FROM MANCUS: JIM SMITH FIREARM FORFEITURE UPDATE
"Judge said the testimony of the 22-year old cop with no degree [the one who claims Smith admitted to him that he was suicidal on 12-18-01, which Smith denies] is good enough"
Mancus also notes:
"Smith is an extraordinarily rare, and remarkable, human being and citizen.
Judge said I had to bring in live testimony from the county's mental health folks who released Smith on December 18, 2001 on grounds he did not meet statutory criteria for being a danger to himself, to others, and/or gravely disabeled. So, I had those folks subpoened for next hearing--Sept. 30. Plan: give judge what he said he wants to hear; he is the decisionmaker so feed him what he wants to eat. Simple.
A deputy county counsel for that county called me and said these folks are busy and subpoenas interfere with their plans--if she prepared a declaration under penalty of perjury and if the county mental health people signed them, and these declarations state that they released Smith on 12-18-2001 only because he did not satisfy the statutory criteria to justify holding him, would that be good enough for me? I said sure, glad to cooperate, do not want to jerk those mental health folks around, but only if the assist city attorney agreed that these declarations would be admissible into evidence.
The deputy county counsel got the key county mental health expert [a govt licensed, govt employed, board certified, psychiartrist] who saw Smith on 12-18-01 to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury stating he authorized Smith's release on 12-18-01 about 2-3 hours after the cops brought Smith to him only because Smith did not meet the statutory criteria and it was not justifiable to hold him. Good news for Smith! This also undermines judge's idea that "suicides" are released, as a matter of policy, for lack of beds! By implication, the county psychiatrist denies this.
I shared this new information [that I have these county mental health experts' declarations] with the Assist City Atty, Ms. Carol Victor. I asked her to withdraw her client's petititon to destroy Mr. Smith's Colt Commander or, in the alternative, stipulate to the admissibility of the county's mental health experts' declarations.
What do you think Ms. Victor's response was/is?
1. She will not dismiss her client's petitition to destroy Mr. Smith's gun! Why? Judge said the testimony of the 22-year old cop with no degree [the one who claims Smith admitted to him that he was suicidal on 12-18-01, which Smith denies] is good enough, if believed, and, so far, judge believes the cop, to order the destruction of Smith's gun, absent countervailing evidence from Smith!
2. I must send Ms. Victor copies of the county's mental health experts' declarations for her review and then she will decide if she will agree that they may be admitted into evidence in lieu of live testimony! [Guess the word of a 22 year old no degree cop is entitled to greater weight!]
3. Ms. Victor knows all of the above, plus I also have a private, licensed, clinical psychologist and a private, licensed, board certified psychiatrist, both of whom have examined Smith and agree with the county's two mental health experts. Together, individually, these four experts said that on Dec 1`8, 2001, mid-June 2002 and mid-Sept 2002, Smith was not suicidal. And nine months after Dec 18, Smith is still alive, no criminal records, self-sufficient and has no charges pending that he threatened anyone, etc., and is still legally eligible to buy more guns and still has a few guns. [Guess Smith cannot comit suicide unless he has the exact one the police confiscated!]
4. To summarize, Ms. Victor has the testimony of a 22 year old no degree cop. Smith, now, has the testimony of 2 county mental health experts and two private mental heallth experts--of which, two are board certified psychiatrists--highest, formal, academic achievement rating!, and two are psychologists, and all have personal knowledge, professionally, of Smith, and our private psychiatrist is a professionally published expert on suicide. But is that good enough for Ms. Victor and the Chief of Police, Pittsburg, CA? No! Hell no!
5. I submit this is a classic example of the kind of govt prior restraint crap the Framers intended to avoid when they approved ". . . shall not be infringed."
6. Never yield on ". . . shall not be infringed." Never! The Smith case is a prime example of the crap we endure even with "shall not be infringed." is on the books. Contemplate what it would be like if "shall not be infringed." was striken from the law books, when, for all practical purposes, it already has been defacto striken.
7. Do courthouses, police headquarters, etc. look more and more like the modern "Bastille" to you?
8. I am clueless as to how the Smith case will eventually turn out. But, too often courthouses look like to me like slaughterhouses--where Liberty is slaughtered by the Black Robes, where the alleged general welfare trumps individual rights.
9. How long shall this be endured? Tolerated?
10. Smith could have bought a brand new pick-up truck with the money he spent on everyone to get back a $600 gun, but, Smith understands he is really fighting for a priceless, intangible, concept--an idea, what is the proper line that separates civil authority's power from citizens' rights!
11. Smith is an extraordinarily rare, and remarkable, human being and citizen.
To return to our home page, click: