 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Clearly, both Killercop and the court would have benefitted from the services of a computer expert.
"I want to assure the court. We agonized over this." A.K.A. The Case of No questions asked.
Nicolaysen: "May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make ANY "factual findings" in regard to the "reasonable cause standard" under the statute since there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?"
The argument is an ingenious one, but, as a matter of fact and federal constitutional law, it "presently" falls of its own weight!
1. Standard. In order to find a defendant competent, a court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has sufficient "present" ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960). "A democracy is a sheep and three wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. A REPUBLIC is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." ~ Benjamin Franklin Martin v. Settle, 192 F.Supp. 156, 159 (W.D. Mo. 1961) competency hearing may not be conducted in absence of the defendant and doing so deprives the defendant of due process of law). See also 263 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2001)
YER LATE, YER LATE!! THE RULE OF LAW IS MISSING AND INFERED DEAD. THE NEW RULE IN AMERICA IS MOB RULE. AND THE RULE IS THAT THREE OR MORE CONSTITUTES A MOB. FEDERAL AGENTS OF THE RED QUEEN KILLED IT. THEREFORE AND HITHER, THE LEGAL KILLING OF FEDERAL POLICE, AND OTHER AGENTS OF THE CROWN, MAY NOW OFFICIALLY COMMENCE. OR IS IT COMMERCE? OR IS IT THE WHITE ONES WE ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL? WHY? YOU ASK WHY? JUST 'CAUSEISAYSO! OR ARE YA BAFFLED AND MAD LIKE ME? NOW, PLEASE POINT ME TO THE MINISTRY OF SILLY WALKS, SECRET HEARINGS, AND TREASONS, FOR A PROMPT REDRESS OF MY GRIEVANCE. "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 |
"The defendant's presence is not necessary" ~Judge A. Howard Matz, Secret Hearing Transcript of 04.07.2003 Docket 158 The defendant's presence is not necessary????????????????? Really? How arrogant can Judge A. Howard Matz be? Read the rule of the law, again...I would think it is vital. And funda-mental. Just ask yer good buddy... the omnipotent... Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Alex Kozinski is making a new rule of law, too, like you. The rule of no law, A.K.A. rules trump rights. I LOOK UP THE LAW>>> Martin v. Settle, 192 F.Supp. 156, 159 (W.D. Mo. 1961) (competency hearing may NOT be conducted in absence of the defendant and doing so deprives the defendant of due process of law). 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.” But that was when words mattered. "The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273 (1948), identified these rights as among the minimum essentials of a fair trial:
Here is a prime example of when laws, rights and rules are ignored by a court. "A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense -- a right to his day in court -- are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel. " Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. E.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U. S. 95 (1972); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 388 U. S. 19 (1967); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948).
The Supreme Court has "long recognized . . . that . . . justice cannot be equal where, simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76, (1985)
"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.
"'Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds a position of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases, the exercise of his power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining the truth. . . . How can we say the judge is wrong? We never saw the witnesses. . . .'"
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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
