 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Every circuit court that has ever reviewed an entire office-wide disqualification has been reversed. "Ms. Bednarski, are you telling me in plain language that the communications between your [FPD] office or 'any' member of your office on the one hand and Killercop on the other hand have been so impaired that the ability to maintain mutual trust and respect and confidence in each other's respective obligations and positions has been shattered?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: "Yes." <snip> "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last,"~ Judge Kozinski <snip> #Grok regarding the court's cited pattern of "lawyer interference." I submit the judge was the actual interference, intentionally and corruptly. 1st Public defenders recused entire district (quit) on an "unspoken conflict," court later blamed the accused, without any facts to support that unsupported contention. FACT: Accused actually begged judge to protect right to speedy trial and just proceed with public defenders. THAT RIGHT WAS DENIED. 2nd Court then appoints an admitted 'computer illiterate' attorney [Harris] to represent the accused in this 'complex' criminal computer case, who proceeds to lose critical, complex computer files and computer expert reports right before trial. #BANKUPJOB! 3rd Court then FORCED counsel [Nicolaysen] on the accused, against accused's wishes, who later 'quit,' but only after violating the laws under Rule 43, the due process clause and the 6th and 8th amendments, and he also lost witnesses and all computer expert reports and files. Hash tag #Baffled 4th The court then denies due process without notice, holds a unannounced hearing and suddenly a new attorney [Brennen] appears out of thin air, and immediately quits. But he suddenly recommends yet another attorney. 5th Court then tricks a very reluctant counsel [Reed], after they deemed the case a "complex" computer criminal case by law, which was used to delay the trial, was suddenly no longer "complex!" Court then appoints him to represent at accused at trial as standby counsel. Accused objects. All files, experts and reports, lost by prior counsels 1-4, remain lost/hidden. #BAFFLED 6th Court denies any right to any assistance of counsel, again, for sentencing. Judge Kozinski's appeals court publicly accused of being "annoyed" for denying that right. Judge then hands down an admitted extra 2 year illegal sentence, nobody corrects it. All quitters were blamed on the accused, along with all the delays caused by such intentional invocations. Accused gets out of prison, writes about the abuses. Kozinski and Matz send armed federal Marshals to his home to censor speech online and threatened to block access if forced to do the "heavy lifting." All refused to provide badge numbers. #secret police #sneaky "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) REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
THE CASE OF A LIE CALLED: ALL OF THEM "He's fought with all of them; he's 'insisted' on firing all of them!" A.K.A. Judge A. Howard Matz and Judge Alex Kozinski are turning 'communications' into 'events and communications.' Hash tag #sneaky FACTUALLY, AS THE RECORD "CLEARLY" REFLECTS, I SAID: "The only reasonable, appropriate, and fair result, I believe, would be to require the Federal Public Defender's [FPD] Office to finish what they have started. They will further prove their incompetence or they will not. Either way, the dye has been cast. I would therefore request respectfully this Court order the Public Defender's Office to be prepared to try the case on October 22, as so ordered, and to deny any motion to be relieved." SEE BELOW SEE MONDAY, 09.23.2002, REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Judge A. Howard Matz:I've got this application which consists of a request by your current [FPD] lawyers to be relieved of their responsibilities to you as lawyers and to be relieved of their status as counsel of record. And it states 'without explanation' there is an actual conflict of interest that I could only be told about if you were to waive your attorney-client privilege, which your lawyers think you should not do, and that this conflict of interest is distinct. That's the term that's been incorporated into the application. Most of the time when I am encountered - when I am presented with a request to be relieved because of a conflict, your office tells me about an association with some other individual, often a defendant to whom they owe potentially conflicting or actually conflicting duties of confidentiality or loyalty. Is that the situation here? I'm sure you can explain what this is about so that Killercop certainly has an opportunity to know what is before me as a ruling without waiving attorney-client privileges. So please do so. FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: "We're --we 'feel' that the 'events' that have passed we would not disclose to anyone hearing in this case, to anyone ruling on potential motions ---" Judge A. Howard Matz: "When you refer to the 'events' that have transpired, do you mean the 'events' that are the subject of investigation under the indictment?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI:"No." THE COURT: "The 'events' involving your communications with Killercop as a lawyer?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: "Yes." Judge A. Howard Matz: "And what those 'communications and events' have done to your ability to maintain mutual respect and confidence?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: "Yes." Judge A. Howard Matz: "Without telling me anything about the communications as such, or the actual events, are you here today because you think that the lawyers' ability and right to have confidence in the representations and positions of the client have been irrevocably impaired?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI:"No." We're here because our ability to do our best, to zealously represent him and to effectively represent him have been impaired. We don't believe we can do that and we believe he's entitled to that." Judge A. Howard Matz: "What could possibly happen that would change things if a new lawyer were appointed?" FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: "The -- well, the past events or the past communications may not occur. A new lawyer -- even if a new lawyer had been -- experienced those same things that new lawyer may indeed not end up in the same position. In other words, that new lawyer's ability to effectively represent someone may not be so damaged, so affected or so infected or so compromised." Judge A. Howard Matz: "Ms. Bednarski, are you telling me in plain language that the communications between your [FPD] office or 'any' member of your office on the one hand and Killercop on the other hand have been so impaired that the ability to maintain mutual trust and respect and confidence in each other's respective obligations and positions has been shattered?" Judge A. Howard Matz: Is that a result of things that were said by one side or the other side in this existing attorney-client relationship? FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: In part. Judge A. Howard Matz: Have you discussed up until this afternoon your -- before this afternoon, before this proceeding began here in court, your office's view that it cannot adequately represent Killercop? Have you discussed that with him? FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: No. We communicated to him the same position we communicated to you. We gave him the papers. We do not believe that his position or - his feelings or his ability can repair where we are. In other words, it's our motion to be relieved and it's not, in our view, something that can be fixed by inquiry, explanation. We served him -- not served. But we had somebody meet with him and give him the papers as -- Judge A. Howard Matz: When was that? FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: On Thursday. Judge A. Howard Matz: Keep going. FPD MS. BEDNARSKI: And we did so, I think -- and we did that for the reasons that any, I think, professional person would, which it is obviously a matter that concerns him greatly. We've obviously gave -- I'm not going to say obviously. We've given it a lot of thought. It's something I've never done. It's something that my office has rarely asked for. And I can't think of a circumstance that I can draw upon that gives me an experience of similar quality. It's not done lightly. I actually believe it's in Killercop's best interests regardless of what he may believe. And he's entitled to someone who can fight effectively and zealously for him. Judge A. Howard Matz: That's true. There's no doubt about the latter conviction. [Killercop] I'm not willing to require these lawyers, to permit you, against your best interest, to require these lawyers to remain as your lawyers. You got too much baggage in this case. And it's not necessary for me to make any findings about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know for sure. FACT: Unfortunately, the trial court never held an in camera hearing or otherwise attempted to discern the full nature and extent of counsel’s unspoken conflict with Killercop.
Killercop: The only reasonable, appropriate, and fair result, I believe, would be to require the Federal Public Defender's Office to finish what they have started. They will further prove their incompetence or they will not. Either way, the dye has been cast. I would therefore request respectfully this Court order the Public Defender's Office to he prepared to try the case on October 22, as so ordered, and to deny any motion to be relieved.
Judge A. Howard Matz:: DENIED! THE ENTIRE FPD OFFICE CAN QUIT REPRESENTING YOU! THEY WILL NOT REPRESENT YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. However, my good buddy judge Alex Kozinski, Debra Wong Yang and I will use this unspoken conflict created by the FPD to falsely accuse you later by saying you "insisted on firing [all of] them." It will also allow me to appoint a computer illiterate attorney as 'new and improved' counsel in a complex computer case. That will ensure no speedy trial and help secure a conviction for Debra Wong Yang. If you complain about that computer illiterate attorney attorney, we will blame that on you, too. #sneaky Then I will force a hand picked, racist attorney who hates Jews and Christians on you. I don't care if he violates your rights, breaks laws and rules to punish you for complaining. I insist.
11 MONTHS LATER SEE 08.27.2003 Page 60, Lines 15-17, Judge A. Howard Matz: “Killercop, as the record amply demonstrates, has gone through four attorneys; he's fought with all of them; he's 'insisted' on firing all of them." <<snip>> I have no idea why????? That lie above, "he's 'fought' with all of them; he's 'insisted' on firing all of them.'" would carry over to the only appeal as a reason to deny the appeal to protect our rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process and a speedy trial. All of which were denied above in that one move.
Then I remembered, the process is the punishment. Judge A. Howard Matz: To boot, we will allow the FPD, who I just allowed to quit their 'entire office' from representing you, over an "unspoken conflict," to 'hand-pick' your appeal counsel. <<snip>> That "defense counsel" will then plead you "GUILTY" and "CONFESS" that clearly "HE DID IT." Then he will say others "could" have done it, with a straight face, kinda. <<snip>> We call that type of defense, "Putting the Cart in front of the Horse." #sneaky Then the same conflicted FPD appointed "defense" attorney who "confessed guilt on appeal" will suddenly "quit" in the parking lot and then go to work for Robert Bonner, who hooked him up with a sweet job in DHS in exchange for the false "confession on appeal." That is called a "woe quid pro quo." GAME'S OVER, YOU LOSE I WIN. "They say that life's a game, and then they take the board away." - V for Vendetta (c) 1998-2025 Killercop.com™ Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
