A toxicologist or police laboratory technician may be called in to testify regarding medical and scientific evidence which will be presented at trial. A defense attorney may attempt to impeach the testimony of these witnesses on the basis that these experts do not possess the requisite special training to offer an opinion or conclusion in the case. The opinion of an expert may also be challenged by a defense attorney on the basis that an essential or foundational fact upon which the expert’s opinion is based has been the subject of contradictory testimony. Another way that a defense attorney can impeach a prosecution witness is on the grounds of bias. For example, a defense attorney may show that an expert witness gains a substantial amount of their income from testifying for the prosecution. The attorney may attempt to show that the witness is biased because they are hired for the sole purpose of providing testimony against the defendant and that it is in the expert’s best interest if the defendant be convicted. Such experts may be questioned by the defense in a case regarding the number of times they have testified and the payments they have received for their testimony. The defense attorney may also impeach the testimony of the arresting officer in the case. The attorney may attempt to show that the officer made a purely subjective decision about the defendant’s intoxication or impairment in the case. The defense attorney may also impeach the arresting officer about departmental quota systems for arrests in an attempt to show the officer’s possible reasons for testifying falsely against the defendant. A defense attorney may impeach the arresting officer about credible allegations of police officer misconduct previously filed against the officer. The attorney may obtain information about prior complaints against the police officer in other cases showing the officer engaged in similar types of misconduct. If there is indeed evidence of other complaints against the officer, this fact would be useful in impeaching the officer’s credibility. ------------- Authentication and Identification legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary/Past+Bad+Acts Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated.
Posted on: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:26:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015