The court didn't make any specific legal or lawful finding...of incompetence. Moreover the prosecutor knew that, as well as the "defense" attorney forced on Killercop by HizzzzonorMatz, yet they all ignored the law and committed Killercop for "Treatment," of "Incompetence."
"I am, as I've said, merely competent. But in an age of incompetence, that makes me extraordinary." ~Billy Joel
Secret laws and secret hearings, by secret doctors, no less.
Tthe Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") sent a letter to Matz informing him that an internal investigation of Dr. Patenaude revealed "sufficient evidence to question the credibility and accuracy of a psychological evaluation"Dr. Patenaude had prepared in another case.
The letter continued:
This internal investigation could call into question the credibility of other psychological evaluations conducted by this psychologist.
Accordingly, we bring this information to your attention for any action the court may deem appropriate.
The record indicates the neither the district court, nor "foisted" counsel, ever took action in response to this letter.
A defendant 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 defendant’s presence “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(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.”
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
But then again, I'm nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzz in a court of the law. I am waiting on the law and the certificate required by the law. But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet?
Lines 11-17, Ibid. Court: “Okay. I arranged this status conference because I had some questions about the joint proposed amended order1 that was lodged last week under Rule 432. The defendant’s presence is not necessary, given that he’s currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen. This is primarily an issue, at the very least, a mixed issue of fact and law, probably a legal issue.”
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 that you didn't make; however --"
Court: " [a]nd under the applicable provisions of the federal statute involved, 18 U.S.C. 4241(D), I was directing that he be"examined" in an FMC for the purposes of evaluating that determination. I did not make a finding [under the law].
Lines 24-25, Id.
Prosecutor: “[a]nd even though we were aware that the court didn't make the specific finding at the hearing,…that killercop was incompetent.”
DEAR GOD,
READ THAT AGAIN, FOLKS.
"the court didn't make any specific finding...of incompetence, and the prosecutor knew, yet they all ignored the law and committed me for "treatment.""
Prosecutor: “Having reviewed that, we are actually of the opinion - - and I’ll take as much responsibility as I need to for this - - that the order that was submitted and signed on March 20th, is a little bit of a hybrid; and it needed to be clarified.” NOTE: HYBRID IS CODE FOR ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL. AND A LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU SO QUICKLY JUDGE.
"Hybrid" from this point on is now changed to reflect it's nature. "ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL"
Page 6, Line 17
Prosecutor: “That’s where we all ended up with this ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL kind of order,”
Page 7, Lines 22-25 Gregory Nicolaysen “Yeah. It is a scenario that does involve a ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL, to borrow the government’s word, and we used the word ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL when we spoke on Friday, and again on Saturday; and we found that that would be the inherent legal defect in the ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL order …
Page 8, Lines 12-14 Gregory Nicolaysen:: “And third, Your Honor did, in fact, speak in terms of restorationional treatment …before I drafted this ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL order for you to sign. <Chuckles sofly>
Page 10, Lines 14-24
Matz: : “Ok. Well, here are my findings. I think that, particularly, in light of what happened at the hearing, aside from the fact that I kicked killercop out of it <Chuckles sofly>, and the language in Dr. Backer’s supplemental report, there is a sufficient basis to find that Mr. Sutcliffe is already afflicted with a disease or a defect that makes him incompetent for purposes of standing trial.
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.”
So Matz and his gang had this secret hearing, to try and cover up this "hybrid," which means illegal order, that they had concocted out of the air, which I knew nothing about, after "being removed," after I objected to the proceedings as being of the kangaroo kind. I know this much, it was not concocted from any known law.
They got away with it by not notifying me or the warden, until months later. How ya'll like that due process entitlement. Sure ain't a right anymore, unless you can see more then I do.
There I met a man named Dr. Thomas P. Patenaude., once. It was to be our only meeting of the minds.
Later I would meet the Warden, once, and inform him of the secret hearing, once Greggy finally sent me a copy of the secret hearing, months later and only after pressuring me to "take a deal, or they can hold you there forever!." To which I replied, "Byte Me!"
The Warden sent me back to California, the next day, after I showed him the transcript of the secret hearing. Patenaude claimed he then cured me !! It was like, magic. A regular miracle.
Hence, no certificate coming from Matz, or the Warden. On account of they broke the law. They certainly were not about to compound it by filing a false certification that I wasn't now "competent." when they both knew that to be false. (See Dr. Who, below) Oh the irony.
If they followed the law and produced the certificate, under the law, they would be lying.
There could never be a certified paper of my miraculous recovery from my "treatment," especially from a Dr. Who? And they all knew it.
" At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an
offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, . . . the
defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion
for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant.
"A pretrial order finding a defendant competent to stand
trial does not “conclusively determine” the defendant’s competency.
Rather, the question of competency remains open throughout the trial, and may be raised by the defendant, or
by the court, at any time."
