And since, under the so called law of the law, I am legaly still incompetent, without the "vital" certificate required by the law, I moooooove that Alvin Howard Matz correct the laws he broke.
The Supreme Court has, on occasion,
described incompetency in terms of a right not to be tried.
E.g., Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (“A criminal
defendant may not be tried unless he is competent.”);
Drope, 420 U.S. at 171 (holding that an incompetent defendant
“may not be subjected to a trial”); id. at 172 (describing
“a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent”).
Psssst, you forgot to mention Attorneys And Perverts!
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "You wrote that the law is always in a, quote, necessary state of flux, close quote. You wrote that the law judges declare is not, quote, a definitive — capital L — Law that many would like to think exists, close quote, and, quote, that the public fails to appreciate the importance of indefiniteness in the law. Can you explain those statements? And why do you think indefiniteness is so important to the law?"
Sotomayor: "It's not that it's important to the law as much as it is that it's what legal cases are about. People bring cases to courts because they believe that precedents don't clearly answer the fact situation that they're presenting in their individual case. ... If law was always clear, we wouldn't have judges.
But then again, I'm officially nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzzzzz in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law, and the certificate required by the law. But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet?
Knowing this, he gave an incompetent and indigent defendant the dumbest of the dumb, for a defense. If you call that a defense. I don't. I am "pretty" definite about that fact.
indefiniteness in the law
“The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science.” ~Charles Macklin
Guns: Sotomayor was one of three judges who upheld a New York state law banning possession of "chuka sticks," a martial arts weapon, against a challenge that contended the law was a violation of the Second Amendment. At issue was whether last year's Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual's constitutional right to own guns for self-defense should apply to state laws. The appeals panel said last year's case left that question unanswered and that it was bound by an 1886 Supreme Court ruling. The judges said they would leave "to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overturning its own decisions."
“Vagueness doctrine is an outgrowth not of the First
Amendment, but of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.” United States v. Williams, 128 S. Ct. 1830,
1845 (2008). “Vague statutes are invalidated for three reasons:
(3) to avoid any
chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.”
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 916, 928
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d
629, 638 (9th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied if it failed to
put a defendant on notice that his conduct was criminal.
United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 811 (9th Cir. 2001). A
statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face if it “fails to
provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what
is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages
seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Williams, 128 S.
Ct. at 1845. For statutes like § 1037 involving criminal sanctions
“the requirement for clarity is enhanced.” Info. Providers’
Coal. for the Def. of the First Amendment v. FCC, 928
F.2d 866, 874 (9th Cir.1991).
