 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad." -1984
The district court lacked authority to hold an evidentiary hearing under Section 4241 to address past competency because Section 4241 concerns only present competency.
"If there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may "presently" be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent" ~18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)."
The court shall [THEN] hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. "Due Process of law is the right of the Citizen affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
Nicolaysen: “May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make any "Factual findings" in regard to the "reasonable cause standard" under the statute since there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?”
THIS IS THE SAME JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF YOUR CHILDREN, AMERICA. In the settlement of In re Katie A., accepted by U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz, the county of Los Angeles, California agreed to "try" to provide decent mental-health services to children in their own homes whenever possible. County workers had allegedly identified children needing mental-health services and removed them from their families, often placing them in foster care or group homes where they faced physical and mental abuse — and still never got mental-health services. An advisory board will oversee the settlement. But many advocates were left unsatisfied, including the attorney whose 2001 state-court suit paved the way for the later class action. Sanford Jossen noted that no deadlines have been given. He said advisory-board members would be paid thousands of dollars for their work, "but the kids get nothing." Don't feel so bad, Sanford Jossen , I got nothing either. No certificate required by the law, no defense experts (plural) and no due process or assistance of counsel while being subjected to cruel and unusual punshment.
"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 DIRTY SECRETS AND MENTAL TORTURE TREATMENTS TO RESTORE YOUR MIND. (c) 1995-2026 |
FACTUAL FINDINGS UNDER THE LAW. A.K.A. IGNORE THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! AN UNLAWFUL STAR CHAMBER, BY A TYRANT! COME, FEEL THE AGONY!!!
"Thank you so much. Your honor, government counsel tracks my thinking as well. I want to assure the court. We agonized over this. We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday. Spoke again on Saturday anticipating that your honor may very well want some feedback on this very point, so we're not trying to put words into the court's mouth by asking you to make a finding [of a fact] that you didn't make; however --"
HAVING REVIEWED THAT, WE ACTUALLY ARE OF THE
OPINION -- AND I'LL TAKE AS MUCH RESPONSIBILITY AS I NEED TO FOR
THIS -- THAT THE ORDER THAT WAS SUBMIITED AND SIGNED ON MARCH
"The reason I didn't want to make that finding and declined to make that finding was primarily because I didn't want to inflame him...not because I had any doubts about applying the applicable standards to what I perceived to be his 'then' condition.” ~JUDGE HOWARD MATZ THE CASE OF "THEN" IS PAST
"If there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may "presently" be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent" ~18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)."
The court shall [NOW] hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. MY "THEN" CONDITION? ARE YOU BAFFLED AGAIN? IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS BAD THEN, YOU OUGHT TO SEE IT NOW! NOW AS IN "PRESENTLY." IT IS VITAL THAT YOU DO! AND MAKE IT PROMPLY! 'CAUSE SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO DIE. JUST ASK GARY WINNICK. IT'S A PRUDENT THING TO DO. OH, THAT'S RIGHT, WE CAN'T, 'CAUSE ALL THREE OF YOU UNLAWFULLY RELEASED HIM. WELL, THEN TELL HIM TO KEEP HIS DOGS AT BAY, AGAIN. AND THAT GOES DOUBLE FOR THE FEDERAL DOGS! BUNCH OF FRAUDS! YOU WANT TO GET INTO MY MIND? YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST CALLED ME OR EMAILED ME. BUT FORCING YOURSELF, DEMANDING I TALK TO YOU, OR NOT TALK TO YOU, IS UNLAWFUL. I DECIDE WHEN TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK. NOT YOU, US OR THEM. IT IS CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, EVER HEARD OF IT. NO? HOWEVER, YOU MADE IT THIS FAR SO YOU CAN TAKE A PEEK INSIDE. WELCOME TO THE MATZRIX. 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™ EMAIL SALES @ KILLERCOP.COM (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
