| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ms. Lesmez,
--
...choose for yourself this day whom you will serve...Joshua 24:15
My disappointment in your utter failure to defend my son, Isaac cannot be more profound. That this is standard procedure-- to have assigned counsel put on no defense, to in fact not even make an effort to get to know a client, so that one could REPRESENT the client's interest. You and your boss are in my opinion practicing a kind of lawlessness that has perverted our court system and is the reason that Public Defenders have the reputation of being and practicing below the standard. ile. Public Pretenders That Mr. Fessler is on the board for the local NAMI, a group that purports to advocate for equal rights for the mentally ill, should compel him to become more informed--and to raise the standard of how these individuals are represented by staff in his office. I want you both to know that my son is now court ordered to take a medication that has already damaged his heart, he has tachycardia-- His doctor had taken him off of it because of this. Dr. Jennings had this information, it was faxed to Memorial on July 28 and was part of Isaac's chart. So, without consulting Isaac's doctor, his mother, his brother or anyone that knows Isaac--he put him back on it at TWICE the dose.
I am disgusted that NO ONE who has had any contact with Isaac all of 2010 was consulted as to what his interests are, including you. Ms. Lesmez, how can you reasonably believe you served him much less that you protected his interests? You told the judge that Isaac signed the paperwork and that you explained to him what is said and he responded that he understood. If, he truly understood as you testified, why was he shocked to be told by his brother and myself that he was now under a court order to take meds that that quack prescribed? You had no personal knowledge of my son or his ability to process and understand complex information. Yet you proclaimed to the court he understood. You misspoke, I assure you.
You did however do an excellent job of ensuring his rights to due process were ignored, and that felonious behavior such as forgery and perjury can be presented to the court and not be challenged and that it is alright to play a part in the further traumatizing of your client, if it is "the way things are being done."
You both obviously need a refresher course on what constitutes Procedural Due Process and a reminder of why it is so important.
Procedural Due Process
1 This protection is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to states, and,therefore, by implication, to its political subdivisions, through the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. .
Nancy Sherman forged a court document and committed perjury--you were in possession of enough information without having heard from Nathan and myself to, if you were conscious, realize there was something not right with this case; the fact that you did not defies explanation. That you had in fact heard from Nathan and myself and failed to bring these questions up at the hearing August 6, (the one where the 14 day was dropped and immediately following, another hearing held to obtain a 90 day LRA) looks like you were not cognizant of any duty to your client whatsoever. You KNEW I had not asked for my son to be court ordered, you were in possession of a copy of the forged Witness Statement--Are you brain dead?
In order to protect persons from the unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government, there must be some method by which they can contest the means by which the government proposes to deprive them of protected interests; i.e., they must be afforded procedural due process. Questions may arise concerning the adequacy of the procedures provided to contest the deprivation of a protected interest. While the exact procedures appropriate to one set of facts may not be required under differing circumstances,there are certain fundamental or basic aspects of procedural due process that should be considered:
1. Notice. Sufficient notice should be given in order to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action, afford them an opportunity to present
their objections, and enable them to determine what is being proposed
and what must be done to protect their interests.
Nancy Sherman did not serve the order to detain Isaac at CWCMH, she had all the paperwork in her hand--if she had Nathan and I would have known what was happening.
2. Hearing. Individuals cannot be deprived of property or liberty interest
unless they are provided some form of hearing in which they will have the
opportunity to be heard.
An Emergent order to detain is effected without a hearing--it is this order that strips individuals of their 2nd amendment rights. Nancy Sherman informed no one in the Murphy family of what she was doing--all three of us were right there, so no hearing, no input on her decision. She attests on her petition that Isaac being voluntary is, "Not in good faith." Based on what? You failed to raise this issue. I find it odd that she fails to mention that BOTH Nathan and I accompanied Isaac to the Crisis Center, don't you?
3. Impartiality. In order to provide procedural due process to an individual
who may be subject to a deprivation of his or her interests, it is important
not only that a hearing be provided, but also that the tribunal or decision
maker not be predisposed against the individual. An impartial decision
maker is considered to be essential.
4. Counsel. An individual should be permitted to be represented and assisted
by counsel, although it is not necessarily required that counsel be provided
to one unable to afford his own. Generally speaking, an indigent has an
absolute right to appointed counsel only where he may lose his physical
liberty if he loses the adjudication.
Isaac was unable to assist in his defense, indeed he was not even aware he needed to be defended! You refused to accept his signed release granting Nathan and I access to his file and to speak with you on his behalf. Your excuses for this do not ring true--what they in fact sounded like to me was idiotic justifications for unlawful behavior; you said you would not speak to us to protect Isaac, what a crock! Isaac needed protection from the unethical practices of CWCMH employees, and now from you and people like you in the Washington State Bar who fail to recognize that they are accomplices in depriving their own clients of their Constitutional Rights.
5. Evidence. Especially in cases where a decision rests on questions of fact, it may be necessary to provide an individual not only with the ability to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, but also the opportunity for discovery, i.e., investigation and accumulating evidence, in order to give him or her a chance to show that the facts upon which the proposed deprivation is based are untrue.
1 This protection is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to states, and,therefore, by implication, to its political subdivisions, through the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. .
2 For example, a student subject to discipline by a school district is constitutionally due far less procedural protection than an applicant for a subdivision or a criminal defendant being tried for a capital crime.
This whole court process was unnecessary and started by an MHP's felonious behavior. My son is on high doses of medications that have already caused him permanent harm. CWCMH claims that all original documents have been shredded--another violation of the law; but I'm sure it is not because they have something to hide. The forged witness statement, the one Nancy Sherman attests is "attached" to her Emergency Order to Detain my son is in fact not part of the court record. Rick Weaver claims the court clerk probably lost it, "she loses documents all the time." CWCMH claim that all original documents have been shredded. The people I hold most responsible in this are you Jennifer, and your boss, Dan Fessler. As Assigned Counsel you are the ONLY thing that stands between your clients and whatever charge they face, and in the case of someone with a diagnosis of mental illness; mounting a defense guards against further stigmatization, labeling one of being unwilling to seek and accept treatment, civil rights violations, and harmful, unethical practitioners. Congratulations! Your failure helped ensure my son's rights were and continue to be violated, that fraudulent testimony was allowed unchallenged, to stand. Most importantly, you ensured that he is taking a drug that may in fact kill him. Good Job!
Thanks for all you've done!
As respectful as I can be given the situation,
Becky Murphy
--
...choose for yourself this day whom you will serve...Joshua 24:15
No comments:
Post a Comment