 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
DEEM IS CODE FOR PLAYING GOD.
TRAINING IS OVER... TIME TO SEE WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED!
"And I'm digressing from the reading of the transcript to note that on more than one occasion, in my presence, Killercop, in my view, played a very coy, manipulative game of refusing to waive his right to counsel, while at the same time refusing to allow the court to appoint counsel in his behalf." ~ Judge Howard Matz BUT THEN AGAIN, IN MATZ'S VIEW IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM ANYHOW.
NOTE THAT THE "REFUSAL" NEVER STOPPED THE FOISTING OR THE FORCING BY MATZ. JUDGE MATZ: "Well, I am letting you speak. It's important to me that I let you speak as well as, I think, in most respects your right to speak. If you had said to me judge, I want to be my own lawyer, I would have spent a half hour explaining to you why that would be an absolutely mistaken decision on your part. I could take you through all the
different little and big aspects of fighting off the government at the trial and before the trial in this case, that you 'need' a
lawyer to handle."
KILLERCOP: "I'm very aware of that, Your ODOR."
A. HOWARD MATZ: on the record. "THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I'M TELLING YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, I WOULD HONOR THAT CHOICE, AND IF YOU WANT TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, I WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HONOR THAT CHOICE SO PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS." ~JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:
"If a
defendant persists in his choice to represent himself,
ONCE UPON A TIME ALONG CAME AN UNLAWFULLY FORCED ATTORNEY, NAMED GREGORY. HIS JOB WAS TO PLAY STUPID, ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE FORCED ON ME BY THE COURT, THEREBY TAKING OVER THE SUBPOENA OF GARY WINNICK, FROM THE PREVIOUS INCOMPETENT ATTORNEY, WILLIAM "WILD BILL" HARRIS. GREGORY LATER CUTS IN LINE, QUITS, THEN HE "RELEASES" GARY WINNICK; AFTER THE FACT, TO THE PROSECUTOR, WHEN HE COULD NO LONGER PLAY "THE FORCED GAME." THE PROSECUTOR THEN "RELEASES" GARY TO LORD MATZ, WHEN SHE COULD NO LONGER PLAY "THE SECRET FORCED GAME," EITHER. MATZ THEN "RELEASES" GARY WINNICK!!
'CAUSE THEY KNEW I SURE WAS NOT GOING TO RELEASE HIM!! THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, EITHER. ARE YOU GETTING ALL THIS DOWN...? NO MISTAKES THIS TIME, OKAY? " There's one other thing, before you ask your question, before I forget. There is a subpoena that apparently has been served on Gary Winnick." NOTE: AS IN 'LAWFULLY' SERVED. " I notice that Gary Winnick is NOT identified on the government's witness list. And I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the government has the ability to communicate with Mr. Winnick or with his lawyer; is that correct?"
ELENA J. DUARTE: "I have that ability, Your Honor."
"I want you to communicate to the lawyer or
to Mr. Winnick or to both, that although he doesn't have to
respond to the subpoena on the date or under the terms that it
may have contained, he remains responsible to respond on
whatever date he is later notified. "So the subpoena remains outstanding, although the trial date has been continued. Please communicate that to Mr. Winnick and his lawyer."
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
"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) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
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? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
The following takes place Monday, 8.27.2003 JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ. "'Cause I say So, Only!" A.K.A. "'WILL YOU... LET ME'... APPOINT A LAWYER FOR YOU?" Los Angeles, California REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS:: "All right. I have arranged for your presence today through my courtroom deputy because I told him, the deputy, to arrange, "in the usual and ordinary course," to have a lawyer selected from the indigent defense panel to serve in the standby capacity that I've just explained to KILLERCOP. You are that individual. And I will allow KILLERCOP and you to determine to what extent, if any, Killercop wishes to communicate with you at points where he seeks the assistance of "standby" counsel in his own self-defense Now, do you want to be heard...?"
KILLERCOP: "Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much. I'd like know, on the record, the court's authority to foist further counsel upon me after it's failed to protect and do its duty to protect my rights by making an inquiry into previous counsel when they were violating my rights. I'd like the record to clearly reflect -- where is your authority coming from to foist somebody else upon me? Please put something on the record." A. HOWARD MATZ: on the record. "Okay. That's something you can look into in your own self-defense, but there's no issue and no question that I have the authority. " "I am not going to debate the law with you, Killercop; I'm not going to trot out law books." "But I'm telling you I have the authority, and now I've exercised the authority."
KILLERCOP: "Thank you very much, Your Honor. I appreciate that, but that didn't answer my question. And I'm just asking you [to do your job and inform me where in the law you have the authority --]" INTERUPTION BY A. HOWARD MATZ: "Okay. Now, Killercop, I'm telling you now that henceforth -- and I've had to tell you this in the past when I've responded to some -- something I've permitted you to say or you've chosen to say, and you don't like the answer -- I am not going to involve myself, and I'm not going to permit you to try to create a circumstance where there is some kind of protracted argument or discussion, no matter how civil the voices may be, no matter how hard each of us may try to be. That's not my function, and that's not your right. So if you don't like my answer, that's just too bad. Now, is there anything else you want to add that is different?"
KILLERCOP: "Well, yes. I appreciate that, Your Honor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. But you haven't answered my question." A. HOWARD MATZ "Okay. If you continue to assert that in the form of an objection [I'll have to kill you], because at this point you are representing yourself, so the objection is overruled."
KILLERCOP: "Ummmmm, So at this point you are just making things up! That was not an "objection," it was a direct challenge requiring an answer under the law.
There is and remains "both the issue and the question of the authority." Both unanswered. So actually, and to date factually, under the law, and now on the record, you didn't and don't have that authority. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes. and you are breaking the law! Let the record reflect he willfully refused to answer the question of the issue of the law and authority." He is guilty under the clear Rule of Law 43! FOOT NOTES: NOTE: Elena and Debra were making things up too! It's easy. Watch. Until I got tagged. And then sand-bagged. Did you know the F.B.I. don't make things up, ever. They don't investigate either, if you believe them. But they do make bitchin' PowerPoint Presentations full of whoppers! Speaking of Whoppers, is it lunch? Email me and we can do lunch at McDonalds. I'll have my usual, I am tired of all the Whoppers, I want a Big Mac!
The manner in which the courts ordinarily interpret criminal statutes is fully consistent with this ordinary English usage. That is to say courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word "knowingly" as applying that word to each element. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 79, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (STEVENS, J., concurring). For example, in Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985), this Court interpreted a federal food stamp statute that said, "`whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization cards in any manner not authorized by [law]'" is subject to imprisonment. Id., at 420, n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2084. The question was whether the word "knowingly" applied to the phrase "in any manner not authorized by [law]." Id., at 423, 105 S.Ct. 2084. The Court held that it did, id., at 433, 105 S.Ct. 2084, despite the legal cliche "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
A. Howard Matz (born 1943) is an American attorney and Federal judge. Howard Matz Category: Judges of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Category: United States district court judges appointed by Bill Clinton Category: 1943 births * Category: Living people Given name Alvin Howard Name * A. Howard Matz, A Howard Matz Born 1943 in Brooklyn, NY Federal Judicial Service:
TWITTER (CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective 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 DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
