FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

CONTACT KILLERCOP

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

GIVE HIM NO EXPERTS

Clearly, both Killercop and the court would have benefitted from the services of a computer expert.

"I want to assure the court. We agonized over this."

A.K.A. The Case of No questions asked.

Nicolaysen Terrorist

Nicolaysen: "May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make ANY "factual findings" in regard to the "reasonable cause standard" under the statute since there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?"

The argument is an ingenious one, but, as a matter of fact and federal constitutional law, it "presently" falls of its own weight!

PRESENT

1. Standard. In order to find a defendant competent, a court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has sufficient "present" ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

"A democracy is a sheep and three wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. A REPUBLIC is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Martin v. Settle, 192 F.Supp. 156, 159 (W.D. Mo. 1961) competency hearing may not be conducted in absence of the defendant and doing so deprives the defendant of due process of law). See also 263 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2001)

I'm mad, you know.

YER LATE, YER LATE!! THE RULE OF LAW IS MISSING AND INFERED DEAD. THE NEW RULE IN AMERICA IS MOB RULE. AND THE RULE IS THAT THREE OR MORE CONSTITUTES A MOB.

FEDERAL AGENTS OF THE RED QUEEN KILLED IT. THEREFORE AND HITHER, THE LEGAL KILLING OF FEDERAL POLICE, AND OTHER AGENTS OF THE CROWN, MAY NOW OFFICIALLY COMMENCE. OR IS IT COMMERCE?

OR IS IT THE WHITE ONES WE ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL?

WHY? YOU ASK WHY?

MADLY SEARCHING FOR AN ANSWER

JUST 'CAUSEISAYSO! OR ARE YA BAFFLED AND MAD LIKE ME?

NOW, PLEASE POINT ME TO THE MINISTRY OF SILLY WALKS, SECRET HEARINGS, AND TREASONS, FOR A PROMPT REDRESS OF MY GRIEVANCE.

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

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

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? Still Baffled?

WOUNDED WIKI

FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

YOUTUBE

NY TIMES

WSJ

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

FAQ 1 FAQ 2 CONTEXT

PLEASE DONATE AT GOFUNDME

All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 1997-2023

"The defendant’s presence is not necessary" ~Judge A. Howard Matz, Secret Hearing Transcript of 04.07.2003 Docket 158

The defendant's presence is not necessary? Really? How arrogant can Judge A. Howard Matz be? Read the rule of the law, again...I would think it is vital. And funda-mental. Just ask yer good buddy... the omnipotent... Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

Alex Kozinski is making a new rule of law, too, like you. The rule of no law, A.K.A. rules trump rights.

LOOKS UP LAW>>> Martin v. Settle, 192 F.Supp. 156, 159 (W.D. Mo. 1961) (competency hearing may MPT be conducted in absence of the defendant and doing so deprives the defendant of due process of law).

In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 n.15 (1975), the Supreme Court stated that a defendant has the “right to be present at all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.”

But that was when words mattered.

"The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273 (1948), identified these rights as among the minimum essentials of a fair trial:

"A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense -- a right to his day in court -- are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel. "

Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. E.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U. S. 95 (1972); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 388 U. S. 19 (1967); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948).



The Supreme Court has "long recognized . . . that . . . justice cannot be equal where, simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76, (1985)

 

PRESENT IS NOW

"Due Process of law is the right of the Citizen affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

FACE TO FACE

"'Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds a position of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases, the exercise of his power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining the truth. . . . How can we say the judge is wrong? We never saw the witnesses. . . .'"

 

ALEX KOZINSKI COMMITS AND COVERED UP CRIMES

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

THIS PREMIUM, 25 YEAR OLD DOMAIN NAME, ALL RELATED SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL OF IT'S CONTENTS ARE FOR SALE, SEPERATELY OR ALL AT ONCE, IN ONE EASY BID!

CLICK HERE FOR ALL SALES BIDS.