Judicial Tyranny

[Friendsplacect]

Judge commits minister to psychiatric ward
By William Kaempffer, Register Staff
02/20/2007
Email to a friendPrinter-friendly
-NEW HAVEN — A colorful and outspoken minister who was arrested last year after refusing to show police his identification has been committed to a psychiatric hospital by a Superior Court judge after a mental health panel concluded he was not competent to assist in his defense.


But the Rev. Charles Hart of Meriden — who in representing himself over the last 11 months has peppered the court with perplexing legal motions, letters and demands — insists that he is fine. He claims his committal was the judicial system's last-ditch, corrupt effort to railroad him into accepting a plea bargain.

Advertisement

"It's just not fair. I'm not a criminal," said Hart, 48, in a telephone interview from a psychiatric ward at the Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown. "Look at me now, how they got me up here in this place to drug me up, to say that I'm crazy.

"I will not take one of their pills. I will not take one of their medications."

He remains unwavering in his effort to have a jury trial, which he asserts authorities refuse to allow because they know he will win.

"This judge has committed treason against the American people," Hart said.

"We come to him looking for justice, and this is what we get from him, thrown into a mental institution and taken out of our homes."

What started last March as a potentially groundbreaking, Fourth Amendment case exploring an individual's right to refuse to show police identification, now appears to have spiraled out of control.

Judge Peter Brown, after more than 20 contentious and sometimes confusing court dates in the case, last week ordered Hart committed for psychiatric treatment for as many as 60 days. A panel of clinicians for the Connecticut Mental Health Center examined the minister and determined he wasn't competent to stand trial.

What preceded that was a series of court motions by Hart citing admiralty law, contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code, personal letters to judges, denunciations of the legal existence of the United States and Connecticut and interjections of "freeman" language often espoused by antigovernment militias in the Midwest. Hart has been thrown out of the courthouse after being beligerent with court clerks, the file shows.

He had steadfastly refused to have an attorney represent him — saying last week that he found no one "competent" enough to handle his case — and said he won't cooperate with the public defender the court this month assigned to him.

Hart was arrested March 5, 2006, after police approached a group of men hanging out in the 500 block of Winchester Avenue, an area known for drug activity. Hart, who said he was merely talking to his brother who lives in the area, refused a request to show ID and challenged the officers to arrest him.

Hart was charged with interfering with police and loitering near a school. He later picked up additional charges of failure to appear in court and driving with a suspended license.

In one of his many filings, in an apparent effort to prove the state had no jurisdiction to prosecute him, Hart last May denounced the "corporate existence," among other things, of the United States, the state of Connecticut, the county, the Police Department, the court system and its agents, all bar associations, himself and "all other corporate members who are, or may be, associated with any complaint against my natural body."

That drew a sharp response from Judge Joan Alexander.

"That has no meaning. When you have a notice on the admiralty side of this court, that has no meaning," she said.

Judge John Blawie, a month later, implored Hart to get an attorney after the minister again began arguing UCC and admiralty maritime law.

"You are a functioning member of society; I think you are smarter than you are trying to make yourself appear, sir. You have to get a lawyer."

Norm Pattis, a prominent civil rights and defense attorney who reviewed a collection Hart's filings at the request of the New Haven Register, said the minister's choice to represent himself is nothing short of "suicide."

In the judge's shoes, he said, "I would ask that the man reconsider the decision to represent himself. This is suicide. ... I can certainly understand why the court made a decision to have him evaluated."

Hart remains unswayed.

He maintains his legal arguments are sound and asserts that the judges know it, too. But if authorities dismiss the case, they know it will open them up to a civil rights lawsuit, claimed Hart, who in addition to his ministry works as an in-take worker for an Access to Recovery program in Ansonia.

He fears he will be unemployed when he finally gets out and worries that his family has lost its breadwinner.

"I'm sitting in a mental institution. I've been taken away from my home, my wife, my children, my job. For what?"

He answered his own question a moment later.

"I'm in here because I wouldn't show two officers my ID because they didn't have probable cause," he said.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17872063&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id= 590581&rfi=6

[Friendsplacect]

Apparently they convinced him to take a Public Defender

N23N-CR06-0052465-SProgram: Court:Arresting Agency:Arrest Date:Bond Amount:Bond Type: Activity: Jury Trial Next Court Date: 9/10/2007 10:00 AM

Miscellaneous: New Haven GA 23 LOCAL POLICE NEW HAVEN 3/5/2006$0 (This case only)Promise to Appear (Released From Custody

Current ChargesStatute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-167a INTERFERE WITH OFFCR/RESISTING A Misdemeanor 1 3/5/2006 NOT GUILTY
53a-185 LOITERING IN OR ABOUT SCHOOL C Misdemeanor 1 3/5/2006 NOT GUILTY
53a-173 FAILURE TO APPEAR 2ND DEG A Misdemeanor 1 7/13/2006 NOT GUILTY


Represented By:HART CHARLES E 195816401732 PUBLIC D 23

[Sharing Lights]

Introduction:

I have not seen one argument cited by and in reference to the minister
that had no validity.

The Authorities have used their, ultimate weapon, when
are concerned that publicity may bring too much negative attention:
they declare a human being insane,
whatever wordings they may choose.

Part I:

The minister, apparently, is a knowledgeable and progressive individual
who spent time trying to comprehend the system.

Yet, it appears that he challenged it a bit prematurely.


If the report is correct, he did challenge the officer to have him arrested.



The fact that the Constitutional Laws protect his stand
is not adequate to take such risk in my opinion.


I base my view on the prevailing, undergound knowledge and my,
personal experience that servants of the System:

1. are not bright enough to start with;
otherwise they would not hold a secure position for the city, state, or federal government.

It takes certain mentality to hold such totally inconsistent with Sovereignty, Independence, personal initiative.

2. These servants, most of the time, do not know and do not care to know real laws. (see the above.)

3. a. Those, in particular, who are in the policing force,
tend to be abused as children by peers or parents and are on a quest to prove themselves.

b. However, considerable numbers of them have family traditions of serving in the Force too.

Stating that, even 50-50% chance is not that good, when hoodlums in the uniform are not such, good news.

Part II:

Head to head collision with the Servants or as we refer to them minions is not high ratio of success.

Anything short of that may be a gallant and dangerous attempt with unpredictable circumstances leading to a very predictable outcome we all can discern and often read, as presented by this valuable Thread (thanks to Friendsplacect.)

Solution:

Ex. When the general public finds out that 3 individuals were declared incompetent by sham proceedings, the outcry may be greater than what the Authorities may gain.

The bottom line:

1. Do not live in fear but do not take unnecessary risks.

2. When proceed further, be prepared and well organized.


That is why on of the biggest fears of all minions is the clause of the Constitution,

"well organized militia"

(yes, the Right to Bear Arms is an absolute necessity
for Freedom, as criminals would carry them regardless
of the laws.)

There has to be implemented a system when Sovereigns find out of
travesty to get enough votes/signatures to affect the outcome.

Point of Debate, leading to Remedy:

Each time I proposed such, I was met with silence or 99% of it.

Is any one ready to make votes/signatures count, involving,
at least, 3 people you know, till we have enough to make a difference or
feel more comfortable sitting on your couches and taking deep sighs,
"poor minister, look what they do to him?"

Our inactivity and lack of unity is doing it -
nothing else.

....................

[Friendsplacect]

Our inactivity and lack of unity is doing it -
nothing else.

The precise reason I plan on going to his next court date on 9/10/07 in support of him and invite him to the SuiJuris Forum.

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by Friendsplacect

The precise reason I plan on going to his next court date on 9/10/07 in support of him and invite him to the SuiJuris Forum.

That is so noble of you and good Karma;
as Virtues only multiply the good deeds.

Try to keep us updated and ask for that which may help.

You being closer to the action would have a better view;
therefore, have to lead from that prospective.

I would get in my mode of precision and directness,
keeping welfare and safety of the minister in mind.

Otherwise the minions are going to de-rail him
on Admiralty, flag, and similar issues -
all real, once again, but, considering the tight grip,
better if he downplays them
until he can get enough ammunition being free.

No Principles are betrayed as he is at the hands of the enemy,
who used dirty tricks.

That's the key!


A Human Being has a Sovereign Right and Duty
to protect:

a. him/her self,

b. the family, and

3. even Principles

by using wisdom and
maneuvering in a position of a better opportunity to win.


I re-introduce a concept of the army
evading the frontal assault,
retreating in diversion, and,
then, striking from the rear
at the most convenient and
least expected time and angle to the enemy,
as even rear is quite broad.

A wise win is better than a stubborn loss.

An alternative is going to the cross all the way,
but that should only be accomplished, as proved by
Jesus of Nazareth,
when
the outcome affects the whole humanity.

Even when Jesus was whipping the "infidels"
who made a flea market out of the Temple,
he brought a whip with him and was armed
physically and spiritually.

Amen!

[Sharing Lights]

Clarification re:

3. most of all, common sense,
which is God's/Nature's Law
based on the Principles, however,
being, constantly, checked/updated by the gravity of the Moment,
remaining flexible - not rigid...



at:

[Friendsplacect]

Well the time came to go see Mr Hart but I got notice the week before of the Short Calender Hearing being 9/10/07 for my Civil Case so I didnt get to go see Mr Hart on 9/10/07 (He was in New Hven Court 50 Miles away).
But I did check the docket and it looks like he is going to trial, so I planned on meeting him at his next court date.
Now I will presume this is a mistake and call the Clerk to clarify it this week, but check out his next Court Date;


HART CHARLES E 1958 New Haven GA 23 Jury Trial 01/02/2020 10:00 AM N23N-CR06-0052465-S

[robhalford88]

They are doing this because he appears to be double minded. He knows what he is talking about, but is still committing dishonourable behaviour, in that he is giving positive testimony = argument.
He should give all his evidence by negative averment. Then this can be stopped.
Does anyone here have contact with him?

[Friendsplacect]

Well, he will be 62 years old at his next court date and I will be 48 if I remember to go in there in 13 years I will go to meet him. (I Still have to check with the clerk about the next court date).

I couldnt find any contact info for him I checked local phone books for Meridan perhaps I can call the newspaper or get and address off of the docket when im up there.

[Friendsplacect]

UPDATE: I called the Clerks office and they stated that it was normal for them to give such Court Dates until they are ready to proceed with the case. I felt that was kind of strange but she stated "Thats how we do things around here"
Perhaps some of you have run into this kind of thing but ill presume she is telling the truth that this happens all the time.