The purpose of the hearing on this page
http://picasaweb.google.com/faroukaliraqi/Purpose#5304763801776381618
was to determine if he was mentally ill, then the ninth point would take effect of him not being able to purchase guns. But the hearing did not find him to be mentally ill, quite the opposite, and the proof can be found on this page:
http://picasaweb.google.com/faroukaliraqi/ProofTwo#5304764734642585282
Which I linked to before. Since the court did not find him mentally ill and he was thus not involuntarily committed, the gun restriction never took place.
Now if the court at the hearing found him mentally ill and had him involuntarily committed, then I would agree with you that the ninth point on the hearing purposes page would take effect, but the court records show that he was not.
The “yellow sheet” did not ask “were you ever declared mentally incompetent and such finding not reversed” or “are you now under a judgment of mental incompetence.” (or words to that effect.) It asks “Were you ever.”
He is trying to claim that since he was found sane after a brief hospitalization, the original finding is without merit.
It would be like getting busted for having no driver's license, getting one before your court date and then arguing that the original citation was invalid because you now have a DL. Mitigating as to penalty, yes. An affirmative defense, no.
It's like getting busted for drinking a month before your 21st birthday, getting the case postponed 60 days, then asking for dismissal because you were now legal to drink!
Sorry, one can not be a little bit pregnant. He was adjudged Mentally Ill for 3 days. The matter is closed.
Sorry, typo:
Your posting ignores the overriding fact that 3 days earlier than the finding of “currently not mentally ill,” a judicial officer of competent authority had found him “Mentally Ill.”