 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last,"~ Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
Judge Alex Kozinski And His Good Buddy Judge A. Howard Matz A.K.A. A Corrupted Process. A.K.A. No Process. A.K.A. WHOIS yer Buddy Process. "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once". ~ Judge Alex Kozinski
<SNIP> "It is ironic that it is we who plant this kudzu in the fertile soil of our federal system.' . . . We pass up yet another opportunity to root out this weed. Instead, we feed it Miracle-Gro. I dissent." ~Chief Justice Of The Ninth Circuit Of The United States, Hypocrite and Pervert, Alex Kozinski, close friend of District Judge A. Howard Matz. Due Process of law is the right of the Citizen affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." ~Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500. The secrecy of Killercop's "status conference" ... violated the due process clause .... Pp. 333 U. S. 266-273, 333 U. S. 278
(a) The reasons advanced to support the secrecy ... investigative proceedings do not justify secrecy in the trial of a defendant accused of an offense for which he may be fined or sent to jail. Pp. 333 U. S. 264-266. (b) An accused is entitled to a public trial, at least to the extent of having his friends, relatives and counsel present -- no matter with what offense he may be charged. Pp. 333 U. S. 271-272. 2. The failure to afford petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charge ...was a denial of due process of law. Pp. 333 U. S. 273-278. (a) As a minimum, due process requires that an accused be given reasonable notice of the charge against him, the right to examine the witnesses against him, the right to testify in his own behalf, and the right to be represented by counsel. P. 333 U. S. 273.
Counsel have not cited and we have been unable to find a single instance of a criminal hearing conducted in secret in any federal, state, or municipal court during the history of this country. Nor have we found any record of even one such secret criminal trial in England since abolition of the Court of Star Chamber in 1641, and whether that court ever convicted people secretly is in dispute. Summary "status conferences" for findings of "incompetence" have not been regarded as an exception to this universal rule against secret trials."
"[e]very procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532. Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14
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. Birth Place :Brooklyn, New York Date Of Birth, 1943 Matz, A Howard reference * Short Description * United States federal judge. The "Bonsai Tree" Hanging Judge. 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 Born 1943 in Brooklyn, NY Federal Judicial Service: No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, and cases there cited. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of Section 1, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge;
It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 362, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278.
Entrapment by estoppel is the "unintentional entrapment by an official who mistakenly misleads a person into a violation of the law," and it is a theory derived from the due process clause. United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
"Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
"But then again, I'm incompetent under the law, and I have no certificate to prove it."
A.K.A. No Means No! NOTE: SHOW ME, AMERICA, THE WORDS DUE PROCESS IN THIS DOCUMENT, COMPARED TO THIS DOCUMENT. TRUST ME WHEN I SAY IT IS NOT THE ONLY THIS MSSING IN THIS CASE. SO ARE A WHOLE LOT OF RIGHTS. AND EXPERTS, TOO. THE BOTTOM LINE: Someone needs to put me in touch with the Ministry of Secret Hearings, so I may redress my grievances with the due process. "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 |
"This is really a "pretty good" system you have here. What do you call it? "Due process?" "We're very proud of it." ~Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
ALEX, JUST CLICK ON "THIS" AND TELL ME HOW YOU LIKE THAT PROCESS.
To be proud of "what others clearly "agonized" over" is a question of the law, facts and rules of the process. Just so the American Citizens can see exactly what they are "due,"before calling it "pretty." Otherwise that's like putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. But then again, by golly! you like that, too, don't 'cha! You betcha!! And now it's about to get pretty ugly!!
Alex, your good buddy Judge Matz is a corrupted judge who allowed others to threaten and racially slur me. He is a racist, and covers up crimes of the cops, inter alia. Selectively, for money. Did you make a cut when your buddy made a subpoena go away for money, too, or did you cover it up for free, for your friend. For enough money he can make several subpoenas disappear. It's like magic! Just like the right not to be tried. Or raped by the U.S.
America, how would you feel if me and some of my peeps unlawfully raid your home "office computer" and steal your files, hold you as a captive audience, falsely accuse and defame you thereafter, for daring to continue to expose these crimes being covered up, then let those same people selectively arrest you, under a misapplied law or two, do a little torture, fly you into an area wherein the entire district is against you for your lawful speech, deny any conditions of bail, keep you without a "speedy" trial for almost two years, then force conflicted counsel on you over your objections; and by the way, if you want to confess, just to end the torture of course, you are told "I will never accept a guilty plea." You shall also be denied your right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, denied any due process in a secret hearing, since your presence is not required, while you are my captive, and thereafter I will use this secret hearing to justify sending you off to see a doctor to mentally "treat" you, and "restore" you. Then when you finally learn of the secret hearing, many months later, release that attorney before hearing your motion to remove him, then blame you for the conflict and force you to represent yourself, realize this is pretty unlawful, too, then force more counsel. Forget any right to compel witnesses, or even your accusor, in you favor by a subpoena. This is the New World Oder!! Tell me then how you would feel if I hold a kangaroo court, to deny more due process and your right not to be tried. I'll summarily find you guilty, then give you an illegal sentence, then deny you due process at the sentencing hearing, steer your only appeal to a good perverted friend with bad judgment (THAT'S YOU, ALEX!) just to make sure it's rigged good and plenty, who will in turn then force more conflicted counsel on the only appeal, while we sit back and put words into his conflicted mouth and watch him admit you're guilty, which we all know, and he knows, you've denied for 5 years. If this is far too complex and too complicated to understand what I am saying without an expert to translate for you, sorry. After all, who knows where these things are routed. If you care to submit to this jurisdiction, then I might call your process good. And you are no God. See United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434, 454 (5th Cir. 2010) ("When faced with a defendant who is affected by blindness, the court should afford such a defendant reasonable facilities for confronting and cross-examining the witnesses as the circumstances will permit." (internal quotation omitted)). By employing a large television screen to enable Lawrence to see the witnesses more clearly, the district court adequately accommodated Lawrence's impaired vision "in the context of the necessities of trial and the adversary process," Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 850 (1990), "thereby preserv[ing] the essence of effective confrontation," id. at 857
Defendant's Presence Generally An Accused Citizen has the right to be present at every stage of the trial. The right is both constitutional and statutory. The constitutional right is based on the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Under the Constitution, the presence of one accused “is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.” United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 108 (1934)). Thus, the Constitution does not guarantee
that a criminal defendant be present at all stages of the trial but
rather only at “critical stage[s].” La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d
702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 2001). In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 n.15 (1975), the Supreme Court stated that a defendant has the “right to be present at all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.” See also Fisher v. Roe, 263 F.3d 906, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06) (defendant has a right to be present if his presence “has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge”).
Rule 43(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant need not be present where the “proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.” ONLY. Like the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. SOURCE: A Manual on
Jury Trial
Procedures Members: Okay, so we all get the issue that I can only be present at "critical stages." So much for the right to be at "every stage"... unless it involves the question of a law. A question of a man's incompetence is "a question of fact, not law!" Otherwise who needs judges, ya just pass a law and say Jewish People or Black People are incompetent, so lock them up for the mental "treatment!" Legal Source Cited Here. And Here. And Here. Allegations Regarding The Missing Treatment And Examination By Dr. Who, Found Here. Cover Up Docs Found Here. Procedural due process In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are generally governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result. This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.[26] At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[27] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[28] Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[29] Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process. The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
