Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

I'm posting this on scribd. If that's not ok, I'll take it off.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Baker wrote:

Shirley:

Bear with me on the extended metaphor...

When I taught Chinese martial arts, there was an art called Liu Ho Pa Fa (Six Harmony/
Eight Methods). The goal of the practitioner was to put their opponent in a hold or
predicament in which, no matter what move the opponent made, he hurt himself.

There's also the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Now, in your case, the TMB has tried its best to paint you as a person who, for want of a
better term, is a nut, and to some extent, not in touch with reality.

Now.dropping our view of reality for a second, and ASSUMING that the board is composed
of learned men and women, with access to great medical minds, minds with great acumen,
and that the Board is just in the business of protecting people and has only the public
interest in mind, then, were we to accept their picture of you...it would be one of diminished
capacity.

It would be one of someone who, on say a traffic stop, faced with men at night with guns,
COULD legitimately be terrified their life was in jeopardy.

The law of course, wants to punish bad men (or women) who do crimes INTENTIONALLY,
and preferably with malice of forethought.

The law (nominally) does NOT want to punish people who merely acted in self defense.

I can recall in undergraduate school, the lawyer teaching our class said that if a person were
so delusional that he thought a policeman was really an alien, actively trying to kill him,
that if the person killed him, thinking he was not a human , but a predatory alien, he (the
person doing the killing) would not be guilty of murder, because there was no mens rea.
"
In criminal law, mens rea – the Latin term for "guilty mind"[1] – is usually one of the
necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually
expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act
does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with
due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to
constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of
concurrence). The Criminal Law does not usually apply to a person who has acted with the
absence of mental fault; this is the general rule.

The exception is strict liability crimes (in the civil law, it is not usually necessary to prove a
subjective mental element to establish liability, say for breach of contract or a tort, although
if intentionally committed, this may increase the measure of damages payable to
compensate the plaintiff as well as the scope of liability).

Quite simply therefore mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that
accompanies the actus reus..."---SO, from the trier of fact, you were either in your right
mind, knew what you were doing, and for no reason acted against law enforcement people
without any provocation (which would SOUND nutty to the average layperson) or you were
genuinely in fear of your life and took those steps which you thought at the time, gave you
the best chance of survival.

If the Board is believed, then impaired function SHOULD be a legal issue, because to be
legally creating a crime, you had to know what you did was a criminal act, and did it
anyway. But, self defense, or, your belief at the time you were acting in self defense, at the
very least, should be a mitigating factor.

If the Court believes you were perfectly sound of mind and clear on acting with a criminal
intent, it renders this whole "She's nutty and practicing impaired" notion invalid to me, and
makes the Board appear as if they were indeed, conducting a witch hunt, or personal
vendetta in response to your exposing corruption.

Now, as far as I can see, this is your first such brush with the law, and ordinarily, for a first
offense, it helps to allow judges to show some leniency, and a lot of folks get off with a
much reduced sentence or punishment. Furthermore, as a health professional for over two
decades of doing good, that should give you SOME credit in the eyes of the Court.

Have any of your past patients come forward to send letters to the Court asking for mercy
and leniency?

I have tried to stay atop this case in the time I've had, and from some of the things I've
read, there seems to be a lot of animosity toward you (I did read the patronizing and
condescending letter from the church, which assumed your guilt from the git-go), but
surely, with a medical career as long as yours, there must be folks on the other side, who
are grateful to you for helping them. So where are THESE people?

Has Jerry gotten any statements to present to the Court asking for mercy or leniency in
light of your many years of selfless service?

As I understand, although the DA didn't get everything he charged you with, he got some,
so the Court is already looking at you as a guilty person. Thus, your course would appear to
seek mercy / leniency due to a past good record of service, or, perhaps appeal it and hope
that someone declares a mistrial.

Just a few meandering thoughts from a non-lawyer,

:) ~John

Potrebbero piacerti anche