 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
The process is the punishment. KILLERCOP BEGGED THE JUDGE NOT TO LET THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS QUIT THE 'COMPLEX' COMPUTER CASE! JUDGE MATZ SAYS HE LET THEM QUIT THE COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE "FOR KILLERCOP'S OWN GOOD." THEN JUDGE MATZ BLAMED KILLERCOP FOR THEIR QUITTING. AND THE PUBLIC PRETENDERS, WITH THE CONFLICT IN THE COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE, QUIT BUT THEN PROMPTLY AND PERSONALLY ASSIGNED A COMPUTER ILLITERATE COUNSEL IN THEIR PLACE WHO DIDN'T KNOW A HARD DRIVE FROM A HARD ON. WITH A JUDGE AND COUNSEL LIKE THAT, WHO NEEDS A PROSECUTOR? LETS LISTEN IN...
"I am serving you, so you should thank me and treat me with great respect and honor for having robbed you of choice, on your behalf, for your own good, in order to serve you by doing things you don't want me to do." -The Matzrix Every circuit court that has ever reviewed an entire officewide disqualification has been reversed. -See Bolden, 353 F. 3d at 879; Whittaker, 268 F.3d at 194–95; Vlahos, 33 F.3d at 761–63; Caggiano, 660 F.2d at 185.
Except mine. - Killercop
While there is little doubt that preserving individual “ ‘dignity’ ” (to which the Court refers), ante, at 11, is paramount among those purposes, there is equally little doubt that the loss of “dignity” the right is designed to prevent is not the defendant’s making a fool of himself by presenting an amateurish or even incoherent defense. Rather, the dignity at issue is the supreme human dignity of being master of one’s fate rather than a ward of the State—the dignity of individual choice. In order for the defendant’s right to call his own witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, and to put on a defense to be anything more than “a tenuous and unacceptable legal fiction,” a defendant must have consented to the representation of counsel. Faretta, at 821. Otherwise, “the defense presented is not the defense guaranteed him by the Constitution, for in a very real sense, it is not his defense.” Ibid. SEE ALSO: CONFLICTED FPDS SEE ALSO FORCING CONFLICTED FPD COUNSEL ON APPEAL. UPDATE 2025: Welcome to the Federal Public Pretenders of the Central District of California. A cruel and unusual punishment "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. "Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -C.S. LEWIS 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 have 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: Unfortunately, the trial court never held an in camera hearing or otherwise attempted to discern the full nature and extent of Marilyn Bednarski, Hilary Potashner and the FPD's "unspoken" conflict with the case. Shhhhh. IN ORDER OF APPEARENCE: Hilary L Potashner/Marilyn Bednarski William S Harris Gregory Nicolaysen Michael J Brennan Represented by SUNG PARK - FOR THE APPEAL. GOBLIN GUIDE (CLICK IMAGE ABOVE) A.K.A. A GANG RAPE BY A WOMAN AND HER ASSISTANT! CASE LAW: FARETTA, RULE 43, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE & CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. 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! HECK, HE EVEN SUPRESSES HIS OWN SPEECHES. WHAT A SICK, TWISTED MIND. Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
