FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

EMAIL

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

Faretta says...

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL THAT 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

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

EPIC CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

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?

ARE YOU STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

FAQ 1 FAQ 2

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

A motion under Faretta– must be "unequivocal."

Held: “We hold that while a defendant may invoke his or her self-representation rights..., the invocation must be unequivocal.

 

Unequivocal


According to one attorney, "This is a confusing and fuzzy area of law.

 

A defendant can place conditions on self-representation and still make an unequivocal demand: e.g., “If I do not get new counsel, I want to represent myself.” Id.

But, if the defendant states, “If I am appointed standby counsel, I would like to represent myself,” then he has made an equivocal demand and Faretta isn’t triggered. Id. (?!?) {As intuitive as “conditions precedent” in Property law.}

The absurdity of this area of law is that these are usually indigent, uneducated clients who are struggling to speak to the court – often through a translator. Deciding Faretta on phrase placement by an inarticulate defendant is, essentially, a quiet way of avoiding the train wreck of self-representation: not a bad thing from a policy perspective, but a tough rule to understand.

How to Use: Those who represent indigent defendants in federal court will wince in recognition at the Mendez-Sanchez fact pattern. In addition to its primary holding on Faretta invocation, the decision also has an interesting and lengthy discussion on the frequently-misunderstood (by clients) “right” to new counsel. Id. at *4-*6. Judge Gould recites the three Prime factors in reviewing such motions:

1. the timeliness of the motion,

2. the adequacy of the court’s inquiry, and

3. whether the conflict was so great “as to result in a complete break-down in communication and consequent inability to present a defense.”
Id. at *4.

In Judge Matz' case it was minutes, not hours or even days, resulting in an admission of a technical "error." Harmless, no doubt.

The only problem with that story is how such a brilliant Harvard graduate, elite unit, judge could make such a flagrant "error" as the fundamental right to the assistance of counsel.

ANSWER: He had to violate the right, in able to force this HACK on Killercop, as seen here.

All done unlawfully. Both factually and without reason, or even law, as part of the plan to release Gary Winnick from my Federal subpoena.

Sounds nutz, right? You ain't heard nothin' yet!

My subpoena remains outstanding. The Marshals won't assist, to compel my witness, so I guess I have to place another reward.

ALEX KOZINSKI COMMITS AND COVERED UP CRIMES

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.

A COVER UP BY JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

POD SERVER

Sponsored By Psych Ward Entertainment.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright 1997-2022

THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE.

EMAIL KILLERCOP

Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.