 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
at this point I see a competency issue with A. Howard Matz
ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL EVER ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF FORCING COUNSEL UPON AN UNWILLING DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE STAR CHAMBER. -U.S. v FARETTA , 422 US 806 (1975) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. WHAT WOULD BE THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OF THE COURTS TO SUPRESS THIS KIND OF SPEECH?" --Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL OF KILLERCOP
CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.
Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled?
Copyright 1997-2023 |
THIS MEANS THE ENTIRE [DUE] PROCESS STOPS AND JURISDICTION IS LOST (STOLEN) AND THE TRIAL WAS UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL.
The reason
I
Page 62, Line 12-15 Judge: “Do I first have to find he’s not competent?” Or can I also find that there is sufficient questions as to whether he’s competent to require that?”
Page 69: Lines 14-15 Defendant: “I challenge the jurisdiction of this court. This examination is unlawful.”
Page 73: “Lines 7-10 Doctor Ihle of the BOP: “But given that it’s a 4241(D), it does guarantee that it will go to the Medical Center, because it goes under the umbrella of treatment;”
Page 76, Lines 14-20 Judge: “It’s for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months.”
Prosecutor: “So I was just asking for our status on this commitment - - on the eval, within the four months, or at the end of the four months, …
Judge: “Well, that four months is for treatment.”
Prosecutor: “Okay.”
Page 76, Lines 24-25 Judge: “So if
you prepare an order that says he’s going to transferred to Rochester
for treatment 4241(D)…”
Page 77, Lines 8-9 Nicolaysen: “I concur. The four months, as I read the statute
is for the evaluation and treatment.”
Page 79, Lines 17-19 Prosecutor: “Your Honor, I will also submit this order on a disk.”
Judge: “Yes. Because I may ‘fiddle’ with it.
See ORDER RE: FURTHER COMPETENCY DETERMINATION, filed March 20, 2003: page 4, lines 8-11 “In addition,
the Court finds that the ‘ends of justice’
served by taking the action of requiring such examination[4]
and continuing the trial date accordingly outweigh the best interests of the
public and the defendant in a speedy
trial…”
Page 5, Lines19-23 Judge: “Was there any issue concerning his competency to prepare for trial and stand trial and his capacity to cooperate and assist his own lawyers?” Potashner: “
Your Honor, at this point I do not see a competency issue.”
[1] Court failed to do this during the hearing on March 14, 2003, and again on April 7, 2003 Secret Hearing. [2] Court arraigned defendant on Jan. 17, 2003 AFTER it questioned defendant’s competency. If court truly believed defendant was incompetent then it should not have arraigned defendant since it raised the issue PRIOR to arraignment. [3] See page 63, lines 14-16. “He REFUSED to sit…” [4] Defendant was sent for “treatment” not an examination.
THE TWITTER
THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES THE LAW AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE PERSECUTION IN A SECRET HEARING. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation to support this website from being censored. This is a battle for speech and the First Amendment needs your support, or it is gone. Any amount helps in the battle! Thank you and may God bless you, in peace and at war. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
