Hello Ms. Wreyford,
My names is James Edward Avery,DVM ; resident defendant 1840 Mason Mill Road, Decatur, GA 30033.
Sorry to intrude. But on the day of November 30, 2017, I met with a Dr. Peggy Flanagan at our Law Office of Public Defender DeKalb County for a court ordered competency evaluation.
And I'm repeatedly being told by my court ordered public defender, Ingrid McGaughey, that she has reached out to our DBHDD; yet to receive anything in the way of a report from our DBHDD of this competency evaluation having taken our Dr. Peggy Flanagan of Forensic Psychiatry Services...at most...two hour performing.
For a probation revocation hearing continued as a result of our Honorable Judge Matthew McCoyd giving in to his court ordered public defender assigned me by our Law Office of Public Defender DeKalb County pleading/begging him for this competency evaluation...ALREADY... reset to resume January 30, 2018.
Would it be possible of Dr. Flanagan emailing me an explanation as to why this report taking so long? Maybe even emailing directly to me a copy of this report once finished?
THE COURT:
WE ARE HERE ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017. THIS CASE IS THE DEKALB COUNTY VS. JAMES EDWARD AVERY CASE. THIS CASE WAS ESPECIALLY SET FOR TRIAL. IT'S NOW 1:23 AND WE ARE ON THE RECORD.
FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE RECEIVED A MOTION TO NOLLE PROS A NUMBER OF THE CITATIONS AGAINST MR. AVERY FROM THE SOLICITOR, AND I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE ENTRY OF THE NOLLE PROS.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
COUNSEL WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE NOLLE PROS ORDER.
THE COURT:
WELL, THAT IS GOOD BUT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO THE NOLLE PROS.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
YOUR HONOR, AND THIS WILL GO INTO WHY I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT.
INGRID MCGAUGHEY WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. I AM NOT ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON THIS CASE. MS. WHITNEY GIBBS IS. MS. WHITNEY GIBBS HAS ASKED ME TO ASSIST HER BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE WHO HANDLES THE CASES INVOLVING MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
THE COURT:
YES, MA'AM.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
I HAVE SPOKEN TO MR. AVERY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND I KNOW THAT MR. AVERY WILL NOT AGREE WITH ME ON THIS -- TWO OCCASIONS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT I SAT DOWN WITH HIM. IN ADDITION, I HAVE BEEN PRIVY TO SOME OF HIS
E-MAILS THAT HE HAS SENT MS. GIBBS. I HAVE VIEWED SOME OF THE VIDEOS THAT HE HAS ONLINE.
AND IN SPEAKING WITH MR. AVERY, MR. AVERY APPEARS TO BE A BRIGHT INDIVIDUAL. HE SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE MECHANICS OF THE COURT PROCEEDING ARE, HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS COMPETENT TO PROCEED. I KNOW THE COURT HAD INITIALLY ORDERED A COMPETENCY EVALUATION. D.B.H.D.D. (Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities) INFORMED THE COURT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T WITHIN THEIR PREVIEW. AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE FOR THE COURT, WHETHER THE COURT WAS WILLING TO HIRE A PRIVATE TO DO THAT EVALUATION.
MR. AVERY'S ISSUES FOR US QUESTIONING HIS COMPETENCY HAVE TO DO WITH HIS ABILITY TO ASSIST COUNSEL. WE ALSO QUESTION HIS ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS FORUM IS FOR. WHILE WE HAVE GONE OVER THE MECHANICS OF A TRIAL AND WHAT TODAY ENCOMPASSES, IT SEEMS TO BE MR. AVERY'S BELIEF
THAT THIS IS A FORUM AND WHERE HE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT HIS GRIEVANCES ARE TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THEM TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE WITH HIM. IN REPEATEDLY SPEAKING TO HIM, HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO FULLY COMPREHEND THAT.
IN ADDITION, WHEN IT COMES TO ASSISTING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS CASE, HE IS -- HIS SPEECH PATTERN IS RAMBLING, IT'S TANGENTIAL. HE IS UNABLE TO FOCUS ON THESE ISSUES WITHOUT GOING INTO MULTIPLE UNRELATED ISSUES OR
MULTIPLE PERIPHERY ISSUES. WE THINK THAT IN GOING FORWARD WITH A TRIAL, WHERE HIS LIBERTY WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY, THAT THIS WOULD VIOLATE HIS DUE-PROCESS RIGHTS AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS COMPETENT.
THE COURT:
SO, MS. MCGAUGHEY, I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENTS. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT I HAVE ASKED REPEATEDLY WHETHER YOUR OFFICE HAS COUNSEL FOR MR. AVERY. I APPOINTED YOUR OFFICE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. AVERY EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T QUALIFY BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS RIGHTS WERE PROTECTED. AND I HAVE ASKED REPEATEDLY WHETHER YOUR OFFICE WAS GOING TO FILE A MOTION SEEKING A COMPETENCY HEARING AND I HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY TOLD THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. AND I HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH HEARING THAT THE POSITION OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IS THAT HE'S NOT COMPETENT 20 MINUTES AFTER A SPECIALLY SET TRIAL IS SET TO BEGIN. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR EIGHT MONTHS.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:
I BELIEVE THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE, IT'S BEEN WAIVED.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE COURT.
THE COURT:
I UNDERSTAND.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
COMPETENCY IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE FLUID. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. AVERY AT TIMES WHERE HE DID MAKE MORE SENSE. IN LIGHT OF SOME E-MAILS
THAT WERE SENT WITHIN THE LAST 24 HOURS, IN LIGHT OF MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM TODAY, IN LIGHT OF MY SOCIAL WORKERS' CONVERSATIONS -- WE HAVE HAD ALL THREE SOCIAL WORKERS TALK TO HIM TODAY -- I DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS
COMPETENT IN THE HEARING NOW.
THE COURT:
BEFORE I ASK THE COUNTY WHAT THEIR POSITION IS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO MAKE AN INQUIRY, BE IT THROUGH A DOCTOR, OF MR. AVERY'S COMPETENCY.
THE COURT:
SO ARE YOU MOVING TO HAVE A COMPETENCY HEARING?
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
YOUR HONOR, WE DO NOT HAVE A -- WE DO NOT HAVE A DOCTOR AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IF THE COURT WISHES TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT A DOCTOR, I BELIEVE THAT
MR. AVERY'S BEHAVIOR WOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF QUITE FRANKLY.
THE COURT:
SO WHAT IS IT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO?
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU EITHER CONTINUE THE CASE --
THE DEFENDANT:
(GESTURING AT THE GALLERY)
THE DEPUTY:
SIR.
THE COURT:
HE NEEDS TO STOP THAT.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
-- FOR COMPETENCY EVALUATION. IF THE COURT IS NOT WILLING TO DO THAT, THEN WE COULD PROCEED WITH A COMPETENCY EVALUATION AND LET THE COURT MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO HIS COMPETENCY.
THE COURT:
WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE COMPETENCY EVALUATION NOW?
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE DO NOT HAVE A DOCTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE AN EVALUATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THE COURT:
SO YOU'RE ASKING ME TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL SO THAT YOU CAN GO GET A DOCTOR TO HAVE --
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE'RE --
THE COURT:
-- A COMPETENCY HEARING.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
WE'RE ASKING THE COURT -- IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS AN EVALUATION THAT WAS INITIALLY ORDERED BY THE COURT.
THE COURT:
IT WAS INITIALLY ORDERED BY THE COURT, BUT THEN WHEN THE COURT WAS TOLD THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT PERFORM THE EVALUATION, I INFORMED EVERYBODY OF THAT. AND AT THAT TIME, I ASKED WHETHER DEFENSE WAS GOING TO FILE A MOTION SEEKING A COMPETENCY EVALUATION, AND I WAS TOLD NO.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT:
SO ARE YOU NOW FILING A MOTION ASKING FOR A COMPETENCY EVALUATION?
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
I'M ASKING FOR THE COURT TO PROVIDE THE FUNDS FOR THAT COMPETENCY EVALUATION SINCE GEORGIA REGIONAL WILL NOT DO IT.
THE COURT:
WHAT SAYS THE COUNTY?
MR. GETZ:
THE COUNTY IS READY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:
MS. MCGAUGHEY, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL RESPECT FOR YOU AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
THANK YOU, JUDGE.
THE COURT:
MY POSITION IS THE ISSUE -- I'VE REPEATEDLY ASKED AND I'VE BEEN REPEATEDLY BEEN TOLD NO, AND SO WE'RE HERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE OUR OBJECTION NOTED FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:
YES, MA'AM.
MS. MCGAUGHEY:
THANK YOU.
THE COURT:
SO NOTED. ALL RIGHT.
MS. GIBBS:
YOUR HONOR, IS THERE A HEARING DEVICE FOR MR. AVERY AT THIS POINT?
THE COURT:
IS THERE A WHAT?
MS. GIBBS:
IS THERE A HEARING DEVICE AVAILABLE FOR MR. AVERY SO HE CAN HEAR THE COURT PROCEEDINGS?
THE COURT:
THERE SHOULD BE.
SO, DEPUTY, THIS DEFENDANT HAS HEARING ISSUES. TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES, SO WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO ALLOW TO ASSIST HIM HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS. WE NEED TO INQUIRE ABOUT IT.
THE DEPUTY:
WE HAVE IT?
THE COURT:
WE DO. WE DO HAVE IT.
THE DEPUTY:
OKAY.
THE COURT:
OKAY.
THE DEPUTY:
I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GET IT FROM.
(THE DEPUTIES CONFERRED.)
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY BRIEF DELAY WHILE WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN ASSIST THE DEFENDANT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS IS BROUGHT DOWN. THEN WE'LL PROCEED.
|
Until receiving the results of this competency evaluation, we pretty much can continue expecting these court ordered public defenders assigned me by our Law Office of Public Defenders DeKalb County being dismissive of anything and everything I'm having to say to my defense until too late!
|
Then again, this may be...EXACTLY...what they be paid doing..?
|
I've already told both Dr. Flanagan and Public Defender Ingrid McGaughey at the end of this competency evaluation, "I'm fast finding myself in the beginnings of an understanding of what may explain in part the driving force behind the Alt-Right Movement having helped propel Trump into the Oval Office."
Please let Dr. Flanagan know, following along the same line of reasoning as I had with our Alt-Right Movement, it important to add; "And with those of fathers (any head of household really) having turned guns upon their own families...before themselves."
Already known to my Public Defender, please have Dr. Flanagan take notice, that by January 30th, 2018, whether the probation revocation hearing resumed or not, I will no longer have the cash available enabling me to continue living the life I've grown accustomed without the sale of my home and moving to a different neighborhood.
Rest assured, I own no gun.
Sincerely yours,
Not Defined, Undefined, Unidentified~g(8!0)d~James E. Avery, Herd Health Medicine
P.S.
You do not conclude until understanding. Once understanding, you do not judge.
Therefore, It is the job of our Honorable Judge Matthew McCoyd...CONCLUDING...these hearings,,,BEFORE UNDERSTANDING...in a way that...GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE...having been served.
But to whom?
|
REMEMBER NOW!
Although appointed to the bench, our Honorable Judge Matthew McCoyd still considered an elected representative.
AUTOMATICALLY!
He comes to us...FULLY FRONT LOADED..having bias.
PREJUDICED!
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY BRIEF DELAY WHILE WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN ASSIST THE DEFENDANT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS IS BROUGHT DOWN. THEN WE'LL PROCEED.
If anyone cared enough reading what the rest of this transcript from the trial having to say, you will see that our Honorable Judge Matthew McCoyd proceeded with the trial immediately before we having the technology needed assisting the defendant.
LOL
***
Hello Ms. Wreyford,
This is James Avery; defendant 1840 Mason Mill Road with whom Dr. Peggy Flanagan recently performed a court ordered competency evaluation at the request of our Law Office of Public Defenders DeKalb County Ingrid McGaughey.
I recently sent you an email January 20th trying to get in touch with Dr. Flanagan.
Just wanting to know if you've received this email? Also, whether or not I can expect to hear anything from DBHDD before my next meeting with my court ordered public defender Ingrid McGaughey this coming Friday; most certainly before upcoming probation revocation hearing set to resume January 30, 2018?
Sincerely yours,
James E. Avery, DVM
1840 Mason Mill Road
Decatur, GA 30033
(404)788-9263
JEAveryDVM87@att.net
***
Will you accept a thousand dollars from me to pay bills❤️
Sent from my iPhone
***
Hello Donna,
Thank you; but going to politely decline the offer.
Sincerely yours,
Simply Jim
***
No comments:
Post a Comment