SIDE BAR DISCUSSION
A. Competency Standard
The standard for determining competency is well established through United States
Supreme Court case law.
Federal courts have acknowledged that the Due Process Clause of
“[t]he Constitution forbids the trial of a defendant who lacks mental competency.” United States
v. DeShazer, 554 F.3d 1281, 1285 (10th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the United States Supreme
Court set forth a standard for determining competency in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402
(1960), which requires a defendant to have (1) a rational and factual understanding of the
proceedings and (2) the ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding. Id.
More recently, the Supreme Court has recognized that requiring a criminal
defendant to “be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993).
Federal Judge Matz doesn't care. But that is just my opinion. And my opinion is based on facts, not on fiction. And that's a fact. This is what fiction looks like. Or is it? Around here, anything is possible.
That is what happens when medical treatments and examinations are not conducted, when the government claims it is entrusted with it's care.
Think about that awhile before you go vote for your forced health-care.
You can't force people to care. Or to pay for someone else's care. They care or they don't care.
If you do force, it is just another form of slavery. Like a captive audience.
Don't Let Your Worries Get The Best Of You, Remember, Moses Started Out As A Basket Case!
FACTS:
Dr. Who never "treats" or even examines me.
FACT:
Nor does the Director of the facility ever send the Certificate, required by the law, when he sends me back to California, after finally learning about the secret hearing from me, directly in his office. More on that later.
FACT:
March of 2003 rolls around. Killercop arrives back for another hearing and informs everyone of the facts above at the next hearing. The judge, of course, covers this fact up and ignores the reality that Dr.Who didn't treat the accused, or even examine him, but in fact had made up the report, just like he had made up these other reports. "Doctored Reports:" 1 2 3
FACT:
Even the Warden from the Nut House chimes in on the issue, supporting my statements above.
FACT:
Matz covers this up and everyone else involved then forgot the oh so "vital" certificate required by the law. Well, more like ignored it. Another mistake? Or willful, knowingly and with specific intent to deprive human rights, under color of the law.
FACT:
It would be prudent to look further into the facts.
1. Standard. In order to find a defendant competent, a court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has sufficient present ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he has a
rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. U.S.,
362 U.S. 402 (1960).
This standard is stated slightly differently in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Under the current federal statute, a defendant is incompetent if the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that he or she “is presently suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to
understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist
properly in his defense.” See also, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 454
(1967); Indiana v. Edwards, ___ U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 2379 (2008).
In Cooper v. Oklahoma, 116 S 3 .Ct. 1373 (1996), the Supreme Court determined that it
would violate due process to require a defendant to prove incompetence by clear and convincing
evidence. The appropriate Constitutional standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence’.
The Department of Justice Manual 9-9.110 recommends that the
initial competency evaluation be done locally, citing In re Newchurch, 807 F.2d 404 (5th
Cir. 1986).
In Killercop's case he was sent to the opposite side of the United States of America.
Commitments after a judicial finding of incompetency.
A. Upon a judicial determination of reasonable cause to believe the
defendant is incompetent, the court may order a 30 day in-patient examination under 18
U.S.C. §4241(b) and 18 U.S.C. §4247(b). The court cannot begin with a four month
commitment under §4241(d) without this intermediary step. U.S. v. White, 887 F.2d 705,
710 (6th Cir. 1989).
The four month commitment requires a finding of incompetency.
b. Once a court has determined, after a [secret] hearing, that a defendant is
incompetent, 18 U.S.C. §4241(d) provides for a temporary commitment. The section
permits custody and treatment for up to four months.
A court cannot have a hearing, to make a "present" finding, if the accused is "presently" being treated.
Only in the land of K-Oz. Where anything is possible.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), which permits custodial treatment "for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1),
4241(d) IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT FOR AN EVALUATION. GET IT?
IT"S NOT "PRETTY CLEAR," IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.
ELENA AND DEBRA BOTH KNEW. IT IS FOR TREATMENT. PERIOD. EVEN IF MATZ PLAYED STUPID.
PLACED IN FILE. USED.
KEYWORDS: FRAUD
