"So if this trial is going to be continued, one
of the things that I'll want to do is somehow withdraw that in a
manner that we can get Mr. Winnick again, if and when.
AMAZING ARROGANCE & CENSORSHIP GOING ON HERE.
From left: David Gergen, Adam Winnick, Gary Winnick, Karen Winnick, Alex Winnick and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and coming up in the rear of the picture, George Washington representing himself!!
The Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to compulsory process...Not!
"I want justice, and there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'
A MESSAGE FROM KILLERCOP: "GARY, ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO LOOK AT YOURSELF AND YOUR HOUSES? BY THE WAY, VERY NICE HOUSES!!"
"I want you to communicate to the lawyer or
to Mr. Winnick," or the Company Leadership, that Killercop is actively seeking to exercise his right to confront Gary, face to face, in 2012. And all the money in the world won't be able to protect him. Killercop will enforce, and protect, this right, at all costs.
Either Gary appears willingly, or by force. But either way he will answer to Killercop. The law requires it. As well as the "interests of justice."
And around here Killercop enforces the Rule of Law! Not the Law of Rule!
I also now know the difference 'tween a person, and the person of another.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witness against him."
The Clause serves to ensure "the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact." Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).
With good reason, then, we consider the right of confrontation "an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965).
Gary Winnick, the Global Crossing chairman, has
no such problems, yet. In California, he was renovating his $94 million palatial estate. You can't see much from the ground, but
an aerial view offers the full majesty of a home with 15 bedrooms and
17 bathrooms is overlooking the Bel Air Country Club.
Global Crossing Chairman Gary Winnick, once tabbed by Fortune magazine as, "The Emperor of Greed," cashed in $735 million in stock over four years while driving the company into bankruptcy, and he's but the tip of the iceberg.
All I got out of the deal was his CD-ROM.
From her.
Okayed by them and him.
Don't worry if you don't understand. It's complex. Unless you are legally incompetent. It's a different reality.
JANUARY 14, 2003
PUBLIC DEFENDER WILLIAM HARRIS: All right. Well, we assert that it is.
As far, Your Honor, as far, just ask the court to consider one
thing. As far as the political ramifications of this, we have
posited the possibility what if Schmoe was Winnick or some other
high ranking official of Global Crossing tied in closely to the
upper reaches of the Democratic party.
What if there's no way I can find that out because
he's hiding behind a pseudonym. Some of the grammar I'll admit
doesn't sound like and educated guy in the upper hierarchy but I
don't know that. It could be.
And if it was and there was a
lack of prosecution on this record I think we have made out our
burden. If discovery shows that Schmoe was Winnick for example,
I mean the decision, it would be political dynamite to prosecute
Winnick in this case.
In addition to the strategic problems of
having what that would do to this case. It's clear to me that a
decision to prosecute --"
JUDGE MATZ: "I've got Gary Winnick under
subpoena. I'd like to tell Mr. Winnick he doesn't have to
appear. That took a lot of hoops to get the CEO under subpoena. Killercop wanted that."
PUBLIC DEFENDER BILL HARRIS: "So if this trial is going to be continued, one
of the things that I'll want to do is somehow withdraw that in a
manner that we can get Mr. Winnick again, if and when.
JUDGE MATZ: I can arrange that. He's not listed as a
witness for the government. There are 24 people.
MR. HARRIS: Is he on the government's list?
JUDGE MATZ: No. I'm telling you that he's not, not the
list I was just handed today. Now I want to know what happened
with respect to these stipulations.
MR. HARRIS: Killercop wouldn't cooperate and
basically told me he didn't want to sign anything.
Killercop: Objection!
MS. DUARTE: Question, Your Honor.
JUDGE MATZ: There's one other thing, before you ask
your question, before I forget. There is a subpoena that
apparently has been served on Gary Winnick. I notice that Gary
Winnick is not identified on the government's witness list. And
I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the government has the
ability to communicate with Mr. Winnick or with his lawyer; is
that correct?
DUARTE: I have that ability, Your Honor.
JUDGE MATZ: I want you to communicate to the lawyer or
to Mr. Winnick or to both, that although he doesn't have to respond to the subpoena on the date or under the terms that it
may have contained, he remains responsible to respond on
whatever date he is later notified. In effect, what I'm saying is that the subpoena,
although it was issued and served through the auspices of Mr. Harris, it's like a court subpoena.
I don't want anybody to
have to go through any protracted or new ground of efforts to
subpoena him anew. So the subpoena remains outstanding, although the trial
date has been continued. Please communicate that to Mr. Winnick
and his lawyer.
DUARTE: I will, Your Honor.
"Crawford required for testimonial statements,'under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial,'” id., at 52,
AUGUST 27, 2003
THE COURT: You are declined. You set forth -- it's
not permitted, and you've made your motion, and it's been
granted with the qualifications that I already said. Mr. Nicolaysen no longer is your attorney. Before I get to the question of the earlier
transcript, did you want to be heard, Ms. Duarte?
Forget the fact that Gary's not listed as a
witness for the U.S. government, and that Greg is no longer attorney of record, or has any authority to speak...Deep breath!!
A criminal defendant's constitutional rights may be
violated when "witnesses are made unavailable through the
suggestion, procurement, or negligence of the government." United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 608 F.2d 1240, 1243
(9th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
For instance, "[u]ndue prosecutorial interference in a
defense witness's decision to testify arises when the prosecution
intimidates or harasses the witness to discourage the witness
from testifying." Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567,
601 (9th Cir. 2004).
DUARTE: I'm sorry, Your Honor, yes, very briefly.
I just had a procedural point while Mr. Nicolaysen 'was' still up here. In terms of the subpoenas, early on in the
case, when Mr. Harris was representing Killercop, the court
had ordered me to ensure that Mr. Gary Winnick, who had been
subpoenaed by Killercop, was made available.
Breath!!
Mr. Nicolaysen
"had" indicated to me that that availability was no longer
necessary or required. Breath!!
So I have indicated that to
Mr. Winnick's attorney, and he is not under "my subpoena" anymore. I just wanted to make that clear because that was
kind of left hanging, and I don't think there's any written
communication that would be in the file between myself and
Mr. Nicolaysen on that point. Breath!!
THE COURT: Thank you for clarifying.
POOF! MY SUBPOENA, WHICH WAS "LIKE A SUBPOEANA" BECAME HER SUBPOENA.
GARY IS THEN UNSUBPOENAED BY MATZ ON NO AUTHORITY BUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
1. BY AN ATTORNEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE.
2. ON THE BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR, NOW "SPEAKING FOR THE ATTORNEY" WHO IS LEGALLY ALREADY "REMOVED FROM THE CASE," AND THEREFORE HAS NO VOICE.
