Your tyranny will not stand the test of justice and honor.

Move along, folks... Nothing to be found here.





Having advisory counsel is awkward for the defendant, because it's often difficult to stop in the middle of things to ask questions. Sometimes judges appoint advisory counsel whether the defendant wants it or not—particularly if the judge thinks she may want to declare the defendant incompetent at some point in the middle of the proceedings, and order the advisory counsel to take over representing the defendant. "And I'm digressing from the reading of the transcript to note that on more than one occasion, in my presence, Killercop, in my view, played a very coy, manipulative game of refusing to waive his right to counsel, while at the same time refusing to allow the court to appoint counsel in his behalf." ~ Judge Howard Matz BUT THEN AGAIN, IN HIS VIEW IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM ANYHOW. NOTE THAT THE "REFUSAL" NEVER STOPPED THE FOISTING OR THE FORCING BY MATZ. A.K.A. No authority has been cited on this ground. JUDGE MATZ: "Well, *I am letting you speak. It's important to me that I let you speak as well as, I think, in most respects your right to speak. If you had said to me judge, I want to be my own lawyer, I would have spent a half hour explaining to you why that would be an absolutely mistaken decision on your part. I could take you through all the different little and big aspects of fighting off the government at the trial and before the trial in this case, that you need a lawyer to handle." KILLERCOP: "I'm very aware of that, Your ODOR." JUDGE MATZ: "If you are not seeking to represent yourself you're making a wise decision." A.K.A. A FRAUD UPON THE COURT. A. HOWARD MATZ: On the record. "THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I'M TELLING YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, I WOULD HONOR THAT CHOICE, AND IF YOU WANT TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, I WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HONOR THAT CHOICE SO PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS." ~JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: "If a defendant persists in his choice to represent himself, that choice must be honored even if it is to his own detriment." Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834. ONCE UPON A TIME ALONG CAME AN UNLAWFULLY FORCED ATTORNEY, NAMED GREGORY. HIS JOB WAS TO PLAY STUPID, ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE FORCED ON ME BY MATZ, THEREBY TAKING OVER THE SUBPOENA OF GARY WINNICK, FROM THE PREVIOUS INCOMPETENT ATTORNEY, WILLIAM "WILD BILL" HARRIS. GREG THEN LATER CUTS IN LINE, QUITS, THEN "RELEASES" GARY WINNICK; AFTER THE FACT, TO THE PROSECUTOR, WHEN HE COULD NO LONGER PLAY "THE FORCED GAME." THE PROSECUTOR THEN "RELEASES" GARY TO LORD MATZ, WHEN SHE COULD NO LONGER PLAY "THE SECRET FORCED GAME," EITHER. MATZ THEN "RELEASES" GARY WINNICK!! 'CAUSE THEY KNEW I SURE WAS NOT GOING TO RELEASE HIM!! THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, EITHER. ARE YOU GETTING ALL THIS DOWN...? NO MISTAKES THIS TIME, OKAY? Make no mistake. I am dead serious! And I am armed, again!! So keep your dogs at bay. Bring back [my lawfully subpoenaed prisoner,] Gary Winnick! I had him under a lawful subpoena until the tag team by Matz, Greg and his sweetheart Debra. Now the tag team is Matz, Debra and their good buddy Kozinski. " There's one other thing, before you ask your question, before I forget. There is a subpoena that apparently has been served on Gary Winnick." NOTE: AS IN LAWFULLY SERVED. " I notice that Gary Winnick is not identified on the government's witness list. And I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the government has the ability to communicate with Mr. Winnick or with his lawyer; is that correct?" DUARTE: "I have that ability, Your Honor." "I want you to communicate to the lawyer or to Mr. Winnick or to both, that although he doesn't have to respond to the subpoena on the date or under the terms that it may have contained, he remains responsible to respond on whatever date he is later notified.* In effect, what I'm saying is that the subpoena, although it was issued and served through the auspices of Mr. Harris, 'it's like a court subpoena. I don't want anybody to have to go through any protracted or new ground of efforts to subpoena him anew. " "So the subpoena remains outstanding, although the trial date has been continued. Please communicate that to Mr. Winnick and his lawyer." Elena had no authority to release him, and I had a duty to produce him, especially after I allowed his charges and testimony against killercop. Therefore and hereto there I now find that he shall be taken into custody on sight and brought forth to trial under the authority of said un expired lawful subpoena which lawfully remains outstanding. Present location: Unknown "And in the year 2010 we're still trying to figure out if you've got a lawyer that's going to be okay for you the way you see it." ACTUALLY HOWARD, IT'S NOT THE WAY I SEE IT, IT IS THE WAY THE LAW SEES IT. YOU JUST WENT TO FAST, FOR ONCE, AND SKIPPED OVER CONDUCTING A HEARING, ACCORDING TO Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), TO DETERMINE WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WAIVE MY RIGHT TO COUNSEL. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT OF THE RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED IN THE FIRST PLACE! "The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that a Citizen brought to trial in federal court “must be afforded the right to the assistance of counsel before he can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonment.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 807. A criminal defendant may waive the right to counsel and represent himself. Id. at 819-20. AND THAT'S MY SHORT FRIEND IS A FACT. AND YOU VIOLATED MY RIGHTS. BUT YOU KNEW YOU HAD TO DO IT, IN SECRET. A. Howard Matz (born 1943) is an American attorney and judge. He has sat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 1998. Birth Place :Brooklyn, New York Date Of Birth, 1943 A. Howard Matz Photo Collection Matz, A Howard reference * Short Description * United States federal judge Comment * A. Howard Matz (born 1943) is an American lawyer and judge. He has sat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 1998. Llabel * Howard Matz Howard Matz Category: Judges of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Category: United States district court judges appointed by Bill Clinton Category: 1943 births * Category: Living people Given name Alvin Howard Name * A. Howard Matz, A Howard Matz Matz, A. Howard Born 1943 in Brooklyn, NY Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1997, to a seat vacated by Harry L. Hupp; Confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1998, and received commission on June 29, 1998. Education: Columbia University, A.B., 1965 Harvard Law School, J.D., 1968 Professional Career: Law clerk, Hon. Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1969-1970 Private practice, New York City, 1970-1972 Private practice, Los Angeles, CA, 1972-1974 Assistant U.S. attorney, Central District of California, 1974-1978 Chief, Special Prosecutions Unit, 1977-1978 Private practice, Los Angeles, CA, 1979-1998 Survive In Prison Or Jail - A How To Jail Guide Speeding Ticket Secrets! Insider Tips, Tricks And Strategies! Surviving Martial Law! How To Survive The Coming Food Crisis! Crisis By Design! What 300 Million Americans Need To Know! Join The Movement To Impeach Barack Obama! Easy Naturalization: Easy And Fast Way To Become A US Citizen! How To Win Child Custody! Divorce Strategies And Tactics! Focused Interviewing System Of Interview And Interrogation! Legal Forms, Contracts And Agreements! Dealing With False Restraining Orders.		JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ. 'Cause I say So. Only! A.K.A. "'WILL YOU LET ME' APPOINT A LAWYER FOR YOU?" A.K.A. TREASON AGAINST ONE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Autocratically "It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously perform our duty." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821) The following takes place Monday, 8.27.2003 Los Angeles, California JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS:: "All right. I have arranged for your presence today through my courtroom deputy because I told him, the deputy, to arrange, "in the usual and ordinary course," to have a lawyer selected from the indigent defense panel to serve in the standby capacity that I've just explained to KILLERCOP. You are that individual. And I will allow KILLERCOP and you to determine to what extent, if any, Killercop wishes to communicate with you at points where he seeks the assistance of "standby" counsel in his own self-defense Now, do you want to be heard...?" KILLERCOP: "Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much. I'd like know, on the record, the court's authority to foist further counsel upon me after it's failed to protect and do its duty to protect my rights by making an inquiry into previous counsel when they were violating my rights. I'd like the record to clearly reflect -- where is your authority coming from to foist somebody else upon me? What statute, what law? God? Please put something on the record." A. HOWARD MATZ: on the record. "Okay. That's something you can look into in your own self-defense, but there's no issue and no question that I have the authority. " "I am not going to debate the law with you, Killercop; I'm not going to trot out law books." "But I'm telling you I have the authority, and now I've exercised the authority." KILLERCOP "Thank you very much, Your Honor. I appreciate that, but that didn't answer my question. And I'm just asking you [to do your job and inform me where in the law you have the authority --]" INTERUPTION BY A. HOWARD MATZ: "Okay. Now, Killercop, I'm telling you now that henceforth -- and I've had to tell you this in the past when I've responded to some -- something I've permitted you to say or you've chosen to say, and you don't like the answer -- I am not going to involve myself, and I'm not going to permit you to try to create a circumstance where there is some kind of protracted argument or discussion, no matter how civil the voices may be, no matter how hard each of us may try to be. That's not my function, and that's not your right. So if you don't like my answer, that's just too bad. Now, is there anything else you want to add that is different?" "Well, yes. I appreciate that, Your Honor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. But you haven't answered my question." A. HOWARD MATZ "Okay. If you continue to assert that in the form of an objection [I'll have to kill you], because at this point you are representing yourself, so the objection is overruled." "Ummmmm, So at this point you are just making things up! That was not an "objection," it was a direct challenge requiring an answer under the law. When a district court fails to state the legal standard it is applying, "we must conclude it abused its discretion." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) There is and remains "both the issue and the question of the authority." Both unanswered. So actually, and to date factually, under the law, and now on the record, you didn't and don't have that authority, Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes, and you are breaking the law! Let the record reflect he willfully refused to answer the question of the issue of the law and authority." FOOT NOTES: NOTE: Elena and Debra were making things up too! It's easy. Watch. Until I got tagged. And then sand-bagged. Did you know the F.B.I. don't make things up, ever. They don't investigate either, if you believe them. But they do make bitchin' PowerPoint Presentations full of whoppers! Speaking of Whoppers, is it lunch? Email me and we can do lunch at McDonalds. I'll have my usual, I am tired of all the Whoppers, I want a Big Mac! The manner in which the courts ordinarily interpret criminal statutes is fully consistent with this ordinary English usage. That is to say courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word "knowingly" as applying that word to each element. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 79, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (STEVENS, J., concurring). For example, in Liparota v. United* States,* 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985), this Court interpreted a federal food stamp statute that said, "`whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization cards in any manner not authorized by [law]'" is subject to imprisonment. Id., at 420, n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2084. The question was whether the word "knowingly" applied to the phrase "in any manner not authorized by [law]." Id., at 423, 105 S.Ct. 2084. The Court held that it did, id., at 433, 105 S.Ct. 2084, despite the legal cliche "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Don't confuse being competent to represent yourself with being competent to stand trial. Competence to represent yourself requires familiarity with the mechanics of a criminal trial. Competence to stand trial merely requires sanity.