25 thoughts on “GULKIN FOR REIDY”

  1. 6

    1

    Do a full inquiry on broward county case#: 18002120MM20A.

    I see that this case was never disposed despite the fact that the defendant never waived speedy trial which expired on February 13th, 2019 ( 90 days after he was placed in custody via summons on November 15th, 2018) and the defendant filed a notice of expiration on March 7th, 2019. This is Now 02/06/2020… How is this case still active? Even if a valid trial had occurred….

    What about the mandate for mistrials provided in Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (m)?

    See…(m) Effect of Mistrial: A person who is to be tried again shall be brought to trial within 90 days from the date of declaration of a mistrial by the trial court. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the prescribed time periods, the defendant shall be entitled to the appropriate remedy as set forth in subdivision (p).

    Also I thought that pursuant to Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (n) states that if a conviction or withheld adjudication has not been obtained during this period that the defendant is entitled to discharge.

    I also see that the defendant asked for a standby attorney prior to his trial at and on January 31st, 2019 (based on the record) and the judge denied the defendants request for standby attorney… only to later cause a mistrial by the defendant requesting during the trial for an attorney…

    … Isnt that bad faith conduct by Judge Diaz for “goading” a defendant into a mistrial by his own bad faith conduct?

    a judge should use caution in denying standby counsel, because a defendant may waive the right to self-representation if the defendant later abandons his or her initial request to proceed pro se. Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). The trial judge is not required to allow a nonlawyer to assist a pro se defendant in lieu of a licensed attorney. See Bauer v. State, 610 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

    Part of the job of standby counsel is to be ready to take over the defense of the case if the defendant withdraws a request to proceed pro se, or if the court terminates the defendant’s right to proceed pro se.

    Prepare as if you are going to take over the defense? – See United States v. Hagen, 468 F. App’ 373, 388-890 (4th Cir. 2012) (appointing as standby counsel attorney who had been representing defendant and ordering counsel “to continue preparing for trial as if he were trying the case” and to “assist defendant if and when and to the extent called upon by defendant”). r

    Based on that theory double jeopardy attaches to that mistrial.

    The Double Jeopardy Clause BARS RETRIALS in which there is bad faith conduct by the Judge or Prosecutor.

    See United States v. Jorn, supra, at 485 ( 91 S. ct., at 557) also See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S., at 611, 96 S.ct., at 1081.See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982)

    Also if he had a mistrial isn’t he entitled to a trial in 90 days pursuant to Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (m)

    Again due to bad faith conduct by the judge because whatever lawyer that got appointed to the case following a mistrial will only have 90 days to get acquainted with an extremely detailed case and clean up or fix anything a NON lawyer (such as a pro se defendant) may commonly mess up on. All of that could have been avoided originally when the defendant requested standby counsel at his arraignment on January 10th, 2019 and the record also reflects on January 31st, 2019.

    The judge could have foreseen this highly probable issue approaching but still denied the defendants request in “BAD FAITH”

    I got this from the defendants Motion to Discharge he filed on February 3rd, 2020:

    On January 31st, 2019 the record (Motion to Dismiss Hearing) reflects that the defendant previously requested a “Standby” Attorney.

    See transcripts Page 14 line 19-24. Judge Diaz on his OWN FAITH stated: “No, I don’t think that’s fair to the attorney.” … On Page 15 “line 1- 3” Judge Diaz further explains why stating verbatim: “Because they have a license. They have to protect and they can’t really represent you if they’re on standby.”

    I think this case is a very good case to review the blatant disregard for any laws, rules, statutes, etc by the judge…. Was it intentional to deceive the “pro se defendant” that is not how the law works? Deception is prohibited by the florida bar and is unethical.

    This case is very exhausting and confusing so it takes a lot of analytical skills just to catch the flaws… this case is just lingering on out of malice not justice. This is corruption.This defendant really doesn’t have a fair chance of getting his due process.

    Is this debatable on this blog for justice advocacy in broward?

    1. 2

      0

      That don’t mean shit–Rules? Laws? Rules of Crim P.? who y’all kidding? We all know this is Broward where the law and justice don’t dare to go.

      1. 1

        0

        Funny thing is…. if the rules are disregarded by the judges defendants will no longer need us attorneys. Defendants wont have a fighting chance. Deny all rules and motions. Good luck if the 4th DCA agrees

  2. 5

    1

    I was wondering if anyone did an inquiry?

    Do a full inquiry on Broward county case #: 18002120MM20A.

    I see that this case was never disposed despite the fact that the defendant never waived speedy trial which expired on February 13th, 2019 ( 90 days after he was placed in custody via summons on November 15th, 2018) and the defendant filed a notice of expiration on March 7th, 2019. This is Now 02/06/2020… How is this case still active? Even if a valid trial had occurred….

    What about the mandate for mistrials provided in Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (m)?

    See…(m) Effect of Mistrial: A person who is to be tried again shall be brought to trial within 90 days from the date of declaration of a mistrial by the trial court. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the prescribed time periods, the defendant shall be entitled to the appropriate remedy as set forth in subdivision (p).

    Also I thought that pursuant to Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (n) states that if a conviction or withheld adjudication has not been obtained during this period that the defendant is entitled to discharge.

    I also see that the defendant asked for a standby attorney prior to his trial at and on January 31st, 2019 (based on the record) and the judge denied the defendants request for standby attorney… only to later cause a mistrial by the defendant requesting during the trial for an attorney…

    … Isnt that bad faith conduct by Judge Diaz for “goading” a defendant into a mistrial by his own bad faith conduct?

    a judge should use caution in denying standby counsel, because a defendant may waive the right to self-representation if the defendant later abandons his or her initial request to proceed pro se. Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). The trial judge is not required to allow a nonlawyer to assist a pro se defendant in lieu of a licensed attorney. See Bauer v. State, 610 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

    Part of the job of standby counsel is to be ready to take over the defense of the case if the defendant withdraws a request to proceed pro se, or if the court terminates the defendant’s right to proceed pro se.

    Prepare as if you are going to take over the defense? – See United States v. Hagen, 468 F. App’ 373, 388-890 (4th Cir. 2012) (appointing as standby counsel attorney who had been representing defendant and ordering counsel “to continue preparing for trial as if he were trying the case” and to “assist defendant if and when and to the extent called upon by defendant”). r

    Based on that theory double jeopardy attaches to that mistrial.

    The Double Jeopardy Clause BARS RETRIALS in which there is bad faith conduct by the Judge or Prosecutor.

    See United States v. Jorn, supra, at 485 ( 91 S. ct., at 557) also See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S., at 611, 96 S.ct., at 1081.See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982)

    Also if he had a mistrial isn’t he entitled to a trial in 90 days pursuant to Fla.Crim.R.P 3.191 (m)

    Again due to bad faith conduct by the judge because whatever lawyer that got appointed to the case following a mistrial will only have 90 days to get acquainted with an extremely detailed case and clean up or fix anything a NON lawyer (such as a pro se defendant) may commonly mess up on. All of that could have been avoided originally when the defendant requested standby counsel at his arraignment on January 10th, 2019 and the record also reflects on January 31st, 2019.

    The judge could have foreseen this highly probable issue approaching but still denied the defendants request in “BAD FAITH”

    I got this from the defendants Motion to Discharge he filed on February 3rd, 2020:

    On January 31st, 2019 the record (Motion to Dismiss Hearing) reflects that the defendant previously requested a “Standby” Attorney.

    See transcripts Page 14 line 19-24. Judge Diaz on his OWN FAITH stated: “No, I don’t think that’s fair to the attorney.” … On Page 15 “line 1- 3” Judge Diaz further explains why stating verbatim: “Because they have a license. They have to protect and they can’t really represent you if they’re on standby.”

    I think this case is a very good case to review the blatant disregard for any laws, rules, statutes, etc by the judge…. Was it intentional to deceive the “pro se defendant” that is not how the law works? Deception is prohibited by the florida bar and is unethical.

    This case is very exhausting and confusing so it takes a lot of analytical skills just to catch the flaws… this case is just lingering on out of malice not justice. This is corruption.This defendant really doesn’t have a fair chance of getting his due process.

    Is this debatable on this blog for justice advocacy in broward?

  3. 11

    0

    1. File Amicus Ellipticus Genrus and keep fingers crossed.
    2. If denied, immediately appeal interlocutory Habeas Mondexius.
    3. Concurrently with appeal file with the Trial Court a Brief of Mandamus Binded&Collateral.
    4. Be prepared for retrial on following grounds: Estoppel Fluxus, Nunc Tunctitious, Tipperary.

    1. 2

      1

      Wasn’t the Tipperary doctrine called into question by SCOTUS in a Scalia authored opinion shortly before he was murdered by the lib tards and dumped onto that ranch?

      1. 1

        0

        Libtards? I thought he was murdered by a bunch of pedos funded by the Clinton Foundation who had infiltrated a Federalist Society camping trip by posing as Q loyalists?

  4. 5

    1

    When are they going to have a Gulkin award for judges?
    If this were to happen, Chief Judge Krisa Marx would win many.

    For Example:
    “Krischer and the lead state prosecutor on the case, Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek, began to dodge Recarey and Reiter’s phone calls and emails, and they dragged their feet on approving subpoenas, Reiter and Recarey said.
    Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer’s office convened a grand jury that indicted Epstein only for “soliciting prostitution”, much to the dismay of former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter.

    “Early on, it became clear that things had changed, from Krischer saying, ‘we’ll put this guy away for life,’ to ‘these are all the reasons why we aren’t going to prosecute this,’ ’’ Reiter said.

    Krischer, who is now retired and in private practice, did not respond to multiple requests from the Herald for comment. Belohlavek also did not respond to an email sent to her office.

    “It became apparent to me that some of our evidence was being leaked to Epstein’s lawyers, who began to question everything that we had in our probable cause affidavit,’’ Reiter said.

    And yet as a former Prosecutor, (working under, and being mentored, Chief Judge Krista Marx ruled against the victims of Barry Krischer’s office by protecting the powerful.
    CONFLICTED and CORRUPTED much?

    Chief Judge Krista Marx’s Ruling :
    A Florida judge on Tuesday blocked investigators from gaining access to sealed grand jury records pertaining to since-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Palm Beach County Chief Judge Krista Marx, a former Palm Beach County prosecutor, rejected the request made by special prosecutors from the State Attorney’s Office, who Governor Ron DeSantis (R) appointed to examine the initial …
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html

  5. 4

    0

    Satz, Harry, et all………who gives a shite.
    Rotten dinosaur BACDL crew wrecked havoc on the minority community by their willful acquiescence and blind obedience to the status quo.
    Most worked at the SAO and set up the model before cashing in their chips as PA’s.
    Self-congratulatory soup kitchen over their isolated big trials while the day to day for 50 years is a racist prison farm destroying lives.
    Imbeciles.

  6. 1

    0

    Call me a keepsake… Broward judges needed a massive moron to run things in the 17th. Then after all my work they thru me in the trash after comparing me to a dumpster fire.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.