TO THE ATTORNEY’S, AMICUS CURIAE OR ADVOCATES THAT MIGHT BE WILLING TO HELP ME.

THIS IS THE NUTSHELL.

 

The clearest issue here is the violation of due process under the US constitution and the Florida State constitution and a whole gamut of clear error and injustice, there is precedence on my main legal point it is called a “ Pate Claim” based on Pate v/s Robinson 383 US 375. This claim is a issue of competence that is further poisoned by the fruit of denial of the adversarial process of American jurisprudence in “what ever sauce  is good for the goose is good for the gander” then carried trough the system under the guise of correctness of the tribunals with the added jeopardy to the defendant of denial of professional counsel or proper access to law library and or unencumbered law resources while incarcerated.

 

The next supporting precedence is found under James v/s Singletary  957 F2d 1562 ( 11th Circ C.A. ) both of this cases have roots on the issue of competence and the establishing of the same trough or by the initial “bona fide doubt”.

 

In my case bona fide doubt may be found when the Hon. Judge F Kaney issued an order for competence evaluation and appointment of experts under Florida State statutes FSS-3.210 (a) and or FSS-3.211.

 

In reality as far as I can see it the whole issue can be settled within the first few pages of my memorandum of law and the referenced affidavits or cases which you may read by clicking here now and reading pages Viii – iX (handwritten).

 

I could go on and on as I have done in my pleadings but as this is a NUTSHELL argument I do not expect you to have a nutshell mind and that you be a little familiar with the basic legal issues that encompass this case.

 

Below I include some more breakdowns and points that you might want to consider:

 

  1. FSS-3.210 and FSS-3.211 this statutes are the basis of bona fide doubt and once such is issued the matter must be resolved trough the adversarial process prior to making of any deals or judgment otherwise a “pate claim occurs” as it did in my case.

 

  1. Fowler V/s State 255 So 2d 513. Is the precedent establishing the legal principle that once you start this route you must finish the process other arguments are found in similar cases but it boils down to the fact that a person whom is not “suis juris” can not make a deal, plea or have any one make such pleas for him / her until the court trough a written order states incompetency and appoints some one to be the legal representative of that person.

 

  1. Eddings v/s Oklahoma 455 US 104. Is my basis for claiming that once the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence into the record as to “competence” then the negation of the opportunity of  the defense to introduce evidence to the contrary is a miscarriage of or manifest justice along with many other names of just not fair and not by any means to be permitted in a court of law of the US of …F.. A.

 

  1. In support to the fact that “competency” and “adversarial” process were not followed I have the record that speaks for itself and that can be found on the transcript of May 10th 2K01 on the hearing held by The Hon Judge M. Waller by her words and that of the Prosecuting Attorney: please see the following:

 

(a) Trial transcript 8-23-2K00 ( TR-page 16 - but Page 31 of “the Record to 5th DCA ) My attorney alerts the court (bona fide doubt and adversarial need).

 

(b) Pages 21 and 28 of the Transcript of may 10th 2K01 or pages 124 -125 of the record (to 5th DCA) here the Judge admits not knowing the reference mentioned nor does it stop to check it out yet still “ the previous Judge was right attitude” where’s “pate” specifically says a colloquie is not enough.!! Emphasis on page 125 line 13.. I do not know.

 

(c) Pages 11 and 12 of the Transcript May 10th 2K01 or Record pages 112 -113 Mr Davis the prosecutor and the court in this pages is the essence of the “pate claim” acknowledged yet not recognized!!.. is this not amazing or what. Could it be called Negligent a conspiracy.. you give it a name please.! Now see Nedd v/s Wainright 449 So 2d 982. Since no state competency has been held and the defendant was adjudicated guilty without such hearing then the issue is not whether the record supports a finding of competency rather the inquiry of the habeas is whether the State denied the Defendant his right to to due process by ignoring the evidence indicating that the Defendant might not be competent.

 

 

THERE ARE MORE ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE THAT REALLY MATTER AND POSE WONDERFULL CHALLENGES TO STABLISH LAWS AND PROCEDURES HOWEVER THIS IS OR SHOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO WIN THE CASE WHEN PROPERLY PRESENTED ON A COURT OF LAW.

 

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION.?      E-MAIL ME………………………………….>

 GO BACK TO NOANGLE.NET                                                                                           

 

. Fund Raiser for The Reaper's Edge.

POW/MIA decals

Project POW's & MIA's Interstate will send a free POW/ MIA decal to anyone who sends a self-addressed self-stamped legal size envelope to 4210 Pow's /Mia's Memorial Drive, St Cloud. Fla. 34772-8142

*****.......... <Please note>.......**** Cpl Pro may be contacted at powmiast@noangle.net or you can go back to the main page at http://noangle.net.

Sorry but due to high demand and due to financial restraint's the pow/mia decal's are not longer being given out I regret any inconvenience this might of caused you and all letter's that have been received are kept safely once the money flow's again I will begin to send them out again and will once again advertise so nation wide as before.

Disclaimer Policy for The Reapers Edge " A POW & Mia Screamed ECHO in Cyberspace includes all No angle sites.