Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre.

 

 

"There's a pathology that society has to deal with. There are people who want to display their prowess in Internet technology -- but they screw up ... [big time."] ~Judge A. Howard Matz

FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

"The jury is the sole judge of facts, evidence and the law." ~Nancy Grace


LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O’Connel v. R. ,1884): Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case.

Judge Matz was very, very careful to not use the words of the law [No, person of another, and [transmit]] was ever mentioned to the jury.

"The district court must formulate jury instructions so that they fairly and adequately cover the issues presented, correctly state the law, and are not misleading." Abromson v. American Pac. Corp., 114 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Mockler v. Multnomah County, 140 F.3d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 1998).

Judge A. Howard Matz

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of transmission in interstate commerce. United States v. Oxendine, 531 F.2d 957 (1976)

And Judge Howard Matz knew, at this point of the trial, that the government had produced no proof of an element of the crime to establish jurisdiction of a transmission across a state line (interstate), rendering the case a state Tenth Amendment issue.

His only choice was to dismiss the case before it even went to a jury. The law required it. But hey, the law required them to not commit fraud, but who's following the law anymore, not these guys! Or this guy.

"[Killercop] is accused of transmitting a threat in interstate or foreign commerce."

Title 18: 875(c), as presently drafted, applies to pure speech; it imposes a criminal penalty of up to 5 years of imprisonment, plus a fine, for the mere utterance or writing of what is, or may be perceived as, a true statement of fact—without anything more. 875(c) is so broadly drafted, the government is not required to prove anything before the district court.

A WISE GUY

Neither the government or I dispute that the Act "seek[s] to regulate 'only . . . words.' " Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973) (quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 (1972)).

875(c) therefore concerns me because of its potential for setting a precedent whereby the government may proscribe speech solely because it is called true, While lies go free.

This rule the government would urge you to apply in order to uphold 875(c) would, if left unchecked, significantly enlarge the scope of existing categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. All previous circumstances in which speech has been found proscribable involve not just speech, but additional elements that serve to narrow what speech may be punished, like time and place and manner.

Indeed, 875(c) is unconstitutional in that it's nature is selective, in that only the government can say if it is true. Like saying you are a witch. You are then left to prove otherwise.

The sad fact is, governments become corrupted, and power over speech is the most dangerous to give any branch. Which is why it was forbidden and placed off bounds under the very First Amendmet under the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps, in context, many of these threats are within the local government's legitimate reach. But the Federal government cannot decide that some speech or "any" type of speech may not be said, without a reviewing court's undertaking a thoughtful analysis of the constitutional concerns raised by such government interference with speech.

Finding no appropriate way to avoid the First Amendment question I pose, I hold that the speech proscribed by 875(c) is not sufficiently confined to fit among any categories of speech previously held to be beyond the First Amendment's protective sweep.

I apply strict scrutiny review to 875(c), and hold it unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored enough to achieving a compelling Federal governmental interest, and it is vague and overbroad, and because No means No.

For First Amendment purposes, a "true threat" must be subjectively
threatening
, or made with the specific intent to threaten. United States v. Cassel, 408 F.3d 622, 631 (9th Cir. 2005). Only some threat statutes require that the purported threat additionally be objectively threatening. United States v.
Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2011).

 

BEAN LADEN

$PECIAL REWARD$ 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

The Trial of Judge A.Howard Matz

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.

TORTURED COVER UP

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...

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

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!

CROOKED COPS ON THE RUN

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

THE END.

MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL CASES)

Threats.

Interstate Transmission Of Threat to Injure. 18 USC § 875(c)

SOURCE: JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY’S 2008 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS


Interstate Transmission Of Threat Injure 18 USC § 875(c)

Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c) makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to knowingly and willfully transmit in interstate commerce or foreign commerce a threat to... injure someone. The Defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the Defendant sent or transmitted in [interstate] [foreign] commerce a communication containing a true threat [to injure the person of another]

SOURCE: ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL CASES) 2003


Interstate Transmission Of Threat.

Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with transmitting a threat ... In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce a communication containing any threat...

A WISE GUY

"We must be mindful of the "precise" language Congress used to describe the illegal conduct." ~Ninth Circuit District Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw

A verbis legis non est recedendum.

Gee, did Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions mean any communication?

Nope.

"Any" only means "any" when anyone in the government says it means any. 'Cause words don't matter any more.

Notice they didn't say anything above about using a facility, or instrumentality of Interstate commerce. So it must be only in Interstate commerce, not about effecting. Which is tons more then plain ol' Intrastate. Too bad the government has neither. Looks like they will have to pull out the "infer" and/or "thus" card, from the botom of the deck. Especially since the law doen't apply to "any threat" as they thus and infer, but specifically to "the person of another," to prevent any person(s) from hearing the threat against the related person from that person, like a baby. It doesn't protect the willing listener from a threat against their own person. Unless the person is a captive, making the threat imminent. And Intranet in the nature.

The jury instruction at issue in this appeal was Misleading, "Inadequately guided the jury's deliberation," and
"improperly intruded on the Fact finding process."

Whether an objective or subjective test is used to determine if a communication constitutes a true threat is not settled law in the Ninth Circuit, see United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961-62 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing conflict in Ninth Circuit case law); United States v. Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2005) (same), although other circuits apply an objective test, see United States v. Davila, 461 F.3d 298, 304-05 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Koski, 424 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Fuller, 387 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir.2004); United States v. Zavrel, 384 F.3d 130, 136 (3d Cir.2004).

My crime charged was a "specific intent" crime. However, during my trial the instruction given to the jury was: "if a reasonable person would foresee that the statement [made by the defendant] would be interpreted by [the recipient] as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm …"

mark_labaton

"In Roy we confronted the question of whether 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871 required a showing of specific intent to threaten. Section 871, which makes it unlawful inter alia to "knowingly and willfully" threaten the President of the United States, is a companion section to Secs. 875(c) and 876. After scrutinizing the possible purposes underlying Sec. 871, we concluded that no actual intent to threaten must be shown. We held that culpability could be established by showing that "a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by [the recipient] as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the President...." Roy, 416 F.2d at 877. We can imagine no clearer description of an objective, general intent showing."

We review de novo whether a district court's jury instructions omitted or misstated an
element
of the charged offense. United States v. Stapleton, 293 F.3d 1111, 1114
(9th Cir. 2002).

 

 

Beating of Kelly Thomas

Beating of Leone

BAD COPS

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.

Bookmark and Share

Sign my Guestbook

Contact | Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.

Impressum