Van Pelt Watch

[Doktor Avalanche]

Listen to Minute Mark 39 of the video. You are trying to scare me with the possibility that Dr. BERMUDEZ told me I had satisfied the Order "as far as I am concerned" but will tell SAMELSON that I did not? Thanks for that warning - I suppose I better get a copy of the video on DVD into my federal evidence repository too?

Wow...the first coherent thought you've had since I've met you!

Who says I'm trying to scare you? Are you scared? Yes, Dr. Bermudez going to tell the court that you showed up but refused to cooperate.

You better request a cell on the west side of the prison. I hear in the summertime the east side of the wing gets rather uncomfortable.

[David Merrill]

I was ordered to show up alright. I was not ordered to sign any consent form. And when you think about it, that is what annoyed Dr. Bermudez the most. And then again signing consent would have probably been a disaster considering he could have probably put me into evaluation for a lot longer...

I guess you didn't bother listening to the video where he says I obeyed the order as far as he was concerned.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that doctor wrote the court back saying you didn't obey the judge's order and it shouldn't come as any shock when that revelation gets dropped on you at your next hearing.

That is another slight on the psychiatric profession too. You indicate the ignorant belief that Dr. Bermudez will be deciding whether or not I obeyed SAMELSON's Order? You are like The Observer, implying that the Dr. would be looking for hard evidence of narcissism. - Guess he never took science.

It's been a clever endeavor though. I liked this part.

The statute of limitations on prosecutions is not related to a right to a speedy trial. The statute of limitations is actually an allowance of time to the prosecution in the opposite direction, roughly proportional to the severity of the crime itself.

This Echo Chamber includes a Reading Comprehension Test for your types too. There you have it; easily understood - the prosecutor filed charges into the court way back in 2004 - probably within hours of the alleged incident. That means speedy trial would be within six months of that time. So now SAMELSON owes me $20M out of his fidelity bond - SUTHERS too - for violating my rights. And as you can comprehend from the video and Register of Action - both versions - it is years now and SAMELSON is pretending he is giving me a speedy trial anyway. He even lied on the record by saying the police get to delay arrest as long as they please.



Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. I have shut down the "Notify me when a reply is posted" and hope it stays that way this time. I will be back when I feel like it - not before. So whatever moderator keeps shutting that back on - quit it!

[David Merrill]

just checking...

[Doktor Avalanche]

I was ordered to show up alright. I was not ordered to sign any consent form. And when you think about it, that is what annoyed Dr. Bermudez the most. And then again signing consent would have probably been a disaster considering he could have probably put me into evaluation for a lot longer...

You were ordered to show up to that evaluation with the understanding that you were to cooperate in every facet of it. Don't be the least bit surprised at your next hearing when you learn Dr. Bermudez told the court your were uncooperative.

Dr. Bermudez probably would have had you committed on the spot, but didn't feel like pushing the paperwork - so he's going to let Judge Samelson take care of you as your shenanigans pissed him off something fierce.

I don't need psychic abilities to predict your fate, Davey.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The very name you guys give me is indicative of your dissassociation from reality.

And this new reality your mind has constructed is something rational people should accept?

Why? Because someone with what could turn out to be behavioral and cognitive disorders says so?

Really, David. When it gets down to it most of what you blather on about is truly gibberish in the real world.

The pose ain't gonna work dude. You can play name games all you want and chain all kinds of words and sentences together but it won't shield you unless someone a lot smarter than you determines you aren't competent to defend yourself. Hey - institutional custody ain't any walk in the park but believe me but it at least has some protection from dedicated predators and from my experience there are ways, given time, to restore some semblance of a functional, self-actualized life as long as alcohol or chemical dependencies don't derail the process.

That's a real challenge for people with your odd kind of delusional disorder. The very people that could keep you out of hard core imprisonment you seem to have to play games with as if you have some kind of intellectual advantage over them.

I go back to something I've posited before - it seems to me there is no single David Merrill Van Pelt. If a professional had enough time and you'd cooperate the least bit I think they could help you. Any progress in that regard would also help any number of people you've sent off into the weeds with your Internet fixation.

It may not be insanity, BTW. In fact in your case, it may be a construct you've assimilated for your own legal pretense.

Does the phrase "too clever for your own good" ring a bell here?

Get help and stop trying to lure others into your fantasy world. If the help you can get in Colorado is free it's not the best you can get but the people I know who work with people in your situation aren't the gestapo. By and large they are seriously dedicated to their role in protecting people with disorders from being taken advantage of by the legal system.

Of course if it's just a scam you're running, you'd never admit to that and you'll have to face whatever comes your way.

[David Merrill]

The very name you guys give me is indicative of your dissassociation from reality.

And this new reality your mind has constructed is something rational people should accept?

Why? Because someone with what could turn out to be behavioral and cognitive disorders says so?

Really, David. When it gets down to it most of what you blather on about is truly gibberish in the real world.

The pose ain't gonna work dude. You can play name games all you want and chain all kinds of words and sentences together but it won't shield you unless someone a lot smarter than you determines you aren't competent to defend yourself. Hey - institutional custody ain't any walk in the park but believe me but it at least has some protection from dedicated predators and from my experience there are ways, given time, to restore some semblance of a functional, self-actualized life as long as alcohol or chemical dependencies don't derail the process.

That's a real challenge for people with your odd kind of delusional disorder. The very people that could keep you out of hard core imprisonment you seem to have to play games with as if you have some kind of intellectual advantage over them.

I go back to something I've posited before - it seems to me there is no single David Merrill Van Pelt. If a professional had enough time and you'd cooperate the least bit I think they could help you. Any progress in that regard would also help any number of people you've sent off into the weeds with your Internet fixation.

It may not be insanity, BTW. In fact in your case, it may be a construct you've assimilated for your own legal pretense.

Does the phrase "too clever for your own good" ring a bell here?

Get help and stop trying to lure others into your fantasy world. If the help you can get in Colorado is free it's not the best you can get but the people I know who work with people in your situation aren't the gestapo. By and large they are seriously dedicated to their role in protecting people with disorders from being taken advantage of by the legal system.

Of course if it's just a scam you're running, you'd never admit to that and you'll have to face whatever comes your way.

The court order said that for me to protect the bond from going into collections, I would need to meet with Dr. John BERMUDEZ at a certain address at a certain time. The order commands the doctor to conduct the evaluation and mentions nothing about consent because the presumption is that the order carries the full force and effect of law. Ergo the first thing the doctor ascertains is whether or not I have been arraigned - and he quickly discerns that I have not yet been arraigned. So the consent is required as an arraignment tool - Ergo the title Psychiatric Evaluation as an Arraignment Tool. But enough from the black-robed wannabees. We have I believe Judge Roy Bean, a real-life judge now... At least he sounds convincing over the years.

The most simple defense, not to traverse into the realm of the bar associations of the world, is now a scam? Well you can buy into that but you will not understand the video. I had excellent council with somebody who grew up in state administered mental health care professionally as both his parents were involved too. And I was praised about how I handled the matter too, by the same. And JRB fails to mention that as I left the courthouse I held the door open for SAMELSON returning from lunch with his mountain bike. I had just filed the R4C (Refusal for Cause) on the Order and was carrying the new falsified RoA (Register of Action) in my hands. Funny how the postal carrier was likely fired for not delivering that R4C to the federal repository.* But my point here is that it was moments after I refused to even say You are welcome (ex parte hearings) to SAMELSON, as he would be reading the Memorandum accompanying the R4C on the Order for psychiatric evaluation and probably discovering I had the falsified RoA in my hands as I passed him (assuming he did not spot in in my hand); Well, about that time he addresses a letter directed to - David Merrill of the Van Pelt family.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/dx6n6meiql.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/uapu3roz3l.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/4jzdhqeytq.pdf - this one with the envelope.


It would seem that JRB still insists on calling me David Merrill Van Pelt or some such legal or full name variation thereof? Well here is a reality check for you - SAMELSON is the one pretending to be in authority to judge the matter - not Judge Roy Bean. So who exactly do you Quatlosers expect me to take seriously?

I mean really! This notion that the Statute of Limitation is actually granting prosecutors more rights, instead of protecting my right to a speedy trial may be true, but the perspective is completely subjective opinion. I have not cited the statute at all in any relationship to the case because like I have pointed out already that is just confirming authority to attorneys to adjudicate the statute constitutional or not. It comes from an unbonded general assembly and therefore I will not be calling on it any more than to assert my own subjective opinion that it protects my right to a speedy trial in the video.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/dx6n6meiql.pdf

But here you have it on the second page of the bill. SAMELSON swore on that certified fidelity bond (fungible) the he would be granting me a speedy trial. Here is how he did it...

Article II; Bill of Rights, Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

And when I pointed out that he denied me his promise to me, he falsified the record. And at the moment he would be discovering I would be sending his indictment for falsifying the record into the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US, he corrects my name for the record.



Regards,

David Merrill.

* At first Ellen the carrier's supervisor next to the US courthouse there in Denver explained that the carrier was saying he must have hit "2" instead of "1" after reading the bar code. That would explain it away. But it turns out the carrier did not deliver the package as marked by the court.

[wserra]

Y'know, folks, David has a point here. If in fact for the competency exam to proceed, David was required to sign a consent which included that his statements could be used against him at sentencing - well, that raises a clear Fifth Amendment issue. He has a right to remain silent at sentence, and cannot be compelled to waive it. "Petitioner faced imprisonment from one year upwards to life, depending on the circumstances of the crime. To say that she had no right to remain silent but instead could be compelled to cooperate in the deprivation of her liberty would ignore the Fifth Amendment privilege at the precise stage where, from her point of view, it was most important." Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 327 (1999).

This scenario should proceed to a determination of competency without David's cooperation, as it did with the Dorean Dim Duo. If it does, he will likely be found competent, as were they. What David risks, though, is a finding of incompetence, followed by a criminal (if the case stays pending) or civil (if it is dismissed) involuntary commitment. The odds of this happening are substantially greater if the complainant tells the court or prosecutor that this is what she wishes.

Ergo the first thing the doctor ascertains is whether or not I have been arraigned - and he quickly discerns that I have not yet been arraigned.

David, I know this is not going to convince you, but it makes no difference whether you have been arraigned. The law does not permit someone who is not competent to plead in any event, so it is likely quite appropriate to defer an arraignment until after that determination is made - assuming that you have not been arraigned already.

Well, about that time he addresses a letter directed to - David Merrill of the Van Pelt family.

David, I just see that as an attempt to address you as the court thought you wished to be addressed - especially since the court had questions about your competency.

[David Merrill]

Thanks for that opinion Wesley;


As many of you know Wesley SERRA is an injury attorney in New York. And many of you are likely familiar with his post about how terribly embarrassing this all must be for me; being broadcast all over the Internet like this and maybe you have also noticed that Wserra and Nikki are the moderators here on this thread. But you would be behooved to remember that this thread, three threads into my $350 Cash Offer in the Echo Chamber of five or so forums, was only brought to Quatloos by Nikki and Demosthenes allowed my banishment to be lifted in her sense of fairness that gossip should include its subject - David Merrill. And something tickles me still about Wesley's projected embarrassment when these files are in his bucket, provided by Wesley from his own PACER subscription?

http://www.box.net/shared/static/dx6n6meiql.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/uapu3roz3l.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/4jzdhqeytq.pdf

Our Judge Roy Bean would never tell us his professional legal name - or what jurisdiction he is pretending to be judge over - like we see with KIRK S. SAMELSON on that envelope to David Merrill of the Van Pelt family there (fourth link). Ergo another reality check on you all; If you expect me to believe JRB can change my name when SAMELSON cannot, then you better consider your reality a little closer...

Because Kirk Stewart of the Samelson family is pretending to be affiliated with state business of the State of Colorado there by the Great Seal's use - see it? And he is the same guy who promised to uphold that bill of rights I quoted last post there to JRB - see it?

But I think Wesley is fudging a little about my right to remain silent - don't you? I mean he seems to be restricting it to the scope of "sentencing".

Y'know, folks, David has a point here. If in fact for the competency exam to proceed, David was required to sign a consent which included that his statements could be used against him at sentencing - well, that raises a clear Fifth Amendment issue. He has a right to remain silent at sentence, and cannot be compelled to waive it. "Petitioner faced imprisonment from one year upwards to life, depending on the circumstances of the crime. To say that she had no right to remain silent but instead could be compelled to cooperate in the deprivation of her liberty would ignore the Fifth Amendment privilege at the precise stage where, from her point of view, it was most important." Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 327 (1999).

This scenario should proceed to a determination of competency without David's cooperation, as it did with the Dorean Dim Duo. If it does, he will likely be found competent, as were they. What David risks, though, is a finding of incompetence, followed by a criminal (if the case stays pending) or civil (if it is dismissed) involuntary commitment. The odds of this happening are substantially greater if the complainant tells the court or prosecutor that this is what she wishes.

Ergo the first thing the doctor ascertains is whether or not I have been arraigned - and he quickly discerns that I have not yet been arraigned.

David, I know this is not going to convince you, but it makes no difference whether you have been arraigned. The law does not permit someone who is not competent to plead in any event, so it is likely quite appropriate to defer an arraignment until after that determination is made - assuming that you have not been arraigned already.

Well, about that time he addresses a letter directed to - David Merrill of the Van Pelt family.

David, I just see that as an attempt to address you as the court thought you wished to be addressed - especially since the court had questions about your competency.

And furthermore Wesley seems to be restricting my ancient right not to incriminate myself in court to the constitutions SAMELSON has bonded himself financially to uphold. If you watched the video and read that first paragraph of the Affidavit of Probable Cause you would read the same point Wesley made in his post.

But it just circles us around and back to Wesley's main point. I told the officer my name is David Merrill. And now SAMELSON agrees and the police officer lied in the Affidavit about that. Also the Abatement for Misnomer promised I would be reporting to the jail within four hours should there be any arrest warrant issued regarding the cause allegedly against me - providing a 24/7 contact cellphone # that was on the whole while - for four and a half years while the elderly witnesses in the matter grew older and one died.

My interpretation of Wesley's post is that this can only become a matter of trying my competence to defend in a trial that would go on only if it could. And by SAMELSON's admission that the court clerk could have simply called me whatever I wanted to hear but didn't - well that speaks for itself. But you should all consider this (while you are listening to the moment of lucidity from NY attorney Wesley SERRA); the Trial Day I was ready for was on 11/18/08 and I was on time - only to find that the prosecutor did not care enough to arrange with police liaison to arrange for the lying police officer to attend and to find that just in case that didn't prompt me to arraign myself by pleading for a dismissal (moving the court) SAMELSON had arranged for there to be another trial that day.

Well things turned south for taking care of the $20M bill real fast. Instead of moving the court for a dismissal I was clear to get it on the record that SAMELSON had indeed placed an Order for a Trial there at that time and that I was indeed fulfilling any obligations I had to perform in that agreement. So just remember that you might consider paying $3.50 for certified copies of the bill. It could pay off 100X some day! The offer goes for Quatlosers too you know.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

It could pay off 100X some day! The offer goes for Quatlosers too you know.

Meaning that it also could not pay off - ever. You can get better odds in Vegas. So it is not surprising that David would not offer a money-back guarantee on that offer.

[wserra]

But I think Wesley is fudging a little about my right to remain silent - don't you? I mean he seems to be restricting it to the scope of "sentencing".

Because at some point you wrote that you were presented with a consent for your signature which provided that you agreed to the use of your statements to the shrink at sentencing. Of course the Fifth Amendment applies at a trial - but no one was asking you to waive that. I wanted to make it clear that it applies at sentencing as well, something which you cannot be compelled to waive.

In other words, David, on that point I agree with you. Some people make it difficult to do that.

[David Merrill]

Sorry Wesley;


My presumption was that you got the information from the interview on the video.

[fortinbras]

DVP, and any other defendant, is not legally obligated to engage in productive conversation with a court shrink ... but a deliberate and calculated refusal to do so (as distinguished from the sort of nonresponse that clearly comes from mental defect) is usually taken very unfavorably to the defendant; it will almost surely negate any plea for acquittal or leniency on the grounds of mental illness, and it can be taken as evidence of wrongful intent.

[wserra]

DVP, and any other defendant, is not legally obligated to engage in productive conversation with a court shrink ... but a deliberate and calculated refusal to do so (as distinguished from the sort of nonresponse that clearly comes from mental defect) is usually taken very unfavorably to the defendant; it will almost surely negate any plea for acquittal or leniency on the grounds of mental illness, and it can be taken as evidence of wrongful intent.

"Acquittal or leniency" covers too much ground for the generalization you make. As far as "a plea for an acquittal" is concerned, you're mistaken. Far from negating it, silence (including "deliberate and calculated" silence) is not even admissible. As far as a plea for leniency - I assume you mean leniency in sentencing - it shouldn't, since (as I posted above) one can claim the self-incrimination privilege at sentencing as well, and that privilege means that there can be no adverse inference drawn for doing so. Of course, judges will think privately what they will.

I would advise a client not to waive the privilege to any extent at a competency exam, and I would put on the record that I had done so. If Colorado law requires a waiver of privilege at a competency exam, I question its constitutionality.

[fortinbras]

A deliberate refusal to converse with the shrink, predicated on an invocation of the Fifth Amendment, definitely demonstrates enough intelligence and grasp of reality to be evidence against the sort of mental disease or defect that would justify an acquittal or leniency.

[David Merrill]

It will be interesting to see the DVD on the US courthouse clerk's copier...

http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm

0308 2040 0000 0062 3552

It should be delivered tomorrow. Thanks again Wesley.

I thinks Fortinbras should read that Memorandum with the R4C on the Order.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf

I thinks also what Wserra and I agree on is that somebody should keep the mouth shut especially when it is obvious that whatever they say will be used against them. And I think Wesley sees the fallacy in ordering somebody to sign a consent form in general. At least SAMELSON sees the flaw in that logic or he might have ordered me to sign BERMUDEZ's consent form. Or he might have ordered BERMUDEZ to perform the evaluation - oh yeah! That's what I was pointing out - it was BERMUDEZ who was in contempt of court - not me. He was ordered to perform and evaluation and he refused to do so...



Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

A deliberate refusal to converse with the shrink, predicated on an invocation of the Fifth Amendment, definitely demonstrates enough intelligence and grasp of reality to be evidence against the sort of mental disease or defect that would justify an acquittal or leniency.

That may be your personal opinion, fortinbras (regards to rosencrantz and guildenstern). It may be mine too. But there is no doubt whatsoever that a defendant cannot be compelled to waive Fifth Amendment privilege to undergo a competency exam. There are numerous cases so holding as to a determination of guilt or innocence. E.g., United States v. Dysart, 705 F.2d 1247 (10th Cir. 1983) (threatening the life of President Carter); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036 (3d Cir. 1979). A quick search did not find any similar cases relating to sentencing, but, given that a defendant has an unquestionable privilege there too, the result should be the same.

Note the difference if a defendant presents an "insanity" defense at trial - but there, he has placed his mental status at issue, and by doing so waived the privilege otherwise applicable to compelled mental status exams.

Edit: I just reread your last two posts. If what you were discussing all along was only a defense of "insanity", then the lines are blurrier (because of the last sentence of mine, above). Still, before you conclude that a defendant's statements or silence at a compelled competency exam may be admissible at an insanity trial, read Dysart.

[David Merrill]

Hello David Merrill,

You are receiving this notification because you are watching the topic, "Van Pelt Watch" at "Quatloos!". This topic has received a reply since your last visit. You can use the following link to view the replies made, no more notifications will be sent until you visit the topic.

If you want to view the newest post made since your last visit, click the following link: http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 64&e=57464

I see it there; where it directs me in the Notice:

Notify me when a reply is posted

And I clear the box. Empty box - nice box - no notices in my email. Yet I get the notice anyway and come back to find the box checked. Therefore I surmise it is being checked by a moderator who thinks I am deeply disturbed that I have to click my mouse to delete the notice.

And I admit, that the special treatment - no images and even discouraging Information remarks when I post a link to images etc... being singled out as different never feels nice except to the most emotionally disfunctional I suppose.

So I am just adding it to the big pun - your big attorney joke. You know, the BBC is collecting attorney jokes and I am sending them a copy of the DVD! Yeah! That'll learn you all good!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Wesley S-A-R-A-H;

You depict my silence by right as arising from some kind of constitutional privilege? That is a great relief indeed. How about calling it 6000 years old - that right? When Abel's blood cried out from the ground...

God did not interrogate Cain about it. The blood itself was the evidence and testimony.

[webhick]

David,

I just looked at the DB and it seems that your user default is set to receive those replies and it is overriding your choice on this thread each time you post. Please go to the posting defaults section of your user control panel and change it.

I suspect that it may have happened when you were unbanned, considering that the software had no way of knowing what your preferences were before you were banned.

[.]

I surmise it is being checked by a moderator

Burbles the word-salad machine. It's not too hard to understand why he has so many problems of his own making as he insists on prattling on ad nauseam about various figments of his imagination.

I suspect that Van Pelt's getting a bit jealous of the attention paid to "mutter," whose remaining shreds of rationality show signs that he may return from the TP twilight zone. Van Pelt, despite Wes's efforts to point him in the right direction insists on his special version of the world. And probably always will, even after he's locked up in whatever facility.

[Nikki]

What do you expect from someone who doesn't even understand the meaning of "pun?"