Elena J. Duarte Violates A Right, A Rule And A Law.


		CONTACT KILLERCOP


The 3 attorneys combined their studies to get the results they wanted...but not what the law says or requires. A SECRET HEARING 04.07.2003 PRETRIAL GREG Nicolaysen: "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 SUBMIITED AND SIGNED ON MARCH 20TH, IS A LIITLE 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 DOES NEED TO MAKE A FINDING ..." [OF A FACT]. Judge Matz "The reason I didn't ~~want to~~ make that finding ~~[of a ]~~fact and ~~declined to~~ make that finding ~~[of a fact]~~ 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.” ~JUDGE HOWARD MATZ >>SEE RULE 3 ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF PAGE. 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 fulness 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. Denying a criminal defendant the opportunity to be present in a public hearing at the time his incompetence is, or is not, determined, undermines the fairness, integrity, and legitimacy of the judicial proceedings. Such a closure cannot be permitted to stand. UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ Case No. 21-10127 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? WOUNDED WIKI WSJ NY TIMES TERMS OF USE DISCLAIMER PRIVACY POLICY GOFUNDME (c)1997-2023	“Rule Forty-two. 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 sha’n’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 The case of a factual violation 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. Featuring Alex Kozinski A. Howard Matz, Debra Wong Yang, Elena J. Duarte The hand picked, Gregory The Knuckle draging Computer Expert. 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 promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the defendant’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall "then" hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. - 18 U.S. Code § 4241 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." 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) MY RESPONSE UPON BEING RETURNED FROM THE MENTAL TREATMENT FACILITY. ON WITH THE SHOW, FEATURING A KANGAROO COURT IN A BANANA REPUBLIC. 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 FAQ 1 FAQ 2 CONTEXT CLICK HERE FOR ALL SALES OFFERS. (c)1997-2023 All Rights Reserved.