Can the American experiment in freedom continue without a foundation predicated on the notion that each CITIZEN possesses a life that is their own? I conclude that without the political recognition of unalienable rights it cannot be assured that the political system will recognize that your life belongs to you.

AND NOW THE CASE OF THE POWERFULLY-STUPID QUOTE. A.K.A. Fn. 11.

"What he put out there got up loaded, isn't that right?" U.S. v Sutcliffe, 666 F3d. 666 667 (2007)

As with our analysis of the objective test, we do not confine
our examination of subjective intent to the defendant's statements alone. Relying on United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007), the Government points to the two facts that we discussed in our analysis of objective understanding as evidence that Bagdasarian intended to make a threat: (1) that he was later found to possess a .50 caliber gun like the one he mentioned in the "Obama fk the niggar" posting, and (2) that the Election Day email referred to the use of "a 50 cal on a nigga car." Neither fact is sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Bagdasarian intended to make a threat when, two weeks before Election Day, he posted the two
statements for which he was indicted.

In Sutcliffe, we affirmed a conviction under another threat
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which, in addition to the knowing transmission of an interstate threat, requires specific intent to threaten. 505 F.3d at 952, 960-61; see also United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988).

We held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Government to present evidence of the defendant's gun possession to demon-strate that he actually intended to threaten violence. Id. at 959. The fact of the defendant's gun possession was not determinative of the defendant's intent, however it served to mislead and scare and inflame the jury good, but was just one among many pieces of evidence relevant to the language and context of the threats that we considered in determining that
the defendant had the requisite specific intent to threaten. And because the attorney forced on him was a really bad liar.

Most important in Sutcliffe were the first-person and highly
specific character of messages such as "I will kill you," "I'm
now armed," and "You think seeing [your license plate number
posted on my website] is bad . . . trust us when we say [it]
can get much, much, worse. . . .

[I]f you call this house again
. . . , I will personally send you back to the hell from where
you came." Id. at 951-52 (first omission and second alteration
in original).

[I]f

For the moment we will IGNORE the law in Watts, where however, the Supreme Court examined the defendant's statement under the objective standard and concluded that the statement at issue would not
be perceived as a threat because the statement was "expressly conditional," rather than immediate. Id. Fn. 6

THE MOST-IMPORTANT???

IS THAT LIKE THE MOST-COMPLEX???

I THINK THIS WAS MOST LIKELY IMPORTANT, TOO, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STANDARD PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, DON'T YOU?

YOU COULD SAY VITAL.

JUST LOOK AT THE SECRET FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE ARE A TON OF THEM!

$PECIAL REWARD$ FOR THE$E COP$

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. 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...but it is baffled.

I'm all a Twitter waiting to see your reaction, to my reaction, to your Treatment and the promised Restoration. You'll just die when you see what I have in store for everyone involved in the story in 2012. At least that's my intent! 'Till then...

Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!!

It's "another person" and "the person of another.

STILL BAFFFLED?

Read the plan, promptly!! A man's life, freedom and liberty are at stake!!! And it's probably a prudent thing to do, but don't speak about it!

In fact, don't even think about it, especially the cowards and the easily frightened children!

THE END.

HOW HARMLESS WAS IT?

THEY LIED TO YOU AMERICA AND NOW, JUST AS IT WAS THEN, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

 

BUT THAT WON'T CHANGE THIS FACT. OR THIS FACT. OR EVEN THIS FACT.

 

HOW YA SLEEPING, AMERICA?

'In fashioning a harmless constitutional error rule, we must recognize that harmless error rules can work very unfair and mischievous results when, for example, highly important and persuasive evidence, or argument, though legally forbidden, finds its way into a trial in which the question of guilt or innocence is a close one. What harmless error rules all aim at is a rule that will save the good in harmless error practices while avoiding the bad, so far as possible.

The federal rule emphasizes "substantial rights," as do most others. Iit emphasizes an intention not to treat as harmless those constitutional errors that "affect substantial rights" of a party.

United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Stewart for the proposition that "our . . . case law" is "contradictory" as to whether "an objective, rather than subjective, test [should be applied] to determine whether [the defendant's] statements constituted true threats[,]" but holding that "any error in the 'true threats' [jury] instruction was harmless" because "the district court instructed the jury that specific intent to threaten is an essential element of a § 875(c) conviction, and thus the jury necessarily found that Defendant had the subjective intent to threaten in convicting him of the offense").

 

While you digest that big old bowl of crap they are feeding you, help yourself to another bowl of it here. They can't claim I didn't try to warn them...because I did. Kozinski, Matz and Duarte were just too arrogant to listen to the facts and the law. And now the tyrants can't deny the revenge thing.

 

01.17.2003 TRIAL JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ FORCES AN PUBLIC PRETENDER ATTORNEY, Gregory Nicolaysen ON THE ACCUSED.

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Elena J. Duarte FILES MOTION TO EVALUATE COMPETENCY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 4241(a)(b)&(c). SHE DID NOT CITE (4241(d)) THIS CLEARLY SHOWS SHE IDENTIFIED THE CORRECT LAW TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. HOWEVER THE MOTION WAS "PLACED IN FILE AND NOT USED" BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CORRECT DUE PROCESS TO "EVALUATE UNDER 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) (b)&(c)."

THEY CONDUCT ONE ANYWAY. SO I CONDUCT MY OWN.

ON 3.14.2003 AFTER AN EVALUATION FOUND THE ACCUSED FULLY COMPETENT AS THE DAY IS LONG THEY CONDUCT A SECRET HEARING. BUT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE ME REMOVED INTO THE "WITNESS" ROOM, AND KEPT THERE BLIND, DEAF AND DUMB.

THEN AFTER THE SECRET HEARING THEY SEND ME OFF FOR MENTAL "TREATMENT" BEFORE ANOTHER "EVALUATION" IS EVEN DISCUSSED. THIS TIME THEY INVOKE 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), FOR "TREATMENT." IGNORING THE LAW THEY KNOW FOR A FACT THAT 18 U.S.C. 4241(a)(b)&(c) COMES BEFORE (d).

WHICH IS PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORRECT LAW THEY ARE AWARE OF FOR AN EVALUATION.

ALL THAT IS LEFT IS TO PAT THEMSELVES ON THE BACK FOR HOW SMART THEY WERE. UNTIL THIS ARRIVES IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

BUT THEY ARE NOT WORRIED, BECAUSE JUDGE MATZ, AND THE PROSECUTOR ARE GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE WIZARD UP NORTH WHO IGNORES THE LAWS, TOO. SO THEY CONDUCT ANOTHER SECRET HEARING ON 4.07.2003, TO PLAY STUPID.

Listen carefully and you will hear the sound of one hand clapping. While the other one is jerking off.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SMELL THAT?? SMELLS LIKE CORRUPTION TO ME.

AND THIS SMELLS LIKE GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP LET ME TAKE ANOTHER SNIFF. YUP>>>ROTTEN FROM THE HEAD TO THE TAIL.

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 marijuana 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 and submission. 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! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.

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.

EVEN THE BRITISH ARE LAUGHING AT YA!!

COWARDS!

The Trial of Judge A. Howard Matz.

By Psych Ward Entertainment.

Sign my Guestbook

Contact | Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.

Impressum