THE CASE OF ONE GOOSE STEP REMOVED.

 

"I haven't had to be a prisoner [Yet] but I know what it's like one step removed and it's awful. You want to get out of that situation." ~Judge A. Howard Matz to Killercop, pretrial.

 

Killings of federal judges are rare. The last to be killed in office was Judge Robert Vance, who was killed by a mail bomb at his home in Mountain Brook, Ala., in 1989.

Judge Kozinski speculated — “If it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us.”

 

BUT THAT'S ""PROBABLY" A MIXED QUESTION OF THE LAW."

I MEAN, MOST LIKELY.

A.K.A. An unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

 

THE CASE OF NOT JUST A NEGLECT, BUT A GROSS NEGLECT.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy.

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

 

 

 

JUDGE MATZ DIDN'T READ THE LAW, FIRST? HE MUST NEED SOME TIME. HARD TIME!!

 

DON'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE DONE THAT PROMPTLY?

 

NOW IT IS BECOMING PRETTY CLEAR THAT I HAVE TO TAKE YOU OUT! IT'S ALL PART OF THE DUE PROCESS!

 

"I haven't had to be a prisoner [YET] but I know what it's like one step removed and it's awful. You want to get out of that situation." ~Judge Matz to Killercop, pretrial.

 

 

'I choose that a story should be founded on probability, and not always resemble a dream.

 

I desire to find nothing in it trivial or extravagant; and I desire above all, that under the appearance of fable there may appear some latent truth, obvious to the discerning eye, though it escape the observation of the vulgar.' ~Voltaire

“You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.” – Navajo Proverb

A.K.A. “Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.” – Dr Seuss

THE CASE OF PROBABLY SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO DIE. A.K.A. HYBRID IS THE NAME OF THIS GAME.

“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” – Francis Bacon

Rule 43(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant must be present at every trial stage, including the jury impanelment and the return of the verdict and sentencing, unless otherwise provided by the rules.

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.”

SOURCE: A Manual on Jury Trial Procedures
Prepared by the Jury Instructions Committee
of the Ninth Circuit

Members:
Judge George H. King, Chair
Judge Roger L. Hunt
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton
Judge A. Howard Matz
Judge Jeffrey T. Miller
Judge Marsha J. Pechman
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

 

"A conference or hearing 'only' on a question of law." Okay, the word 'only' appears "clearly defined" to me. Kinda like the word no. And the word all. And the word fact.

 

LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS:

 

 

A QUESTION OF INCOMPETENCE IS A QUESTION LAW??? NOT!!!

 

To make matters even more frustrating, particularly from the viewpoint of a tax paying private citizen, finding out about these laws took me all of 5 minutes using the Google search engine, something I would expect the attorneys and judge A. Howard Matz take the time to do in the first place, especially when I spelled out all of the legal applications in my original appeal.  I literally feel as if I just did the work that others should have done in the course of their duties and part of the due process and diligence that I would hope lawyers engage in. I know attorneys hate that.

 

The Character of Leadership: Faith, Justice, Temperance, Hope, Wisdom, Love, and Courage.

 

 

MATZ: “Okay. I arranged this status conference because I had some questions about the joint proposed amended order that was lodged last week under Rule 43.

 

Killercop's presence is not necessary, given that he’s currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen [WHO I FORCED ON HIM!]

 

This is primarily an issue, at the very least, a mixed issue of fact and law, probably a legal issue.”

 

probably?????

LOOK AT THE FACTS AND 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).

 

"A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law."

"A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law. United States -v- Shepard, 538 F.2d 107 at 110; United States -v- Fratus -- F-r-a-t-u-s -- 530 F.2d 644 at page 647; U.S. -v- Winn, 577 F.2d 86 at note 14 on page 88; Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, annotations at paragraph 8 on page 2083. Rule 43, which you used to explain my absence obviously does not apply. And since a finding of incompetence is one of clearly a fact, not law -- And under the right of due process afforded to an accused in a court, the court could not abridge that right by that rule. Pursuant to Title 18, section 2072 (b), 'no rule shall abridge, modify or enlarge a substantive right. 'Rights trump rules. Further, this court never found me incompetent at the March 14th hearing, so the hearing on April 7th should have been conducted pursuant to the protections afforded to an accused under the Fifth Amendment, due process, and the Sixth Amendment..." ~REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, Los Angeles, California
Monday, August 27, 2003

 

THE LAW WAS VERY CLEAR BACK THEN.

 

PROBABLY.

 

 

AND NOW AS WAS THEN, THEY "NEED TO" HIDE THESE FACTS, AND OTHERS, BY CENSORING MY SPEECH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

 

Email: Judge A. Howard Matz (ahm_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov)

 

Too late. The cat is out of the bag. Well, before he is impeached for this.