Annoyed...Naaaaaaa

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 nutzzz, until certified un-nutzzz in a court of the law. But I'm no expert. Anyone see ours, yet? Me and the voices are still talking and hearing the truth.

Nor am I a computer scientist. Is it further to New York, or by bus?

I am going for a walk now, into the Nature. Care to join me?

$PECIAL REWARD$ 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? He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. And that's a fact!

Monday, October 15, 2007

US v. killercop.com, Case No. 04-50189 (10.11.07) (9th Circuit)

The defendant was let go by this company, and then SSNs started appearing on websites.

He was eventually charged, the right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of the accusation, denied assistance of counsel, and then denied experts for the defense in what the judge called a "complex computer case"(.pdf). He was then convicted on interstate threats and transferring SSN numbers to facilitate a criminal activity. On appeal he raised numerous issues. the most interesting is the trial court's "implicit finding" that he waived counsel.

He went through five appointed lawyers. The court, exasperated, held that his actions were akin to his wanting self-representation, and the court so ordered.

The 9th affirmed. The 9th held that the defendant's actions toward and relationship with appointed counsel made it clear that the district court did not err in finding self-representation. This finding was carried over to the defendant's argument that he should have had appointed counsel for sentencing. The 9th held that stand by counsel acted in the defendant's interests.

This issue differs from trial representation, and once a conviction occurred, it could be argued that counsel was needed, especially with guidelines. The 9th however affirmed. Lastly, there was no Ameline error, because the 9th held that the illegal sentence imposed by Judge Matz would have been the same.(PDF)

(This strikes one as being annoyed with appellant.) And a double standard!

Nor do I believe the illegal sentence imposed by Judge Matz would have been the same. But I don't want to talk of such matters!!

ORIGINAL COPY:

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