 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS "A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law. United States -v- Shepard, 538 F.2d 107 at 110; United States -v- Fratus -- F-r-a-t-u-s -- 530 F.2d 644 at page 647; U.S. -v- Winn, 577 F.2d 86 at note 14 on page 88; Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, annotations at paragraph 8 on page 2083."
CHECK MY VITAL SIGNS, DOC, CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE I AM ALREADY DEAD. "Rule 43, which you used to explain my absence obviously does not apply. And since a finding of incompetence is one of clearly a fact, not law -- And under the right of due process afforded to an accused in a court, the court could not abridge that right by that rule. Pursuant to Title 18, section 2072 (b), 'no rule shall abridge, modify or enlarge a substantive right. ' Further, this court never found me incompetent at the March 14th hearing, so the hearing on April 7th should have been conducted pursuant to the protections afforded to an accused under the Fifth Amendment, due process, and the Sixth Amendment..." -Transcript of Aug 27, 2003 Everything that took place after that, by law, should have prevented the parties from moving forward with any so called "trial." But that only works if they were following the law.
DOJ: Department of Jihad?
More than 230 participants attended the 18th Annual National Jewish Law Students Association Conference held February at USC. L to R: Alissa Malzman ’06, Melissa
Balaban ’91, Julie Marder (Michigan), Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge A. Howard Matz, Sam Yebri ’06,
Tanya Bayeva (Michigan), conference participant,
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
IS MEL GIBSON THREATING THE "PERSON OF ANOTHER," OR "ANOTHER PERSON?"
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 US 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
CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.
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? (c)1997-2023 |
THE CASE OF HOW JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ COVERED UP HIS INCOMPETENCE, AND BROKE THE LAW, AGAIN. A.K.A. A "SIMPLE" FACT OF LAW.
“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” -1984
Court: “Okay. I arranged this status conference because I had some questions about the joint proposed amended order that was lodged last week under Rule 43.
(Joint proposed amended order means all agree to the cover up "he arranged," of the violation of the Due Process Clause and rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, as well as Rule 43. Questions means he is either playing baffled again, or playing stupid. He displays a talent to do both remakably well, when convienent.
"Killercop's presence is not necessary, given that he’s currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen. This is primarily an issue, at the very least, a mixed issue of FACT AND LAW, 'probably' a legal issue.” Page 4, Lines 4-7
WRONG, AGAIN, JUDGE MATZ!!! "PROBABLY" A "PRUDENT" THING IS YOU SHOULD READ THE RULE OF THE LAW, AGAIN. SEEING AS YOU AND YOUR "GANG AFFILIATED" PERSONS BELOW WROTE IT.
AS SUCH, IT IS THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT THAT YOUR SENTENCE IS You have one choice. Meaning, there are two things from which you can choose. It’s either ARE YOU STUPID OR CORRUPTED? AND I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE THIS COURT PRETTY MUCH STANDS.
Rule 43(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant must be present at every trial stage, including the jury impanelment and the return of the verdict and sentencing, unless otherwise provided by the rules. Rule 43(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant need not be present where the “proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.” SOURCE: A Manual on
Jury Trial
Procedures Members: The court’s determination of competency is a factual, rather than legal, determination. United States v. Makovich, 209 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2000).
But Judge Matz knew that...he went to Harvard, Law School, they all knew. The rule and the law is crystal-clear. They were all experts in the law, but not with computers. Matz must have missed that Harvard law class on the Sixth Amendment, too, cause he sure didn't follow it. And that's a fact! Instead he purposely "mixed" it up. Probably. Seems like a prudent thing to do in his situation. Promptly! I'm waiting...and watching, but until then,...I remain armed! See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!
All societies judge some people mad: any strict clinical justification aside, it is part of the business of marking out the different, deviant, and perhaps dangerous. Such ‘stigma’, according to the American sociologist Erving Goffman, is ‘the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance’. Stigmatizing—the
creation of spoiled identity—involves projecting onto an It may thus translate disgust into the disgusting and fears into the fearful, first by singling out difference, next by calling it inferiority, and finally by blaming ‘victims’ for their otherness.
This demonizing process may be regarded as psychologically
and anthropologically driven, arising out of
deep-seated and perhaps unconscious needs to order
the world by demarcating self from other, as in the The construction of such ‘them-and-us’ oppositions reinforces our fragile sense of self-identity and selfworth through the pathologization of pariahs. Setting the sick apart sustains the fantasy that we are whole. Disease diagnosis thus constitutes a powerful classificatory tool, and medicine contributes its fair share to the stigmatizing enterprise. Amongst those scapegoated and anathematized by means of this cognitive apartheid, the ‘insane’ have, of course, been conspicuous. This polarizing of the sane and the crazy in turn spurred and legitimized the institutionalizing trend which gathered momentum from the seventeenth century.
THE TWITTER
THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES,THE LAWS, AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE 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 support this website from being censored. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE
CLICK HERE FOR ALL SALES OFFERS. (c)1997-2023
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
