 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused 'shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' ..." See Also Rule 43.
FIRST INDICTMENT OF KILLERCOP THE SECRETS OF NATURE
APRIL 9, 2002 JUDGE: “It's simply a question of whether you understand the nature of what the document says.” KILLERCOP: “I do not recognize the nature of this charge. I understand the cause - -“ JUDGE: “Okay. KILLERCOP: “-because I can read, But --.” JUDGE: “-I think that's the same thing. I understand the distinction you're drawing. And for my purposes –“ ACCUSED: “Thank you.” JUDGE: “I'm satisfied that you understand the cause there.” LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA [But not the Nature, required by the law for jurisdiction.]
He never made that finding... And the law says and requires it! One of the most “Universally recognized” requirement[s] “of due process” is the right of the defendant to be informed of the true "nature" of the charge against him.” Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645 (1976) The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that every person accused "shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," and the same rule is binding upon persons brought to trial in the state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, state constitutional clauses customarily provide that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused 'shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' ..."
The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-74 (1948), guarantees a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him. In order to determine whether a defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice, the court looks first to the information. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333 (1994). "The principal purpose of the information is to provide the defendant with a description of the charges against him in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense." Id.
As Justice Scalia noted, paraphrasing the felicitous expression of Justice Holmes seventy years earlier, due process requires the government to "turn square corners." Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 396 (1989)(Scalia, J., dissenting). Society is obliged to prosecute those who break its rules, but society may not break its own rules in the prosecution process.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declared, "[t]he Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged." United States v. Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. 2310, 2320 (1995); see also Sullivan v. Louisiana, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2080 (1993); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).
While the jury is the arbiter of the facts, the judge is the arbiter of the law: "the judge must be permitted to instruct the jury on the law and to insist that the jury follow his instructions." Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. at 2315 (citing Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 105-06 (1895)). However, the jury has a constitutional responsibility "not merely to determine the facts, but to apply the law to those facts and draw the ultimate conclusion of guilt or innocence." Id. at 2316. MUMBO JUMBO: EAT FROM THE TREE OF THE FIJA!
This page, and the rulings in this case, are sponsered by Global Double Crossing, A.K.A. Global Crossing, Inc. "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 |
One of the most “Universally recognized” requirement[s] “of due process” is the right of the defendant to be informed of the true "nature" of the charge against him.” Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645 (1976) FIRST SUPERCEEDING INDICTMENT OF KILLERCOP THE SECRETS OF NATURE
JANUARY 17, 2003 The following took place on 01.17.2003. Just weeks away from the up and coming "cruel and unusual punishment of a mental "treatment" and "restoration" conducted on the prisoner,...BEFORE ANY MENTAL EXAMINATION. READ THAT AGAIN, SLOWLY.
CLERK: “Killercop, how do you plead to Count 1 of the First Superseding Indictment, guilty or not guilty?”
Killercop: “I cannot make a plea at this time until I know the nature of this crime, as that, ...the nature has...,changed in the past. So if this court could answer a question or two I might be able to make a plea at this point. Will this court answer a question or two so I can ascertain the nature of the crime so I can prepare a proper defense?”
Judge Matz: “No! The court will "construe" the response to be a plea of not guilty. The plea is applicable to each of nine counts of the First Superseding Indictment. So Killercop will be deemed to have plead not guilty to the charges in the First Superseding Indictment. That concludes the arraignment on the charges.” Killercop: “Let the record reflect the court is proceeding in a - - secret - jurisdiction. I demand my right to be informed of the...“ Judge Matz: “Sit down at the table!!” Killercop: “Nature of this crime.” Judge Matz: “Sit down. This is not going to be a debate.” Killercop: “You changed the nature once. You going to change it again?” “How can I prepare a defense here, if you won't even tell me the nature of the crime?" Judge Matz: “The first order of busine$$ - - “ Killercop: “They told me the nature was something once. Now they have changed the nature after almost a year??” Killercop: "Are they going to change it again? How many - -" Judge Matz: “Now I am ordering you to be quiet. The first order of business is to complete the competency examination. I have received the motion and will grant the motion, although I'm going to change slightly the language in the proposed order that the government has lodged with the court and filed. And Mr. Nicolaysen, …although there won't be a need for you to do anything more then assist with the representation much(sic) Killercop for purposes of that competency-- examination.”
Much later he would call it a "novel" Internet nature." He's such a computer wizard. They all are, see? They use theory's and opinions to make their Hocus Pocus. FOR THE RECORD: Matz never did "complete the competency examination." Or follow Due Process. And it took seven months, rotting without a trial, or due process, to "be informed of the nature..." How novel and nobel of Howard Matz and Debra Yang to finally spill the beans. But why the big secret? It took them several more, very long months until the trial-in-name-only. HOW IS YOUR CONFIDENCE, AMERICA?
DON'T BOTHER TO ANSWER. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD YOUR PRESENCE IS NOT REQUIRED AT THE SECRET HEARING. NOR IS ANY JURISDICTION REQUIRED.
We here have our own opinion of Lord Matz of the Lower District and the big Nature Secret. CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO SEE JUDGE MATZ POINT OF VIEW ON MY RIGHT TO COMPEL WITNESSES. THEN SEE HOW JUDGE MATZ BREAKS THE LAW, BY CHANGING THE WORDS OF THE LAW, TO FIT THE GOVERNMENT'S LIE, TO COMPLETE THE MAGICAL, MYSTICAL: "RING OF THE SECRET."
IT'S LIKE MAGIC! REALLY BAD MAGIC ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE SUBSTANTIAL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
The question is whether, in light of the suppressed evidence, the defendant “received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” (quotation and citation omitted, (Just like your right to counsel!) 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
