 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad." -1984 A cruel and unusual treatment.
ALL OF THEM WERE WILLFULLY INCOMPETENT, BUT ONE. "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 --"
"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
"The reason I didn't want to make that finding and 'declined' 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.” ~JUDGE HOWARD MATZ
MY "THEN" CONDITION? HOW ABOUT WE STAY IN THE PRESENT? AS IN, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE REQUIRES AN ACCUSED TO BE "PRESENT" AGAINST HIS ACCUSORS. AND SO DOES THE LAW. TRY READING IT. You don't even have to be there to be judged and examined and "found;" pardon the expression, incompetent." Wish they could have found a law book instead. Maybe then they would have read it. Or did they? I guess we shall have to "agonize" over whether they did or did not, and whether my presense was necessary, under the law, "probably." But then again, that's probably not good enough. NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET: MORE DENIAL OF A RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THE CRIME. "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 |
When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but agony to evildoers.
"I want to assure the court. We agonized over this. We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday. Spoke again on Saturday..."
A SECRET FROM THE KEY OF THE KNOWLEDGE THE FOLLOWING UNLAWFUL HEARING TAKES PLACE ON 04.07.2003 IN A DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
Judge A. Howard Matz: "The defendant's personal presence is not necessary, given that he's currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen."
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 --"
Doctor Phil Says: Anything Coming Out Of The Mouth After "However," Negates Everything Before That Word. Just Keeping It Real. FOR THE RECORD "People need not be present in the room, or even the same state, before they 'find them' incompetent" AND are "sent off" for a mental "treatment." MOREOVER, said treatment may begin at anytime, before the finding of a fact!" TITLE 18, U.S.C. § 4241-4247 "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). TITLE 18, U.S.C., § 241 If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
