 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
DO WORDS MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE??? In ruling that a defendant has some responsibility to assert a speedy trial claim, we do not depart from our holdings in other cases concerning the waiver of fundamental rights, in which we have placed the entire responsibility on the prosecution to show that the claimed waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. On Nov. 24, 2002, Elena Duarte sent a letter to William Harris, counsel for Killercop. Therein she stated, “This letter is in response to your proposal that we stipulate to a continuance of the trial… I am uncomfortable doing so unless you know of some authority that indicates that you may request and receive a continuance over your client’s objection. I am comfortable with the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act even without your client’s concurrence, however, as the case is complex and motions are pending.” Thereafter William Harris filed a stipulation on November 27, 2002, without informing Killercop and therein he “represented that the Killercop has ‘represented’ that he is willing to waive his right to a speedy trial…” Everyone signed it, but Killercop. Trial was set for December 5, 2002. On 1/3//03 Judge Matz reminded all parties (See docket # 80) that a “firm date” is “set for trial” on 1/14/03.
"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 |
Is There A Difference Between "Interests Of Justice" and "Ends Of Justice?" You Betcha! Now someone show that the claimed "waiver" was knowingly and voluntarily made! § 3161(h). For example, the Act allows time to be excluded in specific scenarios, such as when there are "other proceedings" involving the defendant, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), as well as in the broader circumstance where "the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. " Id. § 3161(h)(8)(A)). This discretionary category has come to be known as an "ends of justice" exclusion. See, e.g., Pollock, 726 F.2d at 1461. I call it the End Of Justice!! End of justice . § 3161(h)(8)(A). Upon motion of the judge or a party for continuance, any period of delay is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act provided the continuance is based upon findings “that the ends of justice served by [the action taken] outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Importantly, the court must set forth, on the record, the reasons for the finding(s), and the continuance must be specifically limited in time. United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir. 1997) in turn quoting United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 563, 565-566 (9th Cir. 1990)). Speedy Trial Act imposes strict specificity requirements for ‘end of justice’ exception; if district court fails to comply with them, period of time covered by continuance will not constitute excludable delay.” U.S. v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997) See also U.S. v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2000) “Congress did not intend the ‘end of justice’ exclusion … to be granted as a matter of course but rather to be used sparingly and only when necessary.” Id. at 1155. It must be (1) “Specifically limited in time” and (2) “justified with reference to the facts as of the time the delay is ordered.”(Emphasis in original). Id. at 1154. Sparingly? Let's Count! 05.16.2002 On page 4, the attorney, Ms. Potashner, represents that she has spoken with the defendant …and that the defendant represented that he is willing to waive his right to a speedy trial. However the defendant’s signature is not on this document. Nor is there any proof that defendant “understands” his right and “knowingly and voluntarily waives and gives up his right.”
FACT: "In ruling that a defendant has some responsibility to assert a speedy trial claim, we do not depart from our holdings in other cases concerning the waiver of fundamental rights, in which we have placed the entire responsibility on the prosecution to show that the claimed waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made." A second “End of justice” excuse used by Judge Matz. 01.17.2003 03.14.2003 08.27.2003 10.01.2003 See ORDER RE: FURTHER COMPETENCY DETERMINATION: Filed on March 20, 2003, page 4, lines 8-11. Page 33, Lines 14-25
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 |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
