A CIP Research
Product
CRITICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JOSEPH M. GBUJAMA
CASE
STUDY PREPARED BY RESPONDENT: JOSEPH MORI GBUJAMA
FORENSIC
PSYCHIATRY 100 DAYS IMPRISONED
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following letter involves incidents in which the life of the
publisher of Critical Information Publications was almost lost. It is a cruel
account of error, of judgment, that may befall the traveler no matter where
persons may find themselves; a fear of incredulity, of apprehension, disrepute;
delay and use of force to account for person. Yet, no matter the degree
of solace taken; that such incidents are in error, perhaps the only error then,
is its failure to accomplish task in the suppression of autonomous personage at
the very center and edifice of collective principle. CIP holds to the truth
therefore, that libraries are not only sanctuaries and temples of the written
word, but the very cradle and compartment of modernistic knowledge, chiefly
subsequent to humankind having compressed its existence, its duration of
sanity, its understanding, tolerance and aggression. Therefore, to preserve the
incorrigible spirit of tradition, the issue of Africa
and its significance to said incidents is safely navigated.
Sequentially, it does
not appear as if the District of Columbia Superior Court substantiates evidence
subsequent to the cautions of criminal law, since the burden of proof
without reasonable doubt is procedurally weighed against the state, not
the respondent, whom it seems has endured most of the brunt of this case.
The courts forestalling of its responsibility in psychological procedure is
voluntarily conspiratorial in effect of mental incompetence also being a means
of voiding all business contracts, of which the respondent’s company Critical
Information Publications (CIP), citizenship rights and professional
history are all factors within such definitions of contractual potential,
reputation and obligation. In line with requirements for a “clear and
convincing” argument of mental competency (1), it is in fact with great caution
that mental examinations of competency should be allowed, without proper
behavior variants that are abnormal conditions of mind that
substantially affect mental or emotional processing and substantially impair
behavioral control, (2) thus indicating a need to determine a persons
mental processing. Psychologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(1942) argues concerning behavior; our goal is to understand the relations
of consciousness and nature: organic, psychological or even social. By nature
we understand here a multiplicity of events external to each other and bound together
by relations of causality.
Consequently,
what has been observed in its place is a systemic acquisition of objectives from
social paradigms while in attempted conversion of disciplinary discrepancies in
both law and medicine. Additionally, pursuant to clear and convincing standards
in the proof of fraud (3), it is this respondent’s claim, that all charges were
not brought against the respondent in fact and in good faith. As the
courts echo in Pavonia (4), every fraud in its
most general and fundamental conception consists of the obtaining of undue
advantage by means of some act or omission that is an unconsciencious
or violation of good faith. The respondent was under restraint under
pretext of safety and inquiry when no such threat existed, thus it was a deception…
practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some
legal right and which accomplishes the end desired. (5). For example, the respondent was arrested while
attempting to access services at the Library of Congress in research of social
issues, which include issues of African descent in American political
association, through the African Area Studies Library .
In context, the
respondent’s company Critical Information Publication (CIP) is an
Inter-Disciplinary Think Tank that merges intellectual production with
that of technological, industrial, constructive and agricultural
production. Library of Congress police and Capitol Hill police improperly
converted the energies if this effort into the courts criminal process
and that of enforcement and away from the higher ethical and moral
interests of the company, which is to act as a buffer of tolerance between
social and political agencies and as a conduit of history. The Superior Court
in continuance, converted these efforts into an incarceration complex on the
competency interests of forensic psychiatry and psychology, which
to all intents and purposes, make the clinics appear to be an active part of
legal edicts, yet with the indication of being a selective pre-requisite
more so than an absolute principle applied to the right to trial. In
contradiction, the Miranda rule (6) for instance, addresses
interrogative rights not competency.
Perhaps,
this connection is not coincidental and has willful intent in altruistic and
petitioned politics that forcefully apply medical approaches sometimes by both
public demand and that of the subjugated facility population (See Letter to
Senator Barbara Mikulski). By all accounts, the improper use of a
coercive presence is a very pertinent factor in dealing with involuntary
participation in competency evaluation. Yet, there is a need to admit, if
anything, an excessive-ness in expansion caused by
the mock and duplication of both professional and structural
criterion. For instance, the respondent has been in conflict of similar
Superior Court expansions in the State of California (Chatsworth, CA), that
failed to secure the respondent’s familial and citizenship rights interests as
stipulated by Immigration & Naturalization Service agreements, bill of
rights, constitutional and cultural norms (refer to complaint against Brown
Law Firm to American Bar Association).
Similar
errors in methodology have been made in regards to clinics in Gaithersburg
Maryland, Montgomery County (Refer to Mikulski compliant) that have caused in
some cases, like that of the respondent, severe damage to the linear
progressive history of U.S. citizenship rights in the application of medical
petitions. Professionally,
medical arguments of observation have sheltered the role of securing and
stabilizing behavior amongst an in-group population, as being
not only judicial or correction limited. However, constructively, the expansions of courts, clinics
and staff have occurred considerably faster than that of a
colleague of professionals.
This may
give to an over burdened staff that is procedurally dependant, with less
reflections associated with the subject matter as observed in university or
other substantive systems. Often as regards custody, impoundment and
detainment objectives dominate, thus there is little room for reflection, as
regards for instance, the systemic authority hold a person without conviction
for any reason, much less for 44 days for psychological testing. Especially, if
this process is not mandated to all who seek trial, and if no show of
cause exists to conduct the hold prior to the person’s objection.
It is
important to argue, that the respondent refused to undergo psychological
testing within academic and professional reason as evidence of a civil
recognizance, and that of an ambiguity between the terms forensic screening required
by the judge and Mental Health Evaluation required by the pre-trial
offices, collectively presented as an argument for competency to
stand trial.
It can only be
reasoned, less than understood, that forensic psychiatry is the shared
professional term under Forensic Research and Development.
In spite of this, in
implementation, once having crossed into a facility of corrective holding, the
respondent is within the purview of the convicted, which is not the road
towards his defense but rather, incarceration. It cannot be argued a proper
waiting place for the respondent. This is the case in The United States
V. Joseph M. Gbujama. Furthermore, the imagery of
the respondent in chains is perhaps one of the most egregious wrongs committed
by the U.S.
Marshals Office and the District of Columbia Superior Court. There is no reason
for chains particularly in a misdemeanor case, citing ruin of U.S. Slavery in
1863.
In fact, there should
be public call for a Maybury V Madison
judicial review against any such laws that unconstitutionally permit bondage
and unnecessary psychological testing against the principles of the first
amendment. Nevertheless, there is
difficulty in explaining the hidden dynamic behind the general failures of
heterosexual relationships, its generational overtones and callous
reception in the form of homosexual stoicism, often with its own counter
political antagonisms.
Whether a
question of semantics there is need in distinguishing a corrective facility
from a holding clinic or other. In the psychological sense it is ambiguous
whether the courts consider critique, debate and disagreement as implicitly
abusive factors. This would be evidenced by means of a chronic subjugation of
expressive freedoms by physical elements or restrictive barriers. Close
study of this respondent’s professional claims reveals the definition of abuse
to be; attempts by governmentals to abuse power,
anywhere it exercises its freedom to exist. This tendency is exacerbated
in the tensions between men and women and the assumed notion of male
oppression. However right this notion may be, there exists a need to
curtail the exploitation of a history of female oppression by those who are
un-oppressed, both men and women. That is, to reduce the shady disposition of
gaining power and defense of one’s own acts through perceived notions of
oppression. According to Black’s Law dictionary, penal code rules requiring no
physical contact are perhaps the most open of simple assault
definitions based on the threat of fear, which in the respondent’s case is not
applicable in the tourist hallway of a public library, that is - a
menacing fear specific to the respondent. To qualify definitions of
penal menacing, the incident must occur in a penal institution.
And the respondent
would have had to threaten to inflict bodily injury more so than be responsible
for every unaccustomed part of fear in the accuser.
It is pertinent to
consider, that the respondent has an ongoing grievance claim
of substantiated violence against police filed on Capitol Hill with Senator
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.
In that, there are no simple answers in finding the impetus of false
accusations, whether such are a sham of the accuser or the police. For
example, in the case of South Carolina V. Susan Smith:
The case gained
worldwide attention shortly after it developed, because Smith initially
reported to police, on October 25, 1994,
that she had been carjacked by an African-American man who drove away
with her sons still in the car. Smith made tearful pleas on television for the
rescue and return of her children. A Usenet
chain letter circulated in the
following days, asking Internet users to be on the lookout
for the vehicle. However, nine days later, following an
intensive, heavily publicized investigation and nationwide search, Smith
eventually confessed to letting her 1990 Mazda Protegé roll into nearby John D. Long Lake,
drowning her children inside. Wikipedia.Com South Carolina Law Enforcement Division SLED
As well not to forget,
history records that in a similar literary environment, a book store much like
a library: Dr. Martin Luther King
fell victim to danger, the victim of a deranged black woman on the
afternoon of 20 September 1958, where he was rushed to Harlem Hospital after
being stabbed with a letter opener by Izola Curry. Following the
stabbing, Curry was placed in Bellevue
Hospital for observation
and was found not competent to stand trial. On 20 October she was diagnosed as
a paranoid schizophrenic and committed to Matteawan State Hospital
for the criminally insane. Stanford.Edu
To date, forensic
psychiatry in the Superior Court system appears to be used as an un-assumed
precondition of morality and in medical terms as a physiological form of
afflictive mental health.
This is over the
historic use of forensics in Greco-Roman and Egyptian philosophy as a
professing means of debate. Other forms such as the Socratic method,
are implicit both in the study of law and medicine as method of discovery
However in this case,
in the process of truth finding to a simple
assault charge, the respondent relies on the absolution of guilt and not in
any such inspection of mental sanity. This is most pertinent in that there may
be some ambiguity as to whether or not the term forensic psychiatry is really
just a systemic remnant and modernistic euphemism for Witch Hunts, Warlords and
Warlocks, and other archaic forms that plagued the American justice system
and that of the medieval inquisitions of Europe; periods in history that
were implicitly culminated by fear. On the contrary, the courts
must be a courageous measurement against such abuses by state and local
authority, as opposed to performing as a dungeon gate for legal
processes that stretch the limbs of laymen well beyond assumed standards. These
delays must be a practice strictly condemned by the courts, which save but
professing argument, must forbid excuse of forensic psychiatry in the medical
sense being used as a suppressing deterrent in the search for truth; from
becoming a degenerative factor that questions a supernatural existence in the
abstract mind. In capturing every
essence of this argument, the incident was filmed on security cameras. There
should be no speedier request for trial dismissal than such evidence of no physical
contact between the respondent and the accuser; and therefore no merit for a
simple assault charge, arrest, or penal detention.
Case Conclusion:
Dismissed
August 31st,
2007 Edited Sept 24th, 2007
All rights reserved
Date, Location, Cite: 1996 OK
116 s. ct. 1373, 134 l. ed. 2d 498 517 US
348 US
Supreme Court
2 90 Dixon
v. Jacobs, 427 f.2d 589, 595 (DC. Cir.1970).