The Court Case

As briefly mentioned (on the photos page; img.29) the prologue of the case is that the kids from the nearby school, where I have to pass through every day, had for about 3-6 months been following after me on their bycicles, throwing stuff at me, shouting names after me and making comments at me when I walked by*, until I finally had enough and pulled a gun (lookalike) on one of them when she approached me. According to the police report (dated November 27th 2008) that was October 6th 2008.
*As mentioned I hypothesize that the same person or persons who were also responsible for the internet harassment and the harassment uttered through graffitis etc. in my local neighbourhood might well have been responsible for stirring those school kids up against me. -I assume that whomeever it was; knowing that at some point I would have to react to it somehow, had hoped that I would have reacted with some kind of violence, as that would presumably have made for a splendid opportunity in an attempt to paint a "monster" of me as someone who would be violent to kids (compare in particular img 29, 33-34, and 37-38).

I had originally kept a log of all the relevant dates when I received which documents, when I made phonecalls to my atourney, etc., so as to be able to document the facts of how the events have unfolded with concern to this case. - Recently, however, I was mugged and my old Treo that I used to keep the log was stolen (just another example of Fifi's obstructions), so sadly I can't write the precise dates of each event. Thus the following account has to be based on my recollection and the dates on the letters.

Therefor all dates stated in the following are the dates stated on the documents, unless otherwise noted.

December 18th 2009: The summon from the court in Glostrup; stating the original date of the court hearing as was scheduled at that time to be held on April 6th 2010. This document arrived together with the charge from the prosecutor, Natalja Fryd Lindberg, on making threats (dated November 27th 2008).

January 5th 2010: The letter from my atourney, Frank Wenzel, to inform me that he had been appointed by the court to act as my atourney. - He also wrote in that letter that he had requested a so called "person investigation" aiming at the possibility of achieving a reduced sentence. - The letter also stated that he would like to have a conversation with me before the court hearing.

- After receiving that letter I called my atourney on the phone to ask about what a "person investigation" implied, and to schedule a time for an appointment to talk with him as he had requested in the letter. - He informed me that a "person investigation" basically meant that I was to talk to a social worker (or whatever her job title) about my living conditions etc. - As for making an appointment for a talk he said that it'd be sufficient if I just turned up about half an hour before the court hearing so we could talk then.

January 12th 2010: A letter from the police office informing me that they had requested the before mentioned person investigation, and that I would be contacted by a person from the criminal care.

- Around the same time (I believe I remember it to have been a day or two before I received the just mentioned letter from the police office) I also received the letter from the criminal care social worker (or whatever her job title) summoning me to the "person investigation" and informing me of the time and date of it, though I can't find that letter now. - I went there, however, and talked with her. She made the impression of being very understanding (or in fact explicitly said she found my act "certainly understandable considering the very serious harassment"; to quote her exact words) after I had told her how the school kids had been harassing me for months leading up to the incident.

April 6th 2010: The prosecuter suddenly cancelled the court hearing! I don't know the reason, but on the day the court hearing had originally been scheduled to be I received a phone call from my atourney's secretary who told me that the hearing had been cancelled by the prosecutor and that my atourney would contact me later.

- After that a long time passed in which I didn't hear anything. I believe I waited about three weeks until I called my atourney on my own initiative to hear what was going on and to ask why the hearing had been cancelled. However the secretary told me that my atourney was not availeable at the time but she would tell him to call me back. I asked the secretary (in that conversation, I believe, though I'm not 100% certain) why the hearing had been cancelled and she replied that she would guess, based on the fact that it had been at the last moment, that it had propably been due to illness.

- After that again a long time passed in which I didn't hear anything. I called the atourney's office repeated times about a week apart, each time with the same result: my atourney wasn't availeable but his secretary would tell him to call me back.

- At last the secretary told me that my atourney had tried to call me but couldn't get through*. She asked me to decide on wether I would be willing to participate in a psychiatric evaluation, which of course I categorically rejected. She said then that with that matter (ie. that I had stated my decision against the request) established it would not be very long until I heard something.
*In that case it can't have been my number he called because I checked both the call log of my phone and my answering machine to see, and there had not been any calls.

August 11th 2010 (AT LEAST a month later, I believe): A letter from my atourney informing me that a new court hearing had been scheduled to September 21st 2010.

August 22nd 2010 (today; at the time of writing this): This morning I finally received a summon from the court in Glostrup (dated August 10th; ie. 12 days ago - ?!) summoning me to attend the new court hearing on September 21st 2010, aimed at deciding on a psychiatric evaluation.

August 23rd 2010 (entry of August 27th): Emailed my atourney's office, as I know from experience that it can be difficult to reach my atourney by phone; asking if they could inform me of wether it has ever occurred that a psychiatric evaluation had returned a conclusion of the evaluated person not being mentally ill. I mentioned that it is a matter of some haste to me so I would prefer a quick reply.

August 26th 2010 (entry of August 27th): As I had not yet received a reply to my email I called the atourney's office to ask about it. The secretary told me that my atourney had not been at the office but that I would get a reply as soon as he returned. On my question of when I could expect that to be the secretary said the very beginning of the next comming week. (ie. expectable to be on monday or tuesday; 30th or 31st).

September 1st 2010: 'Called the atourney's office again this morning to hear about the reply to my email, which I had still not received. The lady who answered the phone told me that my atourney wasn't at the office and that the secretary was ill, but she would leave a message to my atourney to call me back. (Why am I not surprized).

September 2nd 2010 (entry of September 3rd): Received a message to my answering machine* from my atourney, saying that it was now imperative for him to get to talk to me and that he would call me back.
*I wasn't quick enough to answer the phone in time, and the call log didn't show the number but just said "private number", so I couldn't call back.

September 7th 2010: Called my atourney today since I haven't heard from him since on the 2nd when he said it was urgent to him to get to talk to me. The secretary said she would tell him to call me back.

September 9th 2010: Received a message to my answering machine* from my atourney, telling me to leave a message at the atourney's office telephone number of when it would be convenient. He said that with regard to my question about the statement from the Court Medical Council ("Retslægerådet") it was his impression that "it will usually be followed". - Note that this does not answer my question: My question of August 23rd (now more than two week ago) was NOT wether the court tend to follow the statement returned by a psychiatric evaluation. My question was wether such a statement has ever returned a conclusion of the "evaluated" person not being mentally ill. My atourney's reply has not answered that question! - And quite frankly I'm beginning to get the impression that he is deliberately avoiding it!
*Same problem as on September 2nd.

September 10th 2010: Called the atourney's office and told them after 2:00 pm. (I'll see if I can figure a way to make my cellphone wait longer before it redirect the call to the answering machine).

Comment (entry of August 22nd): As stated the original court hearing was cancelled by the prosecutor at the last moment, for reasons unknown to me. Then the prosecutor came back with the request, suddenly, of a psychiatric evaluation, which had not been a topic of consideration before. Where did that come from all of a sudden?! And is it common practice that it is the prosecution who request a psychiatric evaluation?! After all "mental illness" is at least officially euphemized of as a kind of "defence" to avoid "punishment".* So wouldn't it have been the defence atourney's job to request a mental evaluation?!
*Other, of course, than the public humiliation, disgrace, and the social stigma of having a mental diagnosis attached to one, which in effect means being ousted from society for life, as it is equivalent to being denied the access to ordinary social relations, romance, and sex, as well as being denied access to the job market. ...And mind you; whereas being punished to some lawful sanction require that one has actually done something wrong, this so called "non punishment" measure, which in some respects are much worse than what would ever be accepted of any lawful punishment, may be applied for such trivial "offences" as merely having a difference of opinion with the psychiatrist, or wearing the "wrong" clothes, or using a sociolect that the psychiatrist don't approve of... But at least officially this absolutely devastating so called "help" is not considered to be a "punishment" - and therefor conveniently does not officially require otherwise fundamental human rights or constitutional protective measures to be applied. (Even though the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and similar international organizations have repeated times, with specific reference to danish psychiatry, uttered themselves to be of a different opinion).
- Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis of why the prosecutor suddenly cancelled the court hearing at the last moment: As mentioned the social worker (or whatever her job title) had expressed herself even very understanding of my act in light of the treatment the school kids had been given me. And I think there would at that time have been a pretty good chance that the judge too might have seen it the same way: In other words I believe that I actually had a pretty strong case on my side. And perhaps the prosecutor believed so too. In fact the prosecutor might at the last moment have been so much in doubt of her chances of winning the case with what she had that she did what I believe everybody has done at some time when they hadn't done their homework at school; she called in sick, to buy herself more time to come up with a stronger case. Then she came back with, out of the blue; the request of a psychiatric evaluation. Knowing very well, I suspect, that there is an OVERWHELMING likelyhood of ANY such psychiatric evaluation to return a description of mental illness (in fact if I'm not much mistaking I'd assume there to be an overwhelming likelyhood that NO such psychiatric evaluation HAS EVER returned a "negative" result; evaluating its subject to be perfectly sound of mind, AT ALL). - So in other words when the prosecutor request a psychiatric evaluation - or at least if her request is granted - then she in effect pretty much sircumvene the judge and decide the outcome of the court beforehand by MAKING SURE the defendent would be sentenced to psychiatric treatment.
So; in so many words my hypothesis of why the prosecutor in this case suddenly cancelled the original court hearing, and then surprizingly returned with a request of a psychiatric evaluation, would be that she initially decided that there was a too good chance that she wouldn't win, so in stead of pursuing the attempt to have me sentenced according to the paragraph of making threats she decided in stead to so to speak throw the "joker card" of requesting a psychiatric evaluation to make sure, without having to try the case at court, that I would 'at least' be sentenced to some kind of sanction that she could then at least have to show for, rather than risk loosing the case if it was to actually be tried in court.