 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"I want to assure the court. 'We' agonized over this."
The argument is an ingenious one, but, as a matter of Fact and federal constitutional law, it "presently" falls of its own weight!
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?"
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? JUST 'CAUSEISAYSO! OR ARE YA BAFFLED LIKE ME? NOW, PLEASE POINT ME TO THE MINISTRY OF SILLY WALKS, SECRET HEARINGS, AND TREASONS, FOR A PROMPT REDRESS OF MY GRIEVANCE. ("[T]rial of an [amnesiac] defendant can be fundamentally unfair in some circumstances, and consequently trial judges must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the defendant could likely receive (and, at the conclusion of the trial, whether he in fact did receive) a fair trial."). These courts have relied on several nonexhaustive factors relevant to the competency determination, including: (1) whether the defendant has the ability to participate in his defense, such as by consulting with counsel and taking the stand on matters other than the amnesiac event; (2) whether the amnesia is temporary or permanent; (3) whether the crime and the defendant's whereabouts at the time of the crime can be reconstructed without the defendant's testimony; (4) whether access to government files would aid in preparing the defense; and (5) the strength of the government's case against the defendant. See Andrews, 469 F.3d at 1119; Villegas, 899 F.2d at 1341; Rinchack, 820 F.2d at 1569; Swanson, 572 F.2d at 526-27; 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). "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 U.S. 806 (1975) Help Wanted Section: Seeking Lawyers Who Own Corrupt Cops (c) 1997-2024 |
"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 notbe 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)
"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 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. . . .'"
Clearly, both Killercop and the court would have benefitted from the services of a expert. MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
