"I object to the court ruling on my competency without a full
hearing under 4247 of Title 18, as well as all rights reserved
on the Bill of Rights of rights, because I received no
treatments, no psychiatric or psychological interventions since
being ruled incompetent on April 7.
In the absence of such interventions or treatment,
and with my conduct being exactly the same and consistent
throughout my hearings and every proceeding that I've been in
this courtroom, this entire case, I believe I'm entitled to a
hearing to determine on what basis I was deemed incompetent on
the first and second instances so that I can determine what
criteria I can now be deemed incompetent.
I don't know how I'm not incompetent since nothing
has changed since the court first found me to be incompetent.
I am not saying I believe I'm incompetent, but I'm not sure of
the criteria based on this court's findings previously decided.
I have yet to even be provided with a copy of Dr. Patenaude's
report. If nothing has changed, then how I can be anything
different than what I was originally?
Furthermore, I frankly don't understand why my
presence is needed here today because, as the conduct of the
government, the defense counsel, and this court's own action or
April 7 clearly prove, all of you believe that the accused nee(
not be present in the courtroom or, for that matter, not
present in the same state to make a finding -- a judicial
finding of fact that the accused is or is not incompetent as
required by the law.
A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law.
United States versus Shepard, 538 F.2d 107 at 110; United
States versus Fratus -- F-r-a-t-u-s -- 530 F.2d 644 at
page 647; U.S. versus Winn, 577 F.2d 86 at note 14 on page 88;
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, annotations at
paragraph 8 on page 2083.
Rule 43, which you used to explain my absence
obviously does not apply. And since a finding of incompetence
is one of clearly a fact, not law -- I am not a corporation --
under the first part of Rule 43. And under the right of due
process afforded to an accused in a court, the court could not
abridge that right by that rule. Pursuant to Title 18, section
2072 (b), no rule shall abridge, modify or enlarge a substantive
right. Rights trump rules.
Further, this court never found me incompetent at the
March 14th hearing, so the hearing on April 7th should have
been conducted pursuant to the protections afforded to an
accused under the Fifth Amendment, Due Process, and the Sixth
Amendment, Compulsory Process, of the Bill of Rights, as well as U.S.C. 4247 (d) as in Delta.
Bottom line is why my presence was not required
April 17th, the hearing of my incompetence decision, but it's
required today. I'd like the court to please explain these two
differences that I've raised."
The variables we have discussed, such as distraction or need
for cognition, tend to influence information-processing activity
in a relatively objective manner—that is, all else being
equal, distraction tends to disrupt whatever thoughts a person
is thinking (Petty et al., 1976). The distraction per se does not
specifically target one type of thought (e.g., favorable or unfavorable)
to impede. Similarly, individuals with high need
for cognition are more motivated to think in general than are
people low in need for cognition (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein,
& Jarvis, 1996). They are not more motivated to think certain
kinds of thoughts over others. Some variables, however, are
selective in their effects on thinking. For example, when people
are highly motivated to think, a positive mood tends to
encourage positive thoughts, discourage negative thoughts,
or both (Petty et al., 1993), and expert sources tend to
encourage favorable rather than unfavorable interpretations of message arguments (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994).
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?
So it had a hearing, and the prosecutor was ordered by the judge to file a motion to have the accused sent to a mental hospital for "treatment." This invidious law is known as 4241(d). The cover up can be found here. Just kozisayso!
But the prosecutor was not present when the attorney, forced on the accused, by the judge and over killercop's objection and the law, who then proceeded and "moooooooved" to have "his" client sent for mental a treatment.
How nice that everyone is in agreement that killercop needed to be sent away for a medical "treatment." The facts remain that the prosecutor was in the hallway for the hearing by the attorney and the judge, and then filed the wrong law on returning to the hearing, on top of being called out on the lawfulness of the motion itself.
Dr. Who then asked killercop if he "knew why you were sent here?"
Killercop replied, "No. Unless someone had a secret hearing, nobody found me incompetent under the law."
"Do you think people are having secret hearings about you?" Dr. Who asked him.
"Fuck you and stop trying to shrink me, stay away from me and we'll get along fine. I see your game," he replied.
Months pass and Winter turns to Spring, and proof of the secret hearing finally arrives in the mail, but only after the attorney forced on Killercop, Gregg Nicolaysen, tries to intimidate Killercop and tell him over the phone that he might be kept there "forever" in his own private Star Chambers if he still refuses to "answer the questions of the examiner and cooperate."
Imagine that...
After continuing to refuse, and armed with the proof of the secret hearing, finally, the Warden of the Mental Treatment Center sent Killercop back to California, where months later on 08.27.2003, a hearing was again held. And the accused denied receiving any treatment or exams. (PDF) Ironically he failed to follow the law and send a letter of certification. Imagine that...
Which is more ironic, that he didn't send it, and broke the law with impunity, or the fact that he knew the guy was a quack, and if he signed the certificate he would have broken another law called perjury.
So did Gregg The Goliath, he was to busy fighting with the newest attorney, David. And calling Matz, , MATZO BALL, because he hates Christians and jewish judges.
Later, the appeals of same issue (Dro Who And The False Reports) around America started arriving across the land in the different Courts of the Law, all saying the same thing killercop claimed about Dr. Who, many months earlier. So Matz knew, or as the attorneys like to say, had a duty to know, that the report was unreliable!
