DUE PROCESS, OR NO PROCESS!
Transcript of 12.04.2002 Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM
Page 18, Lines 13-25
Judge Matz: “I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Killercop that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case. I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all. So I think you could have somebody who has never see a computer but is a d(sic) fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a perfectly competent, maybe absolutely bank-up job for this defendant. That’s my view.”
WELL THAT'S DANDY, THEN!! SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS ENTITLES KILLERCOP TO YOUR "VIEW," AS A LEGAL DEFENSE, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE
LETS ASK SOME OF HIS FRIENDS IF THEY FEEL, IN THEIR VIEW, WOULD THEY ACCEPT THAT AS DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS UNLIMITED EXPERTS?
Prof. John C. Coffee, Ronald J. Nessim, Howard Matz , Robert S. Fink and Michael J. Madigan
BY THE WAY, I NEVER FOUND THAT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH, IN HERE ARE YA'LL STACKING THE DECK OR YA JUST DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS ANYMORE?
BUT EVEN A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT OF HARVARD KNOWS YOU WOULD BE STUPID TO COVERUP A CRIME.
JUST FOR THE RECORD YOU WERE CERTAINLY STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE YOU COULD FORCE ANOTHER MAN ON ME, BASED ONLY ON "CAUSE I SAY SO," AS YOUR JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY, INSTEAD OF A LAW, WHEN IT WAS DEMANDED OF YOU. YOU NEVER OFFERED ANYTHING THAT EVEN LOOKED LIKE A LAW. IN FACT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN OFFER A NOVEL THEORY FOR ANY AUTHORITY TO FORCE THIS MAN ON ME. BUT I SEE YOUR GOOD FRIEND, LORD ALEX KOZINSKI, TOOK THE OPPOSITE APPROACH.
Richter v. Hickman, No. 06-15614 (8-10-09)(en banc). In an en banc decision, the 9th (Reinhardt writing) granted petition's writ for IAC. The case turned on circumstantial and forensic evidence. Despite this, defense counsel failed to conduct any forensic investigation.
He decided on a defense without ...without consulting any experts. If he had, expert testimony would have helped support his version of the events, and would have enabled defense counsel to cross effectively, and present his own experts and evidence.
Can you help? To overturn this? Or are you just another Public Pretender From The Central District Of California?
$PECIAL REWARD$ FOR THESE COP$
OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA
A QUESTION FOR AMERICA:
Is "pretty good" pretty much like "pretty clear?" Because I'm "pretty sure" it is not.
I know, it's complex. (.pdf)
But then again, I'm nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzz in a court of the law. I am waiting on the law and the certificate required by the law. But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet?
I am not a computer scientist either, but I bet one could figure out the truth.
I am going for a walk now, into the nature. Care to join me? You are entitled to come along only 'cause I say so, but you have no right. And it seems that's the end of IT.
|
ANYONE SEEN AN EXPERT?
HOW ABOUT A PICTURE OF ONE THEN?'
Judge Matz Denies Killercop
Any Expert Witnesses In A "Complex Computer Case"
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1),
“[c]ounsel for a person who is financially unable to obtain . . .
expert . . . services necessary for adequate representation may
request them.” After conducting an inquiry in an ex parte proceeding,
if the court finds “that the services are necessary and
that the person is financially unable to obtain them, the court
. . . shall authorize counsel to obtain the services.”
[1] Upon a timely request by an indigent defendant, “[t]he
statute requires the district judge to authorize [expert] defense
services . . . in circumstances in which a reasonable attorney
would engage such services for a client having the independent
financial means to pay for them.” United States v. Bass,
477 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1973).
Yet at the trial, not an expert to be seen on the defense side, but several for the government. But the judge knew this and allowed them to remain missing throughout the trial.
HERE IS A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED EXPERT REPORT.
And the appeals court ignores this violation when raised on rehearing, by judge kozinski. Too bad Kozinski didn't afford killercop the same defense he now claims.
The trial judge never bothered to Certify the opinion of one of the government's other so-called expert witnesses. A man by the name of Dr. Who?
How well would you fare if denied any expert witnesses in a "complex computer case." And you were indigent. And made to represent yourself. And everyone claiming they support your rights secretly didn't.
You would have to see a Doctor when they got done with you...
Transcript of 09.26.2003
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Now, I don’t think it is inappropriate for the record to note that I’ve previously authorized experts [1], or at least one expert, I didn't go back and check the file but at least one expert, and I think could have been more then one somebody with specific skill and advanced skill in computer technology as well as to be appointed to represent or assist prior counsel. Have you seen any expert reports?”
Reed: “No. Not at all, Your Honor.”
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Has anybody discussed with you any of Killercop’s prior lawyers, any expert reports that may have been generated?”
Reed: “No, Your Honor.”
[1] " DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? I HAD BETTER CHECK MYSELF, I FORGOT THE RULES OF LAW." HE ACTUALLY APPOINTED 3 EXPERTS, BUT NO REPORTS EVER FOUND THEIR WAY TO THE DEFENSE.
NOR DID THE MISSING CERTIFICATE AND MISSING DOCTOR'S REPORT, REQUIRED BY THE LAW. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTICE. THE LAW SAYS IT IS A VITAL CERTIFICATE, TOO!!
"David Reed is now killercop's sixth annointed attorney. The one before Reed, number 5, only lasted less then a week, and quit due to "conflict in his schedule that he forgot all about." His keen, sharp computer like mind and it's sudden forgetfulness cost another week of freedom.
The fourth one, before this forgetful one, fought along as a government expert, too. Not!
He was the government. And he said this...
The third one, well, never mind.
The first two, working in tandum, well, lets just say they had a conflict they didn't want to discuss on the record. That's all I'm gonna say on that, thanks very much. But at least they were somewhat honest about it, even if they kept it to themself. Yet, they kept forcing themselves on the case....
Transcript of 10.21.2003
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Now, Mr. Reed, one of the items that Killercop has filed seems to suggest that he has never received any investigative reports or any witness statements. "
Judge A. Howard Matz: "Among the material that you received from prior counsel that you and Mr. Nicolaysen put together for delivery to MDC, do you recall whether any investigative reports prepared by anybody acting on behalf of Killercop? You don’t have to say who did it.”
Reed: “On behalf of Killercop - -“
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Yeah.”
Reed: “No.”
But the Ninth knows the importance of experts.
That much is pretty clear.
Can you say Selective Prosecution?
Don't think it didn't happen.
It happens.
It's political.
See?
|
 |
