"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:
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.
" 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
"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. "
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.
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
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.
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
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)
"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...?"
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."
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.