Lol. You cited case where the courts found he had not been deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
And that has exactly WHAT? to do with this?
The outcome of that case - a completely different one - has absolutely noting to do with the fact that the tests cited are completely applicable, and have clearly *NOT* been satisfied here.
The accused have an excellent cause to bring suit on Sixth Amendment grounds as well as violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Your objection based on the merits of the case that generated these standards is an argument worthy of the likes of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It has been plainly shown that Case Law and Precedent are on the side of the accused here.
You are grasping at straws in a manner which suggests a Statist mentality.