REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Los Angeles, California
Monday, August 27, 2003

Killercop: "A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law. United States -v- Shepard, 538 F.2d 107 at 110; United States -v- Fratus -- F-r-a-t-u-s -- 530 F.2d 644 at page 647; U.S. -v- 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.

CHECK MY VITAL SIGNS, DOC, CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE I AM ALREADY DEAD.

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 -- 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..."

DOJ: Department of Jihad?

 

BYE BYE BABY!

More than 230 participants attended the 18th Annual National Jewish Law Students Association Conference held February at USC.

L to R: Alissa Malzman ’06, Melissa Balaban ’91, Julie Marder (Michigan), Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge A. Howard Matz, Sam Yebri ’06, Tanya Bayeva (Michigan), conference participant,
Rachel Feldman ’06, Rachel
Weinstein ’06 and Debbie Ghodsian ’06.

 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

IS MEL THREATING THE "PERSON OF ANOTHER," OR "ANOTHER PERSON?"

 

LOS ANGELES -- Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle backed away Tuesday from remarks in which she referred to the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the need to "take ... out" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Angle, in her first extended Nevada interview since winning the June 8 primary, said she was speaking broadly about the Constitution and her words about the Democratic leader were "a little strong."

The Republican nominee stopped short of an apology but said she no longer uses that phrase.

"I meant take him out of office, and taking him out of office is a little different," Angle said. "I changed my rhetoric."

Federal Judge Impeached by House in Unanimous Vote

Posted Mar 11, 2010 12:11 PM CST
By Sarah Randag

The House of Representatives voted 412-0 today to approve the first of four articles of impeachment against New Orleans District Judge Thomas Porteous. The article found the judge was engaging in misconduct by not disclosing his relationship with a lawyer before him in a hospital case, the Times-Picayune reported. House votes on the other three articles are pending.

"Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

"Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom. We hope the Senate will schedule the trial expeditiously, so that we may prove our case and remove him from office."

Porteous is the 15th judge to ever be impeached by the House. The most recent impeachment was of Samuel Kent of the Southern District of Texas in June. Kent—who was drawing his salary while serving a 33-month sentence for lying to investigators about his nonconsensual sexual contact with two employees—resigned from office before the Senate could mount a trial.

You have one choice. Meaning, there are two things from which you can choose.  It’s either are you STUPID or CORRUPTED?

 

AND I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE I PRETTY MUCH STAND.

 

Readers, before everyone who took part in the secret hearing and in the interests of "just us," with malice and "agony" aforethought, dies; can someone tell me how all three seasoned attorneys in the story got this one simple, plain rule wrong, and then violated every law in the Ninth Circuit, and Supreme Court precedent going back 20, or more, years, dealing with the laws of Due Process, as well as the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of these united States?

Can any of you answer that for me?

THE CASE OF HOW JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ COVERED UP HIS INCOMPETENCE, AND BROKE THE LAW, AGAIN. NOW I HAVE TO TAKE HIM OUT.

 

A.K.A. A "SIMPLE" FACT OF THE LAW.

 

Court: “Okay. I arranged this status conference because I had some questions about the joint proposed amended order that was lodged last week under Rule 43.

 

(Joint proposed amended order means all agree to the cover up "he arranged," of the violation of the Due Process Clause and rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, as well as Rule 43.

 

Questions means he is either playing baffled again, or playing stupid. He displays a talent to do both remarkably well, when convenient. And Lodged is not the lodge or inn down the street, nor is it even the chalet that Gary Winnick is sleeping in tonight.

 

"Killercop's presence is not necessary, given that he’s currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen. This is primarily an issue, at the very least, a mixed issue of FACT AND LAW, probably a legal issue.” Judge Matz, Page 4, Lines 4-7

 

WRONG, AGAIN, JUDGE MATZ!!!

"PROBABLY" A "PRUDENT" THING IS YOU SHOULD READ THE RULE OF THE LAW, AGAIN. SEEING AS YOU AND YOUR "GANG AFFILIATED" PERSONS BELOW WROTE IT.

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

The court’s determination of competency is a factual, rather than legal, determination. United States v. Makovich, 209 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2000).

 

But Judge Matz knew that...he went to Harvard, Law School, they all did. The rule and the law is crystal-clear. They were all experts in the law, but not with computers. Matz must have missed that Harvard law class on the Sixth Amendment, too, cause he sure didn't follow it. And that's a fact! Instead he purposely "mixed" it up. Probably. Seems like a prudent thing to do in his situation. Promptly!

 

And now someone will die, or, at the least, be tortured and subjected to the same illegal punishment, or Matz and his buddies in the government, and public sector, can apologize for the violations, and do some more restoration! And that is a fact, too! In the perfect present tense.

 

I'm waiting...and watching, but until then,...I remain armed! See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!

 

"I want justice, and there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

 

IS POSSESION 9/10ths OF DA LAW?

YOU BETCHA!

“Facts are many, but the truth is one"

All societies judge some people mad: any strict clinical justification aside, it is part of the business of marking out the different, deviant, and perhaps dangerous.

 

Such ‘stigma’, according to the American sociologist Erving Goffman, is ‘the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance’.

 

Stigmatizing—the creation of spoiled identity—involves projecting onto an
individual or group judgements as to what is inferior, repugnant, or disgraceful.

 

It may thus translate disgust into the disgusting and fears into the fearful, first by singling out difference, next by calling it inferiority, and finally by blaming ‘victims’ for their otherness.

 

This demonizing process may be regarded as psychologically and anthropologically driven, arising out of deep-seated and perhaps unconscious needs to order the world by demarcating self from other, as in the
polarized distinctions we draw between Insiders and Outsiders, Black and White, Natives and Foreigners, Gay and Straight, Pure and Polluted, and so forth.

 

The construction of such ‘them-and-us’ oppositions reinforces our fragile sense of self-identity and self-worth through the pathologization of pariahs.

 

 

Setting the sick apart sustains the fantasy that we are whole. Disease diagnosis thus constitutes a powerful classificatory tool, and medicine contributes its fair share to the stigmatizing enterprise.

Amongst those scapegoated and anathematized by means of this cognitive apartheid, the ‘insane’ have, of course, been conspicuous. This polarizing of the sane and the crazy in turn spurred and legitimized the institutionalizing trend which gathered momentum from the seventeenth century.