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. McAfeels competence to function in that capacity.

 

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 you have to understand that Federal Judge Matz likes the feeling of the power to "purport to "create" rights." The persecution I was subjected to was all about power. And about the jurisdiction of the "Power to control the Internet."

2010

There Will Be Blood.

$PECIAL REWARD$ FOR THESE COP$

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA

A QUESTION FOR AMERICA:

Is "pretty good" pretty much like "pretty clear?" Because I'm "pretty sure" it is not.

I know, it's complex. (.pdf)

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? He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. And that's a fact!

Defendant’s Presence

Generally

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 on a question of law."

 

Is judge A. Howard Matz incompetent?

 

Since, by his own ruling and decree, during the question and legal finding of a Citizen's competence, or incompetence, a Citizenn need not be present in the room, or even the same state, before the state need find them incompetent enough to be sent off for a mental "treatment."

 

ANSWER: THE LAW IS CLEAR - INCOMPETENCE OF A CITIZEN IS A MIXED QUESTION INVOLVING FACTS.

 

NEVER ONE TO LET THE LAW, RULES, OR FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF THE PARTY, OR A GOOD OLD PERSECUTION, MATZ PLOWS ON INTO PLAIN BABBLING.

Contact | © Copyright 1998-2010 Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.