Author May Be "Missing, Presumed _ " By Time This is Read

Research is prerequisite for understanding the implications of this press release.

(PRWEB) March 12, 2005 --(This is also a follow-up to "US modern-day slavery advocate demands restitution for illegal detainment," http:// www.prweb.com/releases/2005/1/prweb202165.htm, and "Court Orders Competence to Stand Trial Evaluation of Anti Modern-day Slavery Advocate," http:// www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/2/emw209476.htm . It also is in reference to " 'Remembering' Needed To End Modern-Day Slavery/Other Terrorism, http:// www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/3/emw216035.htm. )    

Sent 3/7/05 in response to inquiry (excerpt):
"…trying to straighten out my computer before getting out any more communication…

"…The court sessions have been continued at the request of the Office of Court Evaluation (OCE) because they didn't have the report of my evaluation of 2/24 completed in time for the 3/4 scheduled court date. Last Thursday, 3/3, I finally effectively - sort of - presented the motion to dismiss the case, due to lack of a speedy trial (ref: CT Sec. 54-82m) but the judge was saying that the motion for the competence evaluation takes precedence over that. I argued that the reason for that evaluation, which the OCE explicitly stated to me, was to determine if I was competent to represent myself as the defendant in my trial, even though I have a stand by counsel (ref: CT Sec. 44-5) The judge argued that it was also to determine if I was competent to stand trial (ref: CT Sec. 54-56d). My response was that, either way, those issues would be moot if the case were dismissed. She said she'd have to think about that.

"She also didn't remember that, on 2/3(?), she explicitly stated that the 1/31/05 submission of the motion to dismiss (which marks the beginning of the clock ticking for the required 30 days within which the trial has to commence after that (per CT Sec. 54-82m) would stand as the date submitted, even though I had specifically asked that, and possibly even asked for it to be specifically recorded, when she agreed to that. She said that she is going to have to listen to the transcript of that hearing to refresh her memory and that I should just wait until my next court appearance on 3/11… "

Report by OCE was finally received today, 3/10/05, one day before next routine appointed court session. Actual document, including my notes, can be viewed at http://mykindredspirit2.home.att.net/030905_OCE_report.htm.

Perhaps "only" my version: this is fiction based on fiction, but, unfortunately, regardless of the impact of this evaluation in the court, I was not able to tape the examination interview without having first acquired a court order to do so, which, due to that delaying the evaluation ordered to be done by the next court session, may have resulted in another possible reason I'd be found in "contempt of court." In addition to that notated on the copy of the OCE report in the above link to this press release, note that evaluation is based heavily on "testimony" submitted for the court trial that yet to be heard. This is over and above two statements made to me by "authorities," i.e., per prosecutor prior to evaluation, that the Pond House Incident (ref: "US Modern-Day Slavery Advocate Demands Restitution For Illegal Detainment") "would not play into any of this" and, per OCE committee, something like that their role was not to determine if I was innocent or guilty of criminal charges of subject case.

In my presentation for the evaluation, I banked on the integrity of committee - what did I have to lose? I explained what has been going on in spg/whatever defense in using anti slavery activity as a basis for pejorative defense. As already revealed to the prosecutor, in trying to explain the implications of his motion for competency evaluation, prior to our meeting the OCE committee was presented with a copy/link to the press release that was published just hours before the prosecutor's motion for competency evaluation - a surprise to me, despite that I'd just met with him for at least 90 minutes, prior to this, and he'd made no mention of the motion he was about to present. That press release was "US modern-day slavery advocate demands restitution for illegal detainment."

As seen in OCE documentation, referenced CT Statutes, and investigation reported in/referenced in http://mykindredspirit:2.home.att.net, what may take place is:
·    My "reported" detainment for, at least, 60 days, with possibly no way the general public may verify my actual whereabouts and/or condition
·    Court appointment of conservator/attorney, which will tie my hands in speaking out and/or defending myself , or even communicating
·    Accumulative pejorative, financial and psychological impact on efforts in which I've been engaged, as well as on my individual being

In mind being incidents indicating that those "under pressure" in all of this often try to use "non traditional communication" to reveal actual situation, an observation is one of the pieces of fiction included in this report: "The Committee" reports that I stated that "Motivation comes into play, and I have to prove innocence" when, actually what I said was that "relevance" will be a key issue in this but I think I will be able to show, based on the CT Code of Evidence, the relevance of what I will need to present to prove my innocence. However, this will be despite the fact that one of the three judges who had, up until that time, been involved in this, claimed that, despite that in the CT Code of Evidence, "the judge may not allow" this.

Excerpts from previous press releases of this author:
From "Modern-day slavery: just the tip of the iceberg ":
·    "We must recognize and publicize the scope and complexity of this problem and be united in this fight. This is a global problem and overcoming it requires coming together as one very strong and efficient global community."

From "Questions that Must be asked in media reporting sex tourism, pedophilia, prostitution":
·    "What mechanism is in place to verify … the whereabouts of anyone detained…?

# # #

Source :  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/3/prweb217377.htm