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”

 

 

Killercop: " Until I'm found competent, I don't see how that is relevant. I have retained counsel. I would like counsel to come forward and represent me, Mr. McAfee in the background."

 

Judge A. Howard Matz:

All right. Well, Mr. McAfee has no right -- no individual lawyer has a right, no individual "litigant" has a right, to have counsel represent that individual for limited purposes. But I also have the authority to permit it, and I, for pragmatic reasons, will permit it without in any way making any finding as to Mr. McAfee's competence to function in that capacity.

 

 

Due process of law, therefore, in the prosecution of contempt, except of that committed in open court, requires that the accused should be advised of the charges and have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation.

We think this includes the assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses to give testimony, relevant either to the issue of complete exculpation or in extenuation of the offense and in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. See Hollingsworth v. Duane, 12 Fed.Cas. 359, 360; In re Stewart, 118 La. 827; Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121.
COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U. S. 517 (1925)

Once again Matz is dead wrong. You do have a right, "to have Counsel assist you." It is called the Sixth Amendment. Something he calls an entitlement.(.pdf file) But then again, in his court, no one but rich people have rights.

Try to understand, Federal Judge Matz likes the feeling of the power to "purport to "create" rights." The persecution I was subjected to was all about power. I was never a "litigant." And it was about the jurisdiction of the "power to control the people and the Internet."

2010

There Will Be Blood.

Especially when the rules change, a lot!

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."

SOURCE:

A. Upon a judicial determination of reasonable cause to believe the defendant is incompetent, the court may order a 30 day in-patient examination under 18 U.S.C. §4241(b) and 18 U.S.C. §4247(b).

The court cannot begin with a four month commitment under §4241(d) without this intermediary step. U.S. v. White, 887 F.2d 705, 710 (6th Cir. 1989).

Survive In Prison Or Jail - A How To Jail Guide Speeding Ticket Secrets! Insider Tips, Tricks And Strategies!

Surviving Martial Law!

How To Survive The Coming Food Crisis!

Crisis By Design!

What 300 Million Americans Need To Know!

Join The Movement To Impeach Barack Obama!

Easy Naturalization: Easy And Fast Way To Become A US Citizen!

How To Win Child Custody!

Divorce Strategies And Tactics!

Focused Interviewing System Of Interview And Interrogation!

Legal Forms, Contracts And Agreements!

Dealing With False Restraining Orders.

THE FACT IS HERE, AND THE FACT IS THERE IN THE BLACK AND WHITE

Defendant’s Presence

In General.

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.”

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.

A.K.A. THE CASE OF "A FACTUAL QUESTION OF WHOIS CONFUSED"

So, is judge A. Howard Matz incompetent, or did he break the law, and conspire with two other attorneys to do it? He did arrange the secret hearing personally...Lets ask The Wise Latina. CONFUSIUS

By Judge A. Howard Matz' own ruling and decree, the factual question and thereafter NATURALLY illegal finding, of one of the people's competence, or incompetence, is thus so thus and therefore said people need not be present in the room, or even the same state, before ONE finds them "incompetent" enough to be sent off for a mental "treatment." And said treatment may begin at anytime, before the finding of a fact!

ANSWER: THE LAW IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR - INCOMPETENCE OF AMERICANS IS A QUESTION INVOLVING ONLY A FACT UNDER FEDERAL LAW. AND I HAD A RIGHT TO BE THERE TO CONFRONT. REMEMBER THAT RIGHT?

IT GOES HAND IN THE HAND WITH THE RIGHT TO COMPEL WITNESSES. THAT USED TO BE A PART OF THE PROCESS. LIKE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. BOTH NOW GONE! ALONG WITH MY RIGHT TO KNOW THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION. REDUCED TO ENTITLEMENTS.

NEVER ONE TO LET THE LAW, RULES OR FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF THE PARTY, OR A GOOD OL' BOY PERSECUTION/LYNCHING, MATZ BEGINS THE PARTY WITH PLAIN OL' DISINFORMATION AND BABBLING. AND LATER FLAT OUT GIBBERISH AND A LOT OF COVERING UP. THAT'S A FACT. THAT MUCH IS CLEAR.

NOW PROMPLY IGNORE THE LAW AND RIGHTS SOMEMORE! AND WATCH ME TAKE YOU OUT!

A.K.A. BAD DATE NIGHT.