 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
" I want to assure the court. We agonized over this." Vindictive, malicious and with malice aforethought.
18 U.S.C. 4241(d) IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT FOR AN "EVALUATION." IT'S NOT "PRETTY CLEAR," IT'S CRYSTAL AND PERFECTLY CLEAR. ELENA AND DEBRA BOTH KNEW IT IS FOR "TREATMENT." THE FORCED COUNSEL NEW IT. EVEN IF MATZ PLAYED STUPID. AND WHEN USED, IT REQUIRES A VITAL CERTIFICATE. PLACED IN FILE. USED From the time Killercop entered the federal prison system, first in Devens, Mass., he was subjected to "conditions of psychological and physical torture," including months of confinement for "non-disciplinary reasons." Aaaaah Nutz! “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the evidence in the record supports the finding but ‘the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Burlington N., Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser, 719 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1983)
How about when a finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the evidence in the record supports admittedly doesn't support the finding of a fact?
YET ANOTHER FUNDA- "MENTAL" RIGHT, LOST TO THE RULE OF "JUST 'CAUSE I SAY SO!" LET'S CONSULT AN EXPERT. BUT NOT ONE FROM CALIFORNIA! SIDE BAR DISCUSSION The standard for determining competency is well established through United States Supreme Court case law. Federal courts have acknowledged that the Due Process Clause of “[t]he Constitution forbids the trial of a defendant who lacks mental competency.” United States v. DeShazer, 554 F.3d 1281, 1285 (10th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court set forth a standard for determining competency in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), which requires a defendant to have (1) a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and (2) the ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Id. More recently, the Supreme Court has recognized that requiring a criminal defendant to “be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993).
Federal Judge Matz doesn't care. But that is just my opinion. And my opinion is based on facts, not on fiction. And that's a fact. This is what fiction looks like. That is what happens when medical treatments and examinations are not conducted, when the government claims it is entrusted with it's care. Think about that awhile before you go vote for your forced health-care. You can't force people to care. Or to pay for someone else's care. They care or they don't care. If you do it is just another form of slavery.
4241(d) IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT FOR AN EVALUATION. GET IT? IT"S NOT "PRETTY CLEAR," IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR. ELENA AND GREG BOTH KNEW. IT IS FOR TREATMENT. PERIOD. EVEN IF JUDGE MATZ PLAYED STUPID. PLACED IN FILE. USED 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 |
TYRANTS 101
A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE IS IN FACT A WONDERFUL THING!! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GIT TO HOLD A HEARING WITHOUT THEM!! FIRST THEY REMOVE YOU. THEN THEY 'TREAT YOU' TO "RESTORE" YOU, FORCIBLY. A 4241(D) COMMITMENT A.K.A., In a ham and eggs breakfast, the Chicken and the Fox and a Wolf is involved, but the Pig is committed."
I remember, I remember, when I lost my mind...A.K.A. I had to "subject the subject" to a series of the tests, to "Restore" him!
Okay, I'll play along with the Forced Incompetent game. Since you're forcing attorneys on me, what's another Doctor in the big picture? Right Doc? Kind of hard to be "present" when you're locked up in a cuckoo's nest.
But can anyone tell me how to get back my sanity? Law says I need my certified certificate! But it also says this was supposed to be done first. 'fore any trial. Tell ya what, I'll trade ya a shiny plastic disc and some colored beads for one. Too late, all I got now is the shiny disc. But some said it was worthless, too.
“May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make any "factual findings..." ~Greg Nicolaysen
01.17.2003, The U.S. government decides to hold a hearing. Present are the prosecutor, the judge and the hand-picked attorney, Greg Nicolaysen, whom the judge decided to force on Killercop.
01.17.2003 Nicolaysen: “May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make any "factual findings" in regard to the "reasonable cause standard" under the stature since there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?”
Judge: “Reasonable cause standard for the requirements of the competency exam?” Facts? [Ahhh, Oh yea, shucks, darn near forgot about that thar thing-ma-bob in the law.] Nicolaysen: “Yes, Your Honor. Under [Title 18] 4241, Subsection A, as the court very well knows, there’s a reasonable cause requirement.”
Judge Matz: “I already did but I will repeat them. You were not there.” Judge Matz: “Those finding in turn arise out of and refer to and include findings that Killercop has displayed "apparent confusion" about the proper rolls of any counsel and all counsel, at least those counsel who have represented him thus far in this case, vis-à-vis the client and particular vi-a-vis him. Killercop has displayed some apparent confusion as to the actual charges and what they consist of and what the elements are.”
NOTE: This didn't seem to bother Matz when he never insured a “Certificate of Competency” was filed, before conducting a hearing on 08.27.03 in VIOLATION of the law. This is total denial of a due process. He knows this, they all knew this, but they committed Treason anyhow by usurping jurisdiction. But don't tell the Chief!! He'll get annoyed. He was busy committing his own treason. The Ninth Circuit has called insuring a Certificate of Competency is filed a “Vital Responsibility” of the judge’s duties. This violated U.S. v. Phelps, 283 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2002) Judge Matz also never make the "required" finding that there is a “substantial probability of future competency,” required under Jackson v. Indiana, 406 US 715, 738 (1972). I guess he was too focused on my past tense, "'then' condition." So he alone made a finding that Killercop should be sent away for mental “treatment,” for "restoration treatment" even though no finding had been made of such fact requiring it. Everyone forgot to invite me to the hearing. Just like his buddy, Alex, made a finding, all by himself like a God, to deny my lawful appeal.
Transcript of 04.07.2003
Defendant’s Counsel: “Gregory Nicolaysen appearing for the defendant, who is not present, Your Lordship, Honor, All Exalted Matzo!”
Judge Matz: "[a]nd under the applicable provisions of the federal statute involved, 18 U.S.C. 4241(D), I was directing that he be examined in an FMC for the purposes of evaluating that determination. I did not make a finding." Page 4, Lines 24-25, Id.
(SEE IS TALKING ABOUT A FACT HERE.)
FACTS:
Dr. never "treats" or even examines me, or others. Based on my informing the Director of the Mental Treatment prison about the Dr. not examining me or treating me, the Director of the facility never sends the Certificate, required by the law, when he sends me back to California, after finally learning about the secret hearing from me in his office, but he sent me back to California the next day! More on that later.
March of 2003 rolls around. Killercop arrives back for another hearing and informs everyone of the facts above, at the next hearing. The judge, of course, covers this fact up and ignores the reality that the Dr. didn't treat the accused, or even examine him, but in fact had made up the report, just like he had made up these other "Doctored Reports:" 1 2 3
A HUGE FRAUD:
So Matz covers this up and everyone else involved then forgot the oh so "vital" certificate required by the law.
Well, more like ignored it. Another mistake? Or willful, knowingly and with specific intent to deprive human rights, under color of the law. It would be prudent to look further into the facts. 
1. Standard. In order to find a defendant competent, a court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960). This standard is stated slightly differently in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Under the current federal statute, a defendant is incompetent if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she “is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” See also, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 454 (1967); Indiana v. Edwards, ___ U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 2379 (2008). In Cooper v. Oklahoma, 116 S 3 .Ct. 1373 (1996), the Supreme Court determined that it would violate due process to require a defendant to prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence. The appropriate Constitutional standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence’. The Department of Justice Manual 9-9.110 recommends that the initial competency evaluation be done locally, citing In re Newchurch, 807 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1986). In Killercop's case he was sent to the opposite side of the United States of America. Commitments after a judicial finding of incompetency. A. Upon a judicial determination of reasonable cause to believe the defendant is incompetent, the court may order a 30 day in-patient examination under 18 U.S.C. §4241(b) and 18 U.S.C. §4247(b). The court cannot begin with a four month commitment under §4241(d) without this intermediary step. U.S. v. White, 887 F.2d 705, 710 (6th Cir. 1989).
The four month commitment requires a finding of incompetency. b. Once a court has determined, after a [secret] hearing, that a defendant is incompetent, 18 U.S.C. §4241(d) provides for a temporary commitment. The section permits custody and treatment for up to four months. A court cannot have a hearing, to make a "present" finding, if the accused is "presently" being treated. Only in the land of Oz. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), which permits custodial treatment "for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1).
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
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
