The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act defines judicial misconduct as “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a)                                    1

           1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

           2                   CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

                                      WESTERN DIVISION

           3                                - - -

                                  HONORABLE A. HOWARD MATZ

           4               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING

                                            - - -

           5

                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  )

           6                               )

                        PLAINTIFF,         )

           7                               )

                VS.                        )   NO. CR 02-350(A)

           8                               )

                KILLERCOP.COM,  )

           9                               )

                        DEFENDANT.         )

          10    ___________________________)

          11

          12                             SENTENCING

          13                REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

          14                      THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004

          15                       LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

          16

          17

          18

          19

          20

          21

          22

          23                      KATHLEEN L. MECHANIC, RPR

                               FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

          24                  312 NORTH SPRING STREET, ROOM 410

                                LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

          25                         PH:  (213) 617-1422

                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

           3              MR. SUTCLIFFE:  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you.

           4              Um, does this packet I've just been handed contain

           5    the certificate pursuant to 4241D that's required by the law?

           6              THE COURT:  It does not!

           7              MR. SUTCLIFFE:  It does not?  Is there any

           8    explanation that the Court can give that this was not

           9    provided to the clerk of court?  It's my understanding it's

          10    supposed to be provided to the clerk and that the clerk was

          11    then to provide it to the attorneys.

          12              THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm not going to comment on the

          13    accuracy or correctness of your understanding.  It may, in

          14    fact, be correct and I know what statute you have in mind in

          15    pointing that out.  So far as I know, "we" never got a

          16    certificate and that's why I don't have anything to give to

          17    you.

          18              MR. SUTCLIFFE:  So for the record, none -- none

          19    exists?

          20              THE COURT:  So far as I know, none exists in this

          21    court.

LAW:

 

18 USC 4241(e) Discharge.— When the director of the facility (warden) in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment.

 

In the instant case this was never done, yet the court proceeded to have another competency hearing anyway. And then impose a sentence, below. 

 

Why would they do that?

 

To Quote: "This is an extremely serious responsibility placed on both the hospital institution and the court. There are two important certifications for the director to make. The first is a certification that the person has sufficiently recovered mentally to be released at all. The second is, if the person can be released but only on certain conditions, a certification that the conditions are appropriate. The court bears a vital responsibility as to both."

 

“Certification is [also] a jurisdictional requirement.” United States v. Juvenile Male (Kenneth C.), 241 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)

 

“[e]ven when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial court must always be alert to circumstances suggesting a change that would render the accused unable to meet the standards of competence to stand trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 181 (1975) [EXCEPT IF THE TRIAL COURT IS RUN BY MATZ].

 

"the right of an incompetent defendant not to stand trial includes not only a right not to be convicted but also an absolute right not to be tried at all, i.e., a right that cannot be protected by post-conviction appellate review."

 

“‘allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant will affect competency determinations only in a narrow class of cases where the evidence is in equipoise, that is, where the evidence that a defendant is competent is just as strong as the evidence that he is incompetent.’” Id. (quoting Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 441 (1992).

 

A FINDING OF FACT.

 

A FINDING OF FACT, PART 2.

'

The “certifi-cates” are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony,doing “precisely what a witness does on direct examination.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 830 (2006) (emphasis deleted).

WHO CARES? WHERE'S THE PORN? MAYBE THE EXPERTS HAVE THE PORN!

IT WAS THERE ONE MINUTE, THEN THE NEXT MINUTE IT WAS GONE!

MUST BE THOSE LAW GOBLINS!