ON MY BEHALF???

THINK AGAIN.

Judge A. Howard Matz:

“Ms. Bednarski, are you telling me in plain language that the communications between your office or any member of your office [of the Federal Public Defenders, Central District of California] on the one hand and Killercop on the other hand have been so impaired that the ability to maintain mutual trust and respect and confidence in each other’s respective obligations and positions has been shattered?"

Ms. Bednarski: “Yes!”

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: “Is that the result of things that were said by one side or the other side in this existing attorney-client relationship?”

Ms. Bednarski: “In part.”

"Take note of Justice O’Connor’s remarks in 2001 that prompted the New York Times to editorialize that
the “legal "representation" afforded most indigent defendants...” is woefully inadequate. See Editorial, Justice O’Connor on Executions, N.Y. Times, July 5, 2001, at A16.

Take bigger note of the change from the original word of "assistance" to the different word of "re-presentation." And beware of the bill of entitlements. Total disinformation.

 

 

That is how criminals change a "Right" into an "Entitlement." And speech into conduct.

 

Then both rights are gone forever and disappear. And where no becomes a yes. When that happens to you, America...this happens.

 

 

Everage is appealing the verdict. Tuesday's secret hearing centered concerned the public defender assigned to Everage's case. Everage's new lawyer believes the public defender may have had a conflict of interest in the case, and maybe shouldn't have represented him in the first place. The new lawyer needed the courts permission to question the public defender about it. All of this was done behind closed doors.

If Everage's new lawyer proves a conflict of interest with the public defender, Everage could eventually get a new trial.

 

Woe Unto Thee...And That's A Fact!

 

2010

JUDGE MATZ, MEET YOUR HAND PICKED JURY.

 

A.K.A. A GANG RAPE BY A WOMAN!

 

ASSISTED BY THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND FURTHER HELD DOWN BY A PANEL OF ADDITIONAL MEN.

 

THEN THE RITUAL BEGAN.

 

CASE LAW: FARETTA, RULE 43, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE & CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. AND THAT'S A FACT.

 

AROUND HERE I CALL THEM THE FEDERAL PUBLIC PRETENDERS. JUDGE MATZ HATES THAT FORM OF THE FREEDOM OF THE SPEECH...AND WANTS TO DO NOTHING MORE THEN SUPRESS YOURS, TOO!

 

TO HIM NO MEANS YES!

 

EXAMPLE: NO REPRESENTATION MEANS YES! FORCED REPRESENTATION.

 

 

"What would be the capacity of law enforcement and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM

 

HE WANTS ME TO THINK LIKE A CRIMINAL??

 

UMMMMMMM, THEN I GUESS THE "CAPACITY" WOULD BE UNLAWFUL FOR YOU, OR ANY FEDERAL AGENT, TO SUPRESS ANY SPEECH OF ANY CITIZEN. ESPECIALLY MINE. SO THE ANSWER IS THE SAME AS THE "EXPERTS" AND THEIR REPORTS YOU SHOWED THE JURY.

 

NONE.

 

BUT YOU AND I KNOW YOU CAN DO OTHER UNLAWFUL STUFF INSTEAD, UNDER THE COLOR OF THE LAW.

 

BUT ONLY AS LONG AS YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES CAN COVER IT UP.

 

WITH THE HELP I AM SURE OF THE LIARS WITHIN THE F.B.I. AND YOUR GOOD BUDDY ROBERT BONNER.

KILLERCOP: "And now four weeks before trial they [the Public Defender's Office] appear incompetent to proceed with, they bring this motion claiming that an actual conflict now exists which is peculiar, unusual, and quite distinct. Their words. To the extent that my court-appointed public defenders has failed to perform their jobs as that has created a difficulty in their proceeding to trial as ordered by this Court -- I've already pointed out the problems of this Court with no relief -- to grant this request would be to further jeopardize my right to a speedy trial, representation, and/or assistance to competent counsel and right to my freedom."

 

Judge A. Howard Matz:

OVER RULED!!