 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Right is right, no matter if nobody is doing it. And wrong is wrong, no matter if everybody is doing it.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ACCUSED: "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. 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..."
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, Rachel Feldman '06, Rachel Weinstein '06 and Debbie Ghodsian '06. 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. 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.
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. Stigmatizing—the creation of spoiled identity—involves projecting onto an individual or group judgements as to what is inferior, repugnant, or disgraceful. 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 polarized distinctions we draw between Insiders and Outsiders, Black and White, Natives and Foreigners, Gay and Straight, Pure and Polluted, and so forth. The construction of such ‘them-and-us' oppositions reinforces our fragile sense of self-identity and selfworth through the pathologization of pariahs. "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 |
A cold, calculated, cruel and unusual treatment. Incompetence, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of #heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of #bounties raised by the #speech and thought #police
HOW JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ AND COMPANY COVERED UP HIS WILLFUL INCOMPETENCE, AND BROKE MORE LAWS, AGAIN. Court: “Okay. I arranged this
('joint proposed amended order' means all 3 agree to the coverup "he arranged," of the violation of the Due Process Clause and rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, as well as Rule 43.) Court: "Killercop's presence is not necessary, given that he's currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen. Court: This is primarily an issue, at the very least, a mixed issue of fact and law, probably a legal issue." WRONG, AGAIN, JUDGE MATZ!!! (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”) See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990) Readers, can someone figure out how all three, very seasoned attorneys in the story violated this rule, this law and then violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, all in one hearing? Can any of you answer that for me? 18 U.S.C. 4241A comes before 4241D. That's D as in DOG. Seems simple enough. Examination [A] EXAMINATION comes BEFORE any of [D] TREATMENT. But they all knew that law and fact. Instead they played stupid. Really, really stupid. And the most terrifying question of all may be just how much horror the human mind can stand and still maintain a wakeful, staring, unrelenting sanity.
Rule 43(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant must be present at every trial stage, ...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.” But he knew this, see right below. 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).
Judge Matz knew that...he went to Harvard, Law School, they all knew. "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. The rule and the law is clear. They were all experts in the law, but not with computers. All of them must have missed the classes on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment, 'cause they sure didn't follow them. 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
