"For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen." But this is happening in America, right now, on 07.03.2011

A.K.A. THE CASE OF THEN IS PAST-TENSE. NOT PRESENT.

"The "Applicable Standards" to what I perceived to be his 'then' condition..." ~Judge A. Howard Matz, pretrial of Killercop

Not to mention "The "Applicable Standards" to what I perceived to be true threats." ~Judge A. Howard Matz, pretrial of Killercop

FACTS:

 

"If there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may "presently" be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent" ~18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)."The court shall [THEN] hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency..."

 

 

"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.

 

Greg Nicolaysen:

“May I inquire AS AN ESQUIRE OF HIZZZ ODER, 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?”

Competence and the insanity defense are often confused, says Edward Mulvey, a psychologist and professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. While competence deals with mental illness "in the present," insanity refers to mental illness when the crime occurred, which can be months or years in the past, he says.

THIS IS THE SAME JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF YOUR CHILDREN, AMERICA.

A.K.A. Judge A. Howard Matz and his Little Chamber of Horrors

Los Angeles County lawyers agreed last week to guidelines intended to end a children’s mental-health-care system that critics say subjected young people to horrors far worse than what they would have faced had they simply been left alone.

In the settlement of In re Katie A., accepted by U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz, the county agreed to try to provide decent mental-health services to children in their own homes whenever possible. County workers had allegedly identified children needing mental-health services and removed them from their families, often placing them in foster care or group homes where they faced physical and mental abuse — and still never got mental-health services.

An advisory board will oversee the settlement. But many advocates were left unsatisfied, including the attorney whose 2001 state-court suit paved the way for the later class action. Sanford Jossen noted that no deadlines have been given. He said advisory-board members would be paid thousands of dollars for their work, “but the kids get nothing.”

Don't feel so bad, Sanford Jossen , I got nothing either. Except a situation.

Update here:

The Harvard Standard Takes a scary turn for the worse. Not unusual.

THIS MOMENT NOW IS PRESENTLY NOT THEN. AND NO LONGER HIDDEN AWAY, IN A LABORATORY.

 

A.K.A. THE CASE OF THE FACTS AND A FINDING UNDER THE LAW.

A.K.A. IGNORE THE PERSONS BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

 

AN UNLAWFUL STAR CHAMBER.

COME ON, CONSPIRE TO FEEL THE AGONY!!!

 

IT'S VITAL!! BUT NOT UNUSUAL!!

 

A.K.A. Alas, too late! The Moment is Past.

 

 

Greg Nicolaysen:

 

"Thank you so much. Your honor, government counsel tracks my thinking as well. I want to assure the court. We agonized over this.

 

We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday. Spoke again, on Saturday, anticipating that your honor may very well want some feedback on this very point, so we're not trying to put words into the court's mouth by asking you to make a finding [of a fact] that you didn't make; however --"

 

Eleana Duarte:

 

HAVING REVIEWED THAT, WE ACTUALLY ARE OF THE OPINION -- AND I'LL TAKE AS MUCH RESPONSIBILITY AS I NEED TO FOR THIS -- THAT THE ORDER THAT WAS SUBMIITED AND SIGNED ON MARCH 20TH, IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HYBRID, AND IT NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED.

 

IN THAT, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A 4241(D) COMMITMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THE COURT DOES NEED TO MAKE A FINDING ...

 

"Nunc pro tunc"

 

"The reason I didn't want to make that finding and declined to make that finding was primarily because I didn't want to inflame him...not because I had any doubts about applying the applicable standards to what I perceived to be his "'then' condition.” ~JUDGE HOWARD MATZ

 

"Nunc pro tunc 2"

 

THE CASE OF "THEN" IS PAST, NOT PRESENT. EVEN A FIRST YEAR HARVARD LAW STUDENT KNOWS THAT.

 

"If there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may "presently" be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent" ~18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)."

 

The court shall [NOW] hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant.

 

 

MY "THEN" CONDITION? YOU MEAN THE ONE YOU JUST-THEN MADE UP?

 

ARE YOU BAFFLED AGAIN? IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS BAD "THEN", YOU OUGHT TO SEE IT NOW! NOW AS IN "PRESENTLY." ARE YOU WITH ME HERE? STAY AWAKE! IT IS VITAL YOU LEARN.

AND MAKE IT PROMPLY! YOU ONLY GET ONE LIFE AND 'CAUSE SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO DIE. OR DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN OF AMERICA. JUST ASK GARY WINNICK. IT'S A PRUDENT THING TO DO.

 

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, WE CAN'T, 'CAUSE ALL THREE OF YOU UNLAWFULLY RELEASED HIM. WELL, THEN TELL HIM TO KEEP HIS DOGS AT BAY, AGAIN. AND THAT GOES DOUBLE FOR THE FEDERAL DOGS!

 

BUNCH OF FRAUDS!

 

 

YOU WANT TO GET INTO MY MIND???

 

WELL, SINCE YOU "HAVE TO LOOK."

 

 

LOOK AT THIS. BUT DON'T LOOK AT THAT. OR READ THE LAW. IT'S CALLED "SELECTIVE" IN MY MIND.

 

WORDS DON'T MATTER ANYMORE. AND NO PROBABLY ABOUT IT, I REPEAT, NO PROBABLY ABOUT IT. YOU JUST WITNESSED A THOUGHT CRIME.

 

IT WOULD BE PRUDENT OF YOU TO ERASE YOUR HARD-DRIVE AND TURN YOURSELF INTO THE PROPER-AUTHORITIES. I MEAN, SINCE YOU'RE PROBABLY A FEDERAL CRIMINAL. OR SHOULD I SAY "MOST LIKEY?"