MOTION FOR INCOMPETENCY TRIAL
Thursday 03/23/06
Dear Kay,
I am demanding an Incompetency Trial. That is a trial just on the incompetent to stand trial decision. Enclosed is an actual copy of the Motion I filed and the Documents I sent along as Exhibits.
In the county Criminal Court No. 09, for Dallas County, Texas
Case No. MA0521971K
State of Texas
V.
Lakeith Amir-Sharif
Defendant’s Motion For Incompetency Trial
Comes Now the Defendant, Lakeith Amir-Sharif, acting pro.se, files this Motion for Incompetency Trial, pursuant to article 46B.051(A), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (T.C.C.P.), the fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 of the Texas Constitution.
In further support thereof the defendant would show the court the following:
1. The defendant has received a copy of the mendacious and slanderous report of Dr. Michael Pittman which is dated January 15, 2006, and submitted to this court pursuant to article 46B.025 T.C.C.P.
2. The defendant contests the report's findings by Dr. Pittman that "the defendant does not have a sufficient present ability to understand the proceedings against him". He also stated that "the defendant is also not capable of cooperating with his attorney in formulating a defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. In my opinion Mr. Amir [sic] has a severe mental illness, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar subtype, rendering, him incompetent to stand trial. I do not believe that he will regain competency in the foreseeable future.”
Dr. Pittman went on, “Mr Amir’s disordered thought processes, lack of regard for his current situation and irrational behavior make it not possible for him to cooperate with his counsel, understand legal procedures, understanding the adversarial nature of the courtroom, testify, appreciate the possible consequences of his charges, and make rational choices in his defense.”
“In short the examination indicated that Mr. Amir was not competent to stand trial.”
3. Either Dr. Michael Pittman’s forensic acumen has taken an extended leave of absence with no expectation of returning in the foreseeable future or he is simply another pathological liar and unethical doctor (Dr. Lisa K. Clayton was only misguided) who the Dallas County Commissioners and Court system has contracted to perform competency examinations under the pretense of somehow being a qualified expert in forensic psychiatry.
4. This court knows, or should know, that the integrity, fairness and credibility of this doctor, the competency proceedings in Texas and the integrity of the Frank Crowley Courts Building is lost in this report, and others like it because:
(A) Article 46B.003 (2)(B) T.C.C.P., states “A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.”
(B) In contradiction to article 46B.004, T.C.C.P., the court ordered a competency examination of the defendant based solely on a phone call from an unknown source suggesting to the court that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial;
No motion was filed and supporting affidavit attached setting out the facts on which this anonymous caller's suggestion was made. This court also never bothered to allow the defendant to appear before the court so the court could personally see for itself if the defendant seemed to be incompetent or suffering from a mental illness so severe as to justify issuing a competence examination order pursuant to 46B.004.;
(C) Article 46B.005 and 46B.006 were not adhered to by this court in determining the defendant's incompetency to stand trial and this courts need to initiate appropriate proceedings under chapter 46B.;
(D) Article 46B.021 T.C.C.P. which mandates that a disinterested expert be appointed by this court was circumvented for unknown reasons despite the motion filed to this court on January 12, 2006, to disqualify Dr. Michael Pittman’s appointment by this court as a disinterested expert to conduct competency examination’s of the defendant. SEE: attached motion described above.
(E) The defendant’s letter stated in pertinent part that he was writing the court to assure it there was writing the court to taxpayers dollars on competency examinations, be he was quite competent, ready to stand trial and bring about a quick resolution to the criminal offense in the above-styled and numbered cause. The defendant further advised the court that he was being subjected to act of reprisal by jail staff displeasure over his supporting organization's webpage which focuses on the Dallas Jail and Courts. www.angelfire.com/crazy4/texas
Finally, and to further emphasize his competency and intelligence to the court, the defendant’s letter goes on to tell Judge Anderson, "I am well, and currently re-reading Ann Rand’s Novel, 'The Fountain Head', when I’m not reviewing my prisoner's self-help litigation manual by John Boston and Daniel E. Manville, Dr. Texas Criminal Law, and Texas Contemporary Criminal Procedure by Holt and Spencer. SEE: attached letter described above.
PRO.SE MOTIONS
(F) Between the time of defendant’s December 28, 2005 letter to Judge Anderson and today's date, March 27, 2006, the defendant has filed a total of eight (8) pro.se motions to the court. Those motions filed have never been ruled on.
A list of those motions are as follows:
1. Motion to disqualify Dr. Pittman’s appointment as a disinterested expert; 1/12/06.
2. Motion for right to self - representation - 1/14/06
3. Motion for List of Witnesses - 2/10/06
4. Motion to shuffle jurors - 2/10/06
5. Motion for Extension of time to file additional motions; pretrial motions - 2/10/06
6. Motion for Discovery - 2/10/06
7. Defendant’s Election for Punishment in Jury Trial - 2/03/06
8. Supplemental Motion for Right to Self Representation - 3/03/06
*It’s worthy to note that all these motions were drafted and filed without the defendant having the benefit of access to or use of the jail’s law library.
5. The aforementioned facts in and of themselves contradict anonymous callers or supposed forensic experts suggestions, opinions or otherwise that this defendant has at anytime been incompetent to stand trial. And for this or any court to pretend to believe Dr. Pittman’s, or any doctor's, report that the defendant was or is somehow incompetent would be the most egregious perversion of justice this court could involve itself in.
6. If the court needs further evidence corroborating this defendant’s competency, and justification for granting this motion, it needs to look no further than the civil court dockets of the J.S. District court, nor their District of Texas Dallas Division, where the defendant is a pro.se litigant in the following civil right lawsuits filed and still pending:
(a) Amir-Sharif vs. Dallas County, Texas, etal. Filed on 01/12/06 case #3:06-CV-00081-B
(b) Amir-Sharif vs. Dallas County, Texas ETAL. Filed on 01/20/06 Case #3:06-CV-00143-K
(c) Amir-Sharif vs. Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez, ETAL Filed on 03/06/2006 case #3:06-CV00408
SEE: attached civil court dockets for the above described cases.
6. cont- or this court can review the case docket sheet of the fifth court of appeals, Dallas, Texas, Case # CV-05-00157-V-292nd - In the mater of Cathy Hawkins and Lakeith Amir-Sharif.
This court will see, not withstanding the motions filed leading up to the this matter, that the defendant drafted and mailed his appeal to the appeals court on December 12, 2005; which so happens to be just (5) five days after this court somehow determined that evidence existed, based solely on an anonymous caller's suggestion that the defendant may be incompetent, thus warranting the court to issue an order for a competency examination.
THE DOCTOR
7. Dr. Pittman is still the subject of a complaint filed by this defendant to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. This was made known to the court in the defendant’s motion to disqualify Dr. Pittman SEE: TBME Investigation File # 06-1939.
8. This doctor has also threatened the defendant that he would falsify his report by claiming the defendant was incompetent and that he was fighting with the guards at the jail. The doctor made these threats on February 16, 2006, when the defendant was brought to the holding cell outside this ~~~PAGE 8~~~courtroom for another, 3rd, competency examination per Judge Anderson request, according to Dr. Pittman.
9. A notation about the fighting was found on the courts files docket sheet, although there has never been any incidents of the defendant fighting anyone at the Dallas Jail. were these allegations true the defendant would of either be criminally charged, or disciplined through the jail’s disciplinary process or both. There has been nothing of the sort processed against this defendant.
10. The public’s perception that something dishonest and unethical is afoot concerning the charges pending against the defendant should be an incentive for this court to ensure the letter of the law is followed at all times, and in every aspect of these Judicial proceedings in the above styled and numbered case.
11. Respect for the law, particularly by public servants and elected government officials responsible for the administration of our judiciary, is in itself a matter of the highest public interest.
WHEREFORE, in the interest that justice be done, and under due process and equal protection considerations of fundamental fairness in American courts. the court should grant the defendant's motion for an incompetency trial in it’s entirety on the merits or in tis sttchiative, that this court set this matter down for an immediate hearing on or before April 14th, 2006, and at such hearing, this motion be in all thinks granted, and any other further and necessary relief in all ways to may be justly entitled and deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, Lakeith Amir-Sharif
Dallas County Jail(W5RG???)
500 Commerce St.
Dallas, TX 75202-4796
Dated: 3/22/06
Certificate of Service
On this 22nd day of March, 2006, the afore signed motion was served via regular U.S. mail to Bill Hill, Dallas County District Attorney’s office.
Lakeith Amir-Sharif
ORDER
The defendant’s motion was heard and is hereby granted / denied to which action of the court the defendant objects in all things.
___________________
Preecding Judge
Dated on:____________
