|
TOP |
|
May 17, 2005 Hillary B. Strackbein, Superior
Court Judge Subject: Competency trial relating to CT Superior Court Dockets# CR 03-0272043-S, CR 03-0274020-S, MV03-0657247-S:
Your Honor, Demand of constitutional right of
self-representation In anticipation of argument being
raised that self-representation may conflict with right to a fair trial, I
must point out the impediments to my fair trial that are resulting from
the court ordering me to be, instead, represented by Special Public
Defender, Beth Hogan. Although Ms. Hogan sometimes exhibits or states
intentions to carry out activities relating to trial preparation in a
satisfactory manner, most times she does not follow through with the
interest and/or enthusiasm she's displayed, or statements she's made,
including in critical trial preparation. In all fairness to Ms. Hogan, I
realize that these shortcomings may be due to a heavy workload, but my
focus must be on how these incidents ultimately impact the prognosis of my
receiving a fair trial. The additional time and effort required to work
around these issues has severely impacted my other work, including time
that I would have, otherwise, been able to spend preparing for these two
court trials.
In addition, Application for promulgation of a declaratory decree, pursuant to DOJ/CRD case #144-14-0, filed 06/13/03 is being filed with that office. 42USC1983 provides that "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. " However, it further states, "any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Currently, federal authorities and citizens, such as myself, involved in investigating and challenging modern-day slavery are still learning about aspects relating to this crime, including schemes being used by perpetrators in abuse of law and the legal system to support and protect their activities. At the same time, we realize that special efforts are needed to establish mechanisms in a timely manner to help prevent this rampant and very serious crime from further proliferating. A pattern is emerging of evidence of psychiatrists basing "incompetence" diagnosis on someone's belief that modern-day slavery exists or on a person pursuing investigation against this crime. Being able to obstruct this scheme can be a significant breakthrough in the fight against human trafficking. Being able to obstruct this scheme should also significantly impact the outcome of my competency trial and, thus, the impact on my freedom and other welfare. I am contending that there is overwhelming evidence of possible abuse of law and the legal system by criminal elements in retaliation against my work in anti-slavery efforts and pursuit for investigation of possible federal and international human rights violations, and actions being taken, through these proceedings, which obstruct my right of freedom to speak or harbor thoughts about certain concepts, particularly modern-day slavery and associated organized crime. This particularly applies to the basis of the OCE's report to the court regarding my competency. Under these circumstances, time
should be allowed for a declarative decree to be promulgated that will
ensure that the rights, freedom and other aspects of welfare of people,
such as myself, are not further endangered or that I will, at least, be
provided opportunity for possible redress at a later date. (Documentation
and details relating to DOJ/CRD case #144-14-0, submitted 06/13/03, and
DOJ/FBI case#62F-HQ-1077231, initiated 05/09/03, are included in the
sealed documents submitted to Judge McMahon and, thereby, to the court, on
07/08/03.)
As just the phrasing of this request to you may prove, additional time is needed for me to perform research and other activities relating to these. Please let me know of your decision regarding the continuance by this afternoon or tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I will be continuing work, now beginning, in anticipation of a reasonable accommodation of such by the court.
Respectfully, Cc: Reference:
DOJ/FBI case/file #'s:
Note: Andrea Stillman is a Connecticut State Representative, Democrat, 38th Assembly District, Waterford and Montville. Also see 07/06/04 - Connecticut's own governmental anti-slavery efforts > How did I miss this?
See emails:
Click to return to Court Developments page
WORK ON THIS PAGE IS STILL IN PROGRESS |
|
Click to return to top of page
|
