IT was always about the jurisdiction. Think about IT.

SAY WHAT?

09.26.2003

"HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED,

BUT NOT ALL" ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz, from 09.26.2003 Case# 02-350(A) AHM, Page 61, Line 24

HE MEANT NONE.

$PECIAL REWARD$ FOR THESE COP$

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA

A QUESTION FOR AMERICA:

Is "pretty good" pretty much like "pretty clear?" Because I'm "pretty sure" it is not.

I know, it's complex. (.pdf)

But then again, I'm officially nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzzzzz in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law, and the certificate required by the law. But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet?

"Did you know that threats are not inherently protected under the Constitution. If "coupled with violence" and the other elements, they can be proscribed, and they definitely can be the basis for a criminal prosecution."

I am going for a walk now, into the nature. Care to join me? You are entitled to come along only 'cause I say so, but you have no right. And it seems that's the end of IT. So just shut it down!

 

Sent by Regular Mail and E-mail:
sbaepark@yahoo.com

Law Office of Sung B. Park, Esq.
17620 Sherman Way, Suite 211
Van Nuys, California 91406

12.28.2005

Mr. Sung Park, Esq.,

            This letter shall serve to memorialize our last conversation today in your office.  You informed me that in your attempt to obtain the 66 separate pre-trial motions, government’s replies, and various minute orders, etc., which we sat down and identified, at your office on December 5th, 2005, you have noticed that the defense’s Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction, which was “PLACED IN FILE – NOT USED, is now missing, along with another document “PLACED IN FILE – NOT USED.”  You have informed me that you were unable locate these two documents and could give no explanation as to who took them from the file, when, or why.  Furthermore, for the record I am requesting you file something to the Court to notify them of the missing Motions.  Clearly the judge ruled on the Motion. 

See Transcript of 11.07.2003 Page 72, Lines 1-14
Defendant: First off, let’s talk about the jurisdictional challenge. When will that be heard on? I assume prior to trial beginning.”
Judge: “The jurisdictional motion has been denied. ”
Defendant: “You denied it?”
Judge: “I denied it .”
Defendant: “Based on what law, authority?”
Judge: “The motion lacks merit, Mr. Sutcliffe. I already told you. If the government establishes that the facilities of interstate commerce were used, the jurisdictional element has been established and your rights have been protected. Now I’m not going to go over that ground again.”

I am sure you will agree I can not receive a meaningful and through review of a ruled upon Motion if the Motion is now been taken [obstructed] from the official file.  This must be what Judge Matz was referring to when he said on 09.23.2003, Page 75, Lines 3-8

Judge: “You can arrange for all subpoenas. I want the jury instructions that were previously agreed to, to make sure you make those available to Mr. Reed and I need a diskette, because I lost the one or we can’t find the one. There seems to be a goblin surrounding this case…

This was not the only thing to go missing in the night in this case. There was also other "missing" CD-ROMS," not that the judge cared one bit. And the Certificate. From the secret hearing. And the experts and all their files and reports.

Maybe the goblin took them?         

Contact | © Copyright 1998-2010 Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.