 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW In the arena of courtroom fights, there are "the rules," and then there’s “the constitution.” And every once in a while, someone decides the rules and the constitution is optional. The 3 attorneys here combined their studies in a 'secret' hearing,' without their captive being present, to get the results they wanted...but not what the law and the rules say. A SECRET HEARING 04.07.2003
"WITH A 'DEFENSE' LIKE MINE WHO NEEDS A PROSECUTOR?" -Greg Nicolaysen: < Forced Counsel > "Thank you so much. Your honor, government counsel tracks my thinking as well. I want to assure the court. We agonized over this. We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday. Spoke again on Saturday anticipating that your honor may very well want some feedback on this very point, so we're not trying to put words into the court's mouth by asking you to make a finding [of a fact] that you didn't make; however --"
AUSA ELENA J. DUARTE: Violates A Right, A Rule And A Law. "Having reviewed that, we actually are of the 'opinion' -- and I'll take as much 'responsibility' as I need to for this -- that the order that was submitted and signed on March 20th, is a little bit of a "hybrid," and it needed to be clarified. In that, if it's going to be a 4241(d) commitment, it appears that the court
Judge Matz Covers Up "The reason I didn't LAW: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) A criminal defendant has the right "to be present in his own person" during his trial "whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge." Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987) (citation omitted). This requires that a defendant be present "to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence." Id. (citation omitted). A defendant’s presence at the moment the finding of a fact is announced can exert a powerful influence on the proceedings and the decisionmaker. See Rice v. Wood, 77 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) It was just one of several "structural defects" that permeated "[t]he entire conduct of the trial from the beginning to end" or "affect[ed] the framework within which the trial proceeds." Id. at 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246. "The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process." (citing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)). Just a little reading would have saved them a lot of discussing, conspiring and colluding and a [finding and] order “so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement” and the Government’s actions “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974) "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 |
“Rule Forty-Three. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.” Everybody looked at Alice. “I'm not a mile high,” said Alice. “You are,” said the King. “Nearly two miles high,” added the Queen. “Well, I shan't go, at any rate,” said Alice; “besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.” “It's the oldest rule in the book,” said the King. “Then it ought to be Number One,” said Alice. —Chapter 12, Alice's Evidence WELCOME TO THE MATZRIX
“The trouble with rules, though, is that you'll always be tempted to break one for the 'right' reasons, due to unavoidable circumstances, because it 'feels' as if there's no other choice. And once you break one, the rest seem like so much broken glass. The damage is already done.” The case of a factual violation of the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a), and Criminal laws 18 U.S. Code § 4241-4247. All in one secret hearing! Notwithstanding the cover-up of federal evidence (the certificate) REQUIRED by the rule of law. Featuring
When the director of the facility in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection 4241(d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, he shall
In the instant case the court herein SKIPPED #2 (Certificate) above and 'then' went right to #3. Exactly the same way it skipped the mental examination, before it sent the accused off for mental "treatment."
MY RESPONSE UPON BEING RETURNED FROM THE "MENTAL TREATMENT" FACILITY. ON WITH THE SHOW, FEATURING A KANGAROO COURT IN A BANANA REPUBLIC.
To establish prejudice under the plain-error test, one must show "that the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding." United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
