A right not to be tried, not!





The Supreme Court has, on occasion, described incompetence in terms of a right not to be tried. But the Oracle showed me that U.S. Federal District Judge, A. Howard Matz, makes his own laws and rules here. And they sure don't include any rights. Just a lot of mumbo jumbo, and really bad advice, designed to cover his ass. The Supreme Court has, on occasion, described incompetence in terms of a right not to be tried. E.g., Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (“A criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent.”); Drope, 420 U.S. at 171 (holding that an incompetent defendant “may not be subjected to a trial”); id. at 172 (describing “a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent”). The Supreme Court, however, has never held that incompetency includes an absolute right not to be tried, or that a competency determination cannot be reviewed effectively on appeal after conviction. On the contrary, the Court has said that “[d]ouble jeopardy and speech or debate rights are sui generis in this regard.” Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 267, 104 S.Ct. 1051; see also Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 599, 602, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2009) (“[T]he class of collaterally appealable orders must remain ‘narrow and selective in its membership.’ ” (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006))). At base, incompetency concerns a right to a fair trial. See Drope, 420 U.S. at 172, 95 S.Ct. 896 (“[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.”). That right can be protected adequately by post-conviction appellate review. Due process of law is defined in procedural cases by the Supreme Court with full consideration to what society considers wrong and unfair. Justice Frankfurter, who contributed greatly to the definition and expansion of procedural due process, stated in 1950: "The Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply embedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history." On many another occasion, that Court has stressed the role of "conscience" in defining due process of law. [Modern Constitutional Law, by Chester J. Antineau] [The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company] [Rochester, New York, 1969, emphasis added] OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: >Killercop had a constitutional due process right not to be tried or convicted [while incompetent to stand trial.] This right not only assures that Killercop has the present ability to consult with counsel, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, and to aid in the preparation of his defense, Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960), it is “fundamental to an adversary system of justice.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975). I have never doubted -- and I've told you many previous times -- that you have lots of smarts. Probably have more smarts than is good for you. So I make that reference because I think everything you've done has been intentional delay. Maybe you like staying at MDC because you think that the outcome of the trial is foreordained. >So you'd rather stay there than some other institution. I don't know what your underlying motive will be. But ... for those reasons, I deem that you are now required to proceed pro se. ~~Judge A Howard Matz, PRETRIAL OF KILLERCOP KILLERCOP DIDN'T HAVE TO THINK "The outcome of the trial is Foreordained," HE KNEW "The outcome of the trial was Foreordained. >"But either way, you're going to trial!" ~Judge A Howard Matz, PRETRIAL OF KILLERCOP HOW CUTE, JUDGE MATZ LIKES TO PLAY "MAYBE." OKAY, MAYBE YOU ARE A CROOKED JUDGE, AND MAYBE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A PAIR OF TINY HANDCUFFS AROUND YOUR WRISTS. OR MAYBE WORSE? BECAUSE MAYBE YOU COMMITTED TREASON. YER GOOD BUDDY DID! YOU KNOW, THE CHIEF RULE BREAKER OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEX KOW-ZINSKI "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?" WHOIS WSJ NY TIMES HIT PIECE FOX NEWS HIT PIECE NBC NEWS HIT PIECE 2023 HIT LIST (c)1997-2023 All Rights Reserved. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.		A RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED... A.K.A. The case of don't tell the 6500 unjustly, unlawfully and illegally convicted American children A.K.A. The case of the Capitalist Imperialism and Totalitarianism side bar. Sponsered by big government and corporations working hand in hand together to deny you rights and make money off you like a slave. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 70 (1985), concerns the question, "whether the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition, when his sanity at the time of the offense is seriously in question." "And in the year 2022 we're still trying to figure out if you've got a lawyer that's going to be okay for you the way you see it. That's not going to happen because at some point I have the power and the obligation to find that you have waived your right to have a lawyer represent you. And then you're going to trial on your own. But either way, you're going to trial!" ~Judge A Howard Matz, 01.14.2003 UNCLE SAM, WHAT SAY YE? “My belief has always been . . . that wherever in this land any individual's fundamental constitutional rights are being denied, it is the obligation of the federal government -- at point of bayonet if necessary -- to restore that individual's constitutional rights.” ~ Ronald Reagan YOUR "OBLIGATION" WAS TO THE OATH YOU FREELY GAVE FOR/OF AND BY THE PEOPLE OF THESE united STATES. AS SUCH: Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). Killercop also has an obligation to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of this criminal conduct; that will promote respect for the law and afford an adequate deterrent not only to you, but to others who might elect to engage in this kind of conduct. I have an obligation to fix a sentence that provides appropriate and just punishment; that will serve to incapacitate you, to the extent that is necessary, . . . and appropriate to protect the public. MS. DUARTE: BUT JUST SO THE COURT UNDERSTAND THAT, THEN, I DON'T CHALLENGE THE COURT'S PROCESSES. I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THAT. A FLAPDOODLE FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT 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. TERMS OF USE DISCLAIMER PRIVACY POLICY TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.