THE STORY CHANGES, ONCE AGAIN, FROM "TRANSMIT" TO "PUT BY VIRTUE?" A.K.A. The Case Of A reasonable, objective, person test. a part of the New World Oder. Ummm, hell smells good to goblins!

 

 

"I don't see any aiding and abetting allegation in the indictment on the first four counts... What I really should have asked is, what's the authority...?" ~JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ

 

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:

"I don't see any aiding and abetting allegation in the indictment on the first four counts...

 

It's a straightforward charge of willfully transmitting the threats.
Why do we need and what would be the basis for including an aiding and abetting instruction as to that?"

 

MS. DUARTE: "Your Honor, I usually include aiding and abetting even if it's not in the indictment. In this case, I believe the reason would be if, for some reason, someone on the jury would think that the defendant himself didn't actually transmit the threats, but they were transmitted by virtue of their being on the Internet, passing from computer to computer,
host to host, in and of itself the fact that he didn't transmit them physically, but actually, by putting them on there [un-physically??], making them available and all that, aided and abetted the actual transmission, that would kind of catch that argument."

 

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:"I knew that's what you were going to say.

 

What I really should have asked is, what's the authority for including the instruction? I think there is a right that you have as an advocate for your client. That's something I remember from past practice. But what is the
basis, legally? Can you cite me any authority for including an aiding and abetting instruction even though the indictment doesn't specifically allege aiding and abetting?"

MS. DUARTE: "Not off the top of my head. I know that there are cases that say that aiding and abetting of Section 2 is a component of every indictment whether or not it's
explicitly there."

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: "I think you are right, but here is what I'm going to direct you to do. I'm not going to delete it right now because I think it's a correct way to proceed, and there hasn't even been an objection by the defendant.

 

However, call up to your office and have them prepare a bench memo or a trial memo, a two-sentence memo, that can be filed, so at least the record will be complete, setting forth
whatever authority has been recognized or used to incorporate
that kind of aiding and abetting allegation, even in the absence of a specific reference in the indictment.

I'm confident it's there because I remember from decades ago that it used to be "commonly" done, but I want to make sure, in fairness to the defendant.

 

In any event, instruction 23C, currently on page 26 of the set that I've circulated to the parties this morning, is a correct statement of what a true threat is..., namely, the reasonable objective person test. Would you like to be heard, Killercop?"

KILLERCOP: "Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, I think what we have here is -- the issue is that the Court and other parties are trying to define what is "true." And I'm sure Your Honor is wise enough to know that that's like trying to define common. There is nothing so
uncommon as common sense.

The issue here is a "threat," not what's "true." That's for the jury to decide.
The case law, which goes back for almost a hundred years, nobody has been able to define -- the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never defined a "threat.'' This is the standing case law for the Ninth Circuit, Your Honor: The Kelner case, the Roy -- this is what the instruction --"

 

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: Kelner is Second Circuit. I've looked at these cases. They are old cases and they are not cases that define "threat in the careful manner, in the more recent manner, than the Ninth Circuit did in 1999. But I can't understand -- I want to make sure I do understand. If you look at 23C in the set that I've circulated, what is your real objection? Are you simply
proposing that the word "true" be deleted, on line 3 and on line 4?

 

KILLERCOP: No. I object to the whole thing. It's full of adjectives, Your Honor. It's very confusing.
It's like the word "common." It's a reasonable person, true threat?
It goes to -- it doesn't really define who gets to define what the threat is.

 

It says, "A statement is a true threat where a reasonable person would foresee that the "listener," so that's the speaker test?; is that correct? It's not the listener test?

 

Because I know that some circuits define it as to what the "reasonable listener would interpret and the other circuits have the "reasonable speaker" [test]. Once we start splitting hairs , using adjectives, as I tried to demonstrate with Agent Cugno, when he first took the stand, you get lost on a tangent. You lose sight of the fact as to what is a threat.

 

I mean, you could say, is it a cute threat? A funny threat? A false threat? A happy threat? I mean, it never ends.

 

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: You will be entitled, Killercop, when you deliver your closing argument, to argue these things. You can, if you find it helpful to yourself, have this list, or checklist, available to you to go down. And as long as you do it linked to the evidence or to reasonable inferences from the evidence, you can argue all of these points because 23C, as I've proposed it, would entitle you to do that, because the jury will be instructed to consider the threats in light of their entire context. So if you want to ask them to consider any of these -- or all of these seven factors, you'll be entitled to do so. But you are not entitled to have an instruction that singles those out to the exclusion of others.

 

UPDATE: 2010, IT WAS THE "OBJECTIVE REASONABLE PERSON LISTENER TEST. WHICH IS A "GENERAL INTENT" CRIME, NOT A "SPECIFIC INTENT" CRIME. YET KILLERCOP WAS CHARGED WITH 875(C), WHO'S NATURE IS A SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME.

 

 

MEET THE ARRESTING AGENT.

"SPECIAL" AGENT JEFF

 

MEET THE JUDGE, ALVIN "SPECIAL CASES" MATZ

 

MEET THE PROSECUTOR, "SPECIAL" DEBBIE WONG YANG

 

MEET DEB'S ASSISTANT, "SPECIAL" ELENA.

 

THE REST OF THE GANG IS HERE. ISN'T THAT SPECIAL?

 

WELL, EVERYONE EXCEPT THIS GUY, AND HIS CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY THE LAW.

$PECIAL REWARD$ FOR THESE COP$

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA

"what would be the capacity of law enforcement and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM

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 (.pdf) un-nutzzzzzz, in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law. It sure is not speedy...

I'm no expert. Anyone seen an expert yet?(.pdf) Maybe the Goblin ate him!! He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. But tell him to hurry, 'cause I am about to get legally crazy again, on account of it. But it's a secret.

Here is the rule of law: Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins. And that's a fact! Why? CauseIsaySo!! You are not entitled to anymore information, 'cause ya got no right to it. Git it? I bet you will soon enough. I'm all a Twitter waiting to see your reaction, to my reaction, to your Treatment. You'll just die when you see what I have in store for everyone in 2010.

Now move along folks, nothing more to see. Make like a Quack and disappear like Dr. Who.

DID JUDGE MATZ REALLY BREAK THE LAW?

 

The Case Of "Does Elmer Fudd Have Trouble With The Letter R?" A.K.A. "This Director Is Really Starting To Bug Me" A.K.A. "What's the authority...?"

 

WAZ UP, DOC?

 

They both counted on their buddies to make cover stories in the obstruction. They all knew "In and of itself the fact that Killercop didn't transmit them, ..."

 

An indictment “must be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c)(1). “An indictment is sufficient
if it (1) contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against him which he must defend and (2) enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

“Generally, an indictment is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the charged offense so as to ensure the right of the defendant not to be placed in double jeopardy and to be informed of the offense charged.” United States v. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

WELL I'LL INFER HE COULD'A BOUNCED BACK! BUT MAYBE NOT, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE TREATMENT THAT MY GOOD BUDDYS SUBJECTED HIM TO FOR PROTECTING HIS FUNDA-MENTAL RIGHTS!

 

OR KOZINSKI COULD BE LYING LIKE HIS BUDDIES YANG AND MATZ!

 

The court will "construe" the response to be a plea of not guilty. The plea is applicable to each of nine counts of the First Superseding Indictment. So Killercop will be deemed to have plead not guilty to the charges in the First Superseding Indictment. That concludes the arraignment on the charges.”

There seems to be much confusion surrounding the terms ATTORNEY and LAWYER. So be careful...

Not just careful, but "real" careful.

SAY WHAT?

11.08.2004 (Pgs 8-9)

MATZ: "I think you need to be real careful in how you use some of these terms."

Killercop thinks Judge Matz needs to be really careful about how he illegally hands out some of his terms, as in illegal prison terms. You're gonna get some prison guard killed doing that to an innocent man or woman. Or do you call them persons? Let's ask an expert what's in your mind. Oooooopppps, nobody there. Let's check the Vital Signs. Still nothing! Call an expert!! (.pdf) Call two, or three, or more!

 

Contempt Of Cop

Washingtonpost.com - 'Contempt of Cop' Continued from Page 5 New D.C. police recruits were keenly aware of what they saw as deficiencies...

Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate - Blacks are booked by Seattle police for obstructing a public officer eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account, a Seattle P-I investigation of six years...

Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...

Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...

Expert Officer displayed 'contempt of cop' reaction Internal Affairs

Contempt Of Cop II

CAMERA IS THE NEW SPEAK FOR GUN IN THE WILD, WILD WEST! - It's more about 'contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law.

Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.

Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuanna provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.

How To Survive Traffic Stops in America Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey!

My radio interview with Katherine Albrecht - Carlos Miller Photography is Not a Crime is interviewed by Katherine Albrecht, activist, radio host and privacy advocate, Tuesday afternoon where they discussed his blog, his arrests, the situation in the United Kingdom and the spread of contempt of cop cases that are popping up on the internet on a regular basis.

The Trial of Judge A. Howard Matz.

Contact | Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.

Impressum