Money to kill police officers





At this point I see a competency issue with A. Howard Matz "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 REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer (c) 1995-2026 All Rights Reserved		NO "VITAL" CERTIFICATE THIS MEANS THE ENTIRE [DUE] PROCESS STOPS AND JURISDICTION IS LOST (STOLEN) AND THE TRIAL WAS UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL. 08.27.2003 JUDGE MATZ SAYS. NO CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY THE LAW FOR YOU! The reason I ~~didn't want to make that finding and declined~~ FAILED to make that finding was primarily because I didn't want to inflame him; not because I had any 'doubts' about applying the applicable standards to what I perceived to be his 'then' condition.” Transcript of 03.14 2003 Page 62, Line 12-15 Judge: “Do I first have to find he's not competent?” Or, can I also find that there is sufficient questions as to whether he's competent to require that?” Page 69: Lines 14-15 Defendant: “I challenge the jurisdiction of this court. This examination is unlawful.” Page 73: “Lines 7-10 Doctor Ihle of the BOP: “But given that it's a 4241(D), it does guarantee that it will go to the Medical Center, because it goes under the umbrella of treatment;” Page 76, Lines 14-20 Judge: “It's for a 'reasonable' period of time, not to exceed four months.” Prosecutor: “So I was just asking for our status on this commitment - - on the eval, within the four months, or at the end of the four months, … Judge: “Well, that four months is for treatment.” Prosecutor: “Okay.” Page 76, Lines 24-25 Judge: “So if you prepare an order that says he's going to transferred to Rochester for treatment 4241(D)…” Page 77, Lines 8-9 Nicolaysen: “I concur. The four months, as I read the statute is for the...treatment.” Page 79, Lines 17-19 Prosecutor: “Your Honor, I will also submit this order on a disk.” Judge: “Yes. Because I may ‘fiddle' with it. See ORDER RE: FURTHER COMPETENCY DETERMINATION, filed March 20, 2003: page 4, lines 8-11 “In addition, the Court finds that the ‘ends of justice' served by taking the action of requiring such examination[4] and continuing the trial date accordingly outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial…” Transcript of 08.22.2002 Page 5, Lines 19-23 Judge: “Was there any issue concerning his competency to prepare for trial and stand trial and his capacity to cooperate and assist his own lawyers?” Potashner: “ Your Honor, at this point I do not see a competency issue.” See April 7, 2003, SECRET HEARING [1] Court failed to do this during the hearing on March 14, 2003, and again on April 7, 2003 Secret Hearing. [2] Court arraigned defendant on Jan. 17, 2003 AFTER it questioned defendant's competency. If court truly believed defendant was incompetent then it should not have arraigned defendant since it raised the issue PRIOR to arraignment. [3] See page 63, lines 14-16. “He REFUSED to sit…” [4] Defendant was sent for “treatment” not an examination. 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) CONTACT COLLECT A BOUNTY COLLECT A REWARD FILE A COMPLAINT TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 All Rights Reserved