The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act defines judicial misconduct as “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a) Especially the "doctored" evidence Judge A. Howard Matz has produced that is "fabricated."
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 - - -
DIS-HONORABLE JUDGE A.
HOWARD MATZ
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE,
PRESIDING
- - -
5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
6 )
PLAINTIFF, )
7 )
VS. ) NO. CR 02-350(A)
8 )
9 )
DEFENDANT. )
10
___________________________)
11
12 SENTENCING
13 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
14 THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004
15 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 KATHLEEN L. MECHANIC, RPR
FEDERAL OFFICIAL
COURT REPORTER
24 312 NORTH SPRING STREET, ROOM
410
LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA 90012
25 PH: (213) 617-1422
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
3 KILLERCOP: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
4 Um, does this packet I've just
been handed contain
5 the certificate pursuant to
4241D that's required by the law?
6 THE COURT: It does not!
7 KILLERCOP: It does not?
Is there any
8
explanation that the Court can give that this was not
9
provided to the clerk of court?
It's my understanding it's
10
supposed to be provided to the clerk and that the clerk was
11
then to provide it to the attorneys.
12 THE COURT: Okay. I'm
not going to comment on the
13
accuracy or correctness of your understanding. It may, in
14
fact, be correct and I know what statute you have in mind in
15
pointing that out. So far as I
know, "we" never got a
16
certificate and
that's why I don't have anything to give to
17
you.
18 KILLERCOP: So for the record, none -- none
19
exists?
20 THE COURT: So far as I know, none exists in this
21
court.
NONE EXISTED ACROSS A LOT OF OTHER COURTS THROUGHOUT THESE STATES UNITED...BUT THEN AGAIN, HE KNEW THAT LITTLE DIRTY SECRET.
LAW:
18 USC 4241(e) Discharge.— When the director of the facility (warden) in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment.
In the instant case this was never done, yet the court proceeded to have another secret, illegal, and unlawful competency hearing, anyway. And then impose a unlawful trial and an illegal sentence, below.
To Quote: "This is an extremely serious responsibility placed on both the hospital institution and the court. There are two important certifications for the director to make. The first is a certification that the person has sufficiently recovered mentally to be released at all. The second is, if the person can be released but only on certain conditions, a certification that the conditions are appropriate. The court bears a vital responsibility as to both."
“Certification is [also] a jurisdictional requirement.” United States v. Juvenile Male (Kenneth C.), 241 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)
“[e]ven when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial court must always be alert to circumstances suggesting a change that would render the accused unable to meet the standards of competence to stand trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 181 (1975) [EXCEPT IF THE TRIAL COURT IS RUN BY MATZ].
"the right of an incompetent defendant not to stand trial includes not only a right not to be convicted but also an absolute right not to be tried at all, i.e., a right that cannot be protected by post-conviction appellate review."
“‘allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant will affect competency determinations only in a narrow class of cases where the evidence is in equipoise, that is, where the evidence that a defendant is competent is just as strong as the evidence that he is incompetent.’” Id. (quoting Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 441 (1992).
A FINDING OF FACT, PART 2.
The government bears the burden, "by a preponderance of the evidence," that the defendant is mentally competent. See U.S. v Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1991). The court must find, "by a preponderance of the evidence," that the defendant is mentally competent. See 18 U.S.C. 4241(d). If the court cannot do so, then the prosecution against the defendant cannot proceed unless the defendant is restored to competency. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975); 18 U.S.C. 4241(e). The “certifi-cates” are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing “precisely what a witness does on direct examination.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 830 (2006) (emphasis deleted).
"If there were a contested issue as to that question, it would be the government's burden of proof to prove that Mr. Sutcliffe is competent. If Mr. Sutcliffe were arguing that he is not competent, which is clearly not the case, then he would have the burden of proving that condition by a preponderance of evidence." ~Judge Matz, 8.27.2003, Competency Hearing of Killercop.
CLEARLY IT IS...CLEARLY IT IS.
"I object to the court ruling on my competency without a full hearing under 4247 of Title 18, as well as all rights reserved on the Bill of Rights, because I received no treatments, no psychiatric or psychological interventions since being ruled incompetent on April 7. In the absence of such interventions or treatment, and with my conduct being exactly the same and consistent throughout my hearings and every proceeding that I've been in this courtroom, this entire case, I believe I'm entitled to a hearing to determine on what basis I was deemed incompetent on the first and second instances so that I can determine what criteria I can now be deemed incompetent. I don't know how I'm not incompetent ... If nothing has changed, then how I can be anything different than what I was originally? Furthermore, I frankly don't understand why my presence is needed here today because, as the conduct of the government, the defense counsel, and this court's own action or April 7 clearly prove, all of you believe that the accused need not be present in the courtroom or, for that matter, not present in the same state to make a finding -- a judicial finding of fact that the accused is or is not incompetent as required by the law. A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law." ~Killercop, 8.27.2003, Competency Hearing of Killercop.
Due Process categorically prohibits subjecting a defendant who is mentally incompetent to a criminal trial. Drope v Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-72 (1975).
AND CLEARLY JUDGE MATZ IGNORED THE LAW, VIOLATED MY RIGHTS,
Subjected to needless pain and suffering, on account of inadequate medical and psychiatric care.
'
WHO CARES? WHERE'S THE PORN? MAYBE THE EXPERTS HAVE THE PORN!
IT WAS THERE ONE MINUTE, THEN THE NEXT MINUTE IT WAS GONE!
MUST BE THOSE LAW GOBLINS!
NEW!
CALL JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:
Telephone: 213-894-5283
Telephone: 213-894-2449
HERE AT KILLERCOP I CALL HIM NUTZ...
WELL, I MEAN I COUD'A, IF IT WAS NECESSARY.
OR MOST LIKEY.
BUT I THINK WE ARE PAST THE NAME CALLING STAGE OF THE DISINFORMATION WAR.
AND THAT'S FROM MY GANG TO YOURS. AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
SEE YA!
LOOKS LIKE HIS PUBLIC-LINE IS ABOUT TO BE DISCONNECTED.
The reach of the guarantee of Due Process into criminal prosecutions is not susceptible of exact definition. It has been said that as, applied to a criminal trial, denial of Due Process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. California v Trombetta, 476 U.S. 479, 104 (1984)