FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email
MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

"I want to assure the court. We agonized over this."A.K.A. The case of no questions asked?

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).

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?"

Benjamin Franklin

"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 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 HEARING OF KILLERCOP

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

Epic corruption exposes the secret trial of Killercop.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "another person, on the left," and "the person of another," person, on the right.

STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

CENSORED WIKI

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

"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? Since when? The dawn of man? How arrogant can Judge Howard Matz be? Read the rule of the law, again...I would think it is vital. And funda-mental. Ask yer good buddy the omnipotent Alex Kozinski. He is making a new rule of law, too, like you. The rule of no law, A.K.A. rules trump rights???

............./??/)............(\?`\
............/....//..............\\....\
.........../....//................\\....\
...../??/..../??\.........../?`\....\?`\
.././.../..../..../.|_......_|.\....\....\...\.\
(..(....(....(..../.)..)......(..(.\....)....)....)
.\................\/.../....\...\/................/
..\................. /........\................../
....\..............(............)............../

 

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).

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.” See also Fisher v. Roe, 263 F.3d 906, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06) (defendant has a right to be present if his presence “has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge”).

But that was when words mattered.


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. . . .'"

 

GIVE HIM NO EXPERTS

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

 

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 THE 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.