I thought anything is possible!!





"For those reasons and based upon the fact that I was not able to fully explain these conflicts and problems to the Court, I did file a written application asking the Court to relieve me as Stand-by counsel and requested that alternate stand-by counsel [for Killercop] be appointed." ~Michael Brennan "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. " -JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ "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. " (NOTICE HOW MATZ IS SPEAKING IN THE FUTURE -TENSE, NOT PRESENT-TENSE) To invoke the right, a defendant must meet several requirements. First, the defendant must "clearly and unequivocally" assert his intention to represent himself. United States v. Floyd, 81 F.3d 1517, 1527 (10th Cir. 1996). Second, the defendant must make this assertion in a timely fashion. United States v. McKinley, 58 F.3d 1475, 1480 (10th Cir. 1995). Third, the defendant must "knowingly and intelligently" relinquish the benefits of representation by counsel. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d at 1179. To ensure that the defendant's waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, the trial judge should "conduct a thorough and comprehensive formal inquiry of the defendant on the record to demonstrate that the defendant is aware of the nature of the charges, the range of allowable punishments and possible defenses, and is fully informed of the risks of proceeding pro se." United States v. Willie, 941 F.2d 1384, 1388 (10th Cir. 1991); accord United States v. Padilla, 819 F.2d 952, 959 (10th Cir. 1987). "BUT FOR those reasons, I deem that you are now required to proceed pro se. "~Judge A Howard Matz, PRETRIAL OF KILLERCOP "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.		"It's going to be somewhat of an unusual case given Killercop is proceeding in pro per as a result of my decision to deem his prior conduct and course of conduct as a waiver of his 6th Amendment right to ~~appointed~~ counsel." ~Judge A. Howard Matz A guilty plea? Never!! Not Possible!! But you said anything is possible? KILLERCOP: Good afternoon, Your Oder. Accused only by special appearance. All rights reserved. I object to this hearing in its entirety. I've been given no notice and no due process of this hearing. A fundamental element of due process. I move this hearing be adjourned and further notice be given to me. I also notice that Mr. Michael Brennan is standing at the podium. It appears he's about to speak. I have not recognized anybody to speak for me. I also renew my original demand that this Court proffer its jurisdiction and take judicial notice of my judicial notice challenge and renew that motion. JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: Killercop, to make this easier to the extent you have a right to be heard or choose to be heard, you don't have to stand up and bend over to be heard through the microphone. You're welcome to sit there and lean over and use the microphone in the way it's now situated. And I now invoke Rule of Disinformation 17 of Directive 1984. MR. BRENNAN: Michael Brennan stand-by counsel for Killercop. JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: Mr. Brennan, would you in the event Killercop has not received the ex parte application you filed last week, please state clearly on the record what it is that you requested from the Court. MR. BRENNAN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. After the last court hearing in this matter when the Court did appoint me as stand-by counsel for Killercop, I reviewed my calendar again and realized that I was not fully explaining to the Court my conflict problems with the September 30th trial date. When I was initially contacted on this matter, I didn't realize there was a speedy trial time problem with respect to setting a new trial date. Having realized my conflicts, I prepared an ex parte application explaining those in detail to the Court including the fact October 1, 2003 I'm scheduled to appear in another two parole hearings at the California Institution for Women in Corona, California. Two clients I have there have parole hearings. Those hearings have been scheduled for some six months now. It's not possible for me to reschedule those hearings at any date that would be even marginally close to the October 1 date. I would have to ask my clients to waive their right to their parole hearings and hope that I could get them rescheduled. But realistically aware of the scheduling that's done by the California State Board of Prisons, they wouldn't be able to reschedule for some six months or so at the earliest. I think that would be *a serious deprivation of their right* to have a regular parole hearing. These are women who are serving life sentences and I have represented for a number of years. That hearing, those two hearings on October 1 obviously directly conflicts with the September 30th trial date that this Court set. I also indicated in the application that due to the administrative hearing that I'm involved in on October 7th where I'm representing the University of Southern California, I had planned to spend the better part of the prior week of September 29th meeting with and preparing witnesses who are going to have to testify at that hearing. And obviously that would not be possible if I was involved as stand-by counsel on trial starting September 30th. Unfortunately, these are witnesses who I would not be able to easily meet with in the evenings after this trial had concluded. They are professors and administrative personnel at the University. Hard for me to have them available to me in the evenings to prepare for the hearing. I also indicated to the Court that I'm also in the process of preparing for trial in a multiple defendant case scheduled to be heard starting October 21 in front of Judge Tagasuki. That's also a trial that was scheduled some four months ago. And by all indications, my client is certainly going to proceed to trial. I can't answer for other defendants in that case, but I think it will end up being a case in which at least three or four defendants go to trial. For those reasons and based upon the fact that I was not able to fully explain these conflicts and problems to the Court, I did file a written application asking the Court to relieve me as stand-by counsel and requested that alternate stand-by counsel be appointed. THE COURT: You also represented that you had been in contact with Mr. David Reed? MR. BRENNAN: Yes. THE COURT: State for the record now what you stated. MR. BRENNAN: After the hearing was concluded and I realized the conflict problems I had, I contacted Mr. Reed who I have known professionally for some 20 years and inquired about his possible availability to act as stand-by counsel. I explained as best I know the circumstances surrounding Killercop's case. I explained the Court's statement during the last hearing concerning the duties of stand-by counsel. I explained the length of the trial as I understood the projected length of the trial being at least a week, possibly longer. Mr. Reed indicated that he was available for a trial beginning October -- September 30th. I'm sorry. And continuing for at least a week or longer. And I explained to him as I said that he would, if the Court appointed him, be acting as stand-by counsel for Killercop. THE COURT: Okay. First, let me note that I note your objections to the jurisdiction and all the other matters to which you objected, Killercop, and I deny those objections. Mr. Reed, would you step forward, please. And before I speak to you and hear from you Mr. Reed, what is the government's current estimate for the case-in-chief duration? MS. DUARTE: Four to five court days, Your Honor at the most. The problem is I can't predict cross-examination with 25 witnesses. THE COURT: 25 witnesses? MS. DUARTE: Some are very short, Your Honor. The defendant will not stipulate to anything. Some are quite short. THE COURT: Does that four or five day estimate include the time incurred in picking a jury? MS. DUARTE: Yes. THE COURT: Well, I think it's not going to be less than five days. It wouldn't surprise me if it's more than five days. It's going to be somewhat of an unusual case given Killercop is proceeding in pro per as a result of my decision to deem his prior conduct and course of conduct as a waiver of his 6th Amendment right to appointed counsel. 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.