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

At one end of the scale were active sites "where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet" and "enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and
repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet,
" which support jurisdiction. Id. At the other end were passive sites "where a defendant has simply posted information on an
Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions," and which do not support jurisdiction.

logic

A challenge to his conviction and sentence "satisfies the case-or controversy requirement, because the incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 7 (1998).

"Take a strong stand and uphold the true heart of your agreement with honesty and no playing with the words. Monitor your agreement and keep an open mind for the right solution to all situations. Don't give too much because your jurisdiction is precious." Give too much and you will lose it one way by showing that your incompetent or the other way that your not cooperating. There is two sides, walk in the middle." ~~Twila WhiteBear

NO JURISDICTION BUT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.

Judge A. Howard Matz

"This has already been addressed and acknowledged -- not acknowledged, but addressed and dealt with. Title 18 of the United States Code permits the government to proceed on this basis. There is absolutely no issue about the Court's jurisdiction. And I don't think I need any argument on that point, Killercop." Judge A. Howard Matz

Shhhhhhhh

The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 330.

In any proceeding, the moving party has the burden of proof of demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters and parties before it. 

  • Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
  • Security Trust Co. v. Black River National Bank, 187 U.S. 211 (2002)
  • McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)
  • Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization Et. Al., 307 U.S. 496 (59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939)
  • United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 98 S.Ct. 36454 L.Ed. 2d 376 (1977)
  • Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization Et. Al., 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed. 2d 508 (1979)
  • Cannon v. University Chicago Et. Al., 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979)
  • Patsy v. Board Regents State Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982)
  • Merrill Lynch v. Curran Et Al., 456 U.S. 353, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 72 L.Ed.2d 182, 50 U.S.L.W. 4457 (1982)
  • Insurance Corporation Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492, 50 U.S.L.W. 4553 (1982)
  • Matt T. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company America, 128 L.Ed.2d 391, 62 U.S.L.W. 4313 (1994)
  • AND FOR THE RECORD, "'CAUSE I SAY SO" IS NEITHER JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY.

    YOU CAN CATCH A DEAD FISH WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTIONAL HOOK.

    A "jurisdictional hook" is a "'provision in a federal statute that requires the government to establish specific facts justifying the exercise of federal jurisdiction in connection with any individual application of the statute.'" United States v. McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 1999)), overruled on other grounds by Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), as recognized in United States v. McCalla, 545 F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 2008).

    Similarly, in United States v. Killercop, we held that an identical jurisdictional hook in 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) was satisfied where Killercop electronically sent threats and social security numbers to internet servers located across state lines." 505 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2007). In that case, the government presented evidence that the defendant's website, which contained the threats, was uploaded to various servers located in multiple states.

    THE BIG KOZINSKI

    The claim is brought pursuant to R.S. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

    'Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.'

    challenge

  • If the defendant challenges the truth of the factual assertions, the court will consider evidence outside the pleading and impose on the plaintiff the burden of demonstrating the facts asserted to warrant federal jurisdiction.  Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1018 (2005).  See 2 J. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice - Civil section 12-30 (2010).   

    THE ALIEN-CITIZEN PARADOX AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF U.S. COLONIALISM

    Prez

     

    "Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. Except...

    The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.

    They are not voidable, but simply void, (PDF) and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. [and perverts with bad judgement.] " Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)


    Uncle Tom Says

    "Covered jurisdictions are not now engaged in a systematic campaign to deny black citizens access to the ballot through intimidation and violence." ~Justice Clarence Thomas

    U.S. V LOPEZ

    My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century.

    The three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power are: a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; b) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and c) Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

    HELD:
    We have said that Congress may regulate not only "Commerce . . . among the several states," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a "substantial effect" on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a "police power" over all aspects of American life. Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula. Although we have supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power.

    The substantial effects test has eviscerated any notion of federalism. Without boundaries ..., we give the federal government a blank check to regulate anything under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

    Even before Gibbons, Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), noted that Congress had "no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States," id., at 426, and that it was "clear that congress cannot punish felonies generally," id., at 428.

    Uncle Tom Says

    The analysis suggests that we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, especially in the Sutcliffe Opinion.

    Unless the dissenting Justices are willing to repudiate our long held understanding of the limited nature of federal power, I would think that they too must be willing to reconsider the substantial effects test in a future case. If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government, our Commerce Clause's boundaries simply cannot be "defined" as being " `commensurate with the national needs' " or self consciously intended to let the Federal Government " `defend itself against economic forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive of the national economy.' " See post, at 12-13 )Breyer, J., dissenting) (quoting North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U.S. 686, 705 (1946)). Such a formulation of federal power is no test at all: it is a blank check.

    Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 ("[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659)"). Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U. S., at 37, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.

    Now turn to consider the power of the Government, in the light of this framework, to enact §1028(A) or defend it's use in this case. The first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of: §1028(A) is not a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can §1028(A) be justified as a regulation by which Congress has sought to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce. One can not even show any proof of a transmission through any channel or even an instrumentality of interstate commerce, such as a phone, or modem or log file.


A WISE GUY

Here’s a hypo: assume a defendant hires a Las Vegas killer to murder the defendant’s wife in Reno, but the defendant never knows how the hitman plans to travel. If the hitman drives straight north on I-95 through Death Valley (staying in Nevada), the defendant is guilty, if at all, of some state offense only.

If the hitman gets a cheap Southwest flight from Vegas to San Francisco, though, and then drives a rental car to Reno – then the defendant has committed a federal crime. The defendant must induce the hitman to travel to murder, and (whether known to the defendant or not) the murderer must travel interstate, to satisfy the federal statute.

The was the law, and had always been the law...until our case.

After our case, things went back to normal. once again the government has the burden to establish and had to prove travel across state lines, to assume power.

But not in out case, Why? Ask the Wizard Of Koz.


Tuesday, May 12, 2009

U.S. v. Alderman, No. 07-30186 (5-12-09). The 9th holds that the sale of body armor in interstate commerce creates a sufficient nexus between possessing the body armor and commerce to allow for congressional commerce clause authority. The majority (McKeown joined by B. Fletcher) feel that they have to follow the Supremes precedent in Scarborough v. U.S., 31 US 563 (1977) (firearm that travels interstate provides nexus) and 9th Circuit precedent in U.S. v. Cortes, 299 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2002). The majority acknowledges the tension in the changing commerce clause jurisprudence, citing Morrison and Lopez. However, the statute closely tracks the one in Scarborough, and that the requirement that the body armor is sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce is sufficient. Dissenting, Paez argues that precedent does not control post-Lopez, because the connection to interstate commerce for possession by a felon is too attenuated. Section 931 requires no showing by the government that body armor involved a commercial transaction, substantially affected interstate travel, a crime, or possession of a firearm. There must be some connection, otherwise, as Paez argues here, mere intrastate possession of body armor by a felon not part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme and not connected to crime that affects interstate commerce, provides an insufficient commerce clause basis. The deficiency requires reversal.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Case o' The Week: Like Nigel's "Up to 11" -- Alderman and the "Fourth Category" Of Commerce Clause Power

Congress criminalized the possession of body armor by "violent felons." See 18 USC § 931. Within which of Supreme Court's three categories of federal Commerce Clause power does this statute fall?

Trick question -- turns out that the body armor statute is authorized by that that elusive "fourth" category of Commerce Clause power, explains the Ninth in a disappointing decision (sparking a powerful Paez dissent). United States v. Alderman, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 1298056 (May 12, 2009), decision available here.


See ABA Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law, Report, (1998) (reprinted in 11 Fed. Senten. Rptr. 194 (1999)) (“The Task Force concluded that the evidence demonstrated a recent dramatic increase in the number and variety of federal crimes. Although it may be impossible to determine exactly how many federal crimes could be prosecuted today, it is clear that of all federal crimes enacted since 1865, over forty percent have been created since 1970 . . . . [M]uch of the recent increase in federal criminal legislation significantly overlaps crimes traditionally prosecuted by the states.”).

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.

A Jurisdictional Challenge, Filed, Before The Trial, And Ignored By Lord Matz

 

Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism " 'Secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,' " New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181.

 

A FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Jurisdiction. Ignore the man behind the curtain!

 

SEE ALSO: Pre-Pre-Trial, Pre-Trial, and Trial.

In the video below you can listen to Sung Park, from the Federal Public Pretenders Office, forced on Killercop by the Ninth Circuit, for one purpose, to help grab the jurisdiction of the Internet in the Ninth Circuit, inter alia. There was no proof killercop "transmitted" any pages at all. Yet Sung Park falsely confessed Killercop was guilty.

 

Why? >>>>>>>BIG HINT!

 

Why did California District judge Matz disgrace the robe by changing the entire meaning of a law? Maybe he didn't get enough of a pound of flesh from the "treatment" he "subject"[ed] killercop to earlier? Maybe Matz and his buddy, the Wizard of Koz, were too busy trading porn. Time for restoration!!!

 

Sounds like a frivolus waste of the time.

 

 

NO VIDEO ABOVE? CLICK HERE.

Sutcliffe Opinion

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them.

All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously perform our duty." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821)


Another Jurisdiction Challenge Ignored

By Lord Matz Who is wrong, again.


 

Jurisdiction ignored by the appeal attorney, one of many whom the court forced on Killercop.

 

Why would the Ninth Circuit allow such blatant conflict of interest to stand on a first appeal? Ask the judge. He knows, as do the other players. So will you, if you connect the dots. It was always about the jurisdiction, and that's the end of it.


In a similar case to Killercop's, a guy named Marks filed several pretrial motions in which he moved to dismiss the case against him for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motions without a hearing, just as above.

 

Here is why the courts [judges] ignored the [jurisdiction] challenge in the above cases, spanning a period of at least twenty years that we now know of, in America.

 

The MARKS court said:

"Marks argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the prosecution and lacked personal jurisdiction over him because the government failed to meet its burden of establishing jurisdiction once Marks challenged it."

 

Just as in the case above:

 

"Marks also argue[d] that the district court committed reversible error because it summarily denied Marks’ challenges to the court’s jurisdiction without holding a hearing."

I AM BLINDED BY THE BURDEN

A DISCUSSION OF A BURDEN:

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction. See Daimler Chrysler v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000). That means the government actors.

 

I AM BLINDED BY THE BURDEN

OKAY, SO LETS SEE SOME BURDEN, SHALL WE?

 

"We review de novo a district court’s assumption of jurisdiction. United States v. Bennett, 147 F.3d 912, 913 (9th Cir. 1998); see United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo[.]”).

 

I AM BLINDED BY THE BURDENWOW, A "REVIEW DE NOVO," THAT HARDLY SEEMS A BURDEN, YET.

 

"We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to hold a hearing on a motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 424 F.3d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005) (motion to suppress); United States v. Bussel, 414 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005) (motion for a new trial); United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (motion to substitute counsel); United States v. Lazarevich, 147 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 1998) (motion to dismiss indictment)."

 

I AM BLINDED BY THE BURDENAGAIN, THAT HARDLY SEEMS A BURDEN, YET. LOTS OF REVIEWING, BUT NOT MUCH BURDEN.

 

HERE IS HOW THE COURT IN THE MARKS CASE MET IT"S "BURDEN":

 

JURISDICTION BY "VIRTUE"

[t]he district court had personal jurisdiction
over Marks "by virtue" of Marks’ having been brought before it on a federal indictment charging a violation of federal law. See United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 659-70 (1992)); see also United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1991)

 

(“It is well settled that a district court has personal jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how his appearance was obtained.”); United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n.8
(9th Cir. 1980) (same).[12] Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing on Marks’ motions contesting the court’s jurisdiction. Marks’ jurisdictional challenges were frivolous.

IMAGINE THAT:

No means No

YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET ANY BURDEN OR HOLD ANY HEARING, AND YOU GET TO DISMISS IT WITHOUT ANSWERING THE CHALLENGE, BY NOT MEETING IT OR RECOGNIZING IT.

 

HARDLY SEEM LIKE MUCH OF A BURDEN TO ME. OR DUE PROCESS TO REDRESS ONE'S GRIEVANCES. BUT I'M NO EXPERT.

ANYONE KNOW ANY?


LOGIC FOLLOWS THAT ONCE YOU ARE IN THEIR POSSESSION AS THEIR PROPERTY AND SLAVE, YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE THE LAW(S) BEING IMPOSED AND BEING USED TO SUBJECT YOU TO SLAVERY.

 

ARMED WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, AMERICA, YOU NOW KNOW THAT THE ONLY DUE PROCESS THE LAW ALLOWS TO CHALLENGE THEIR (NOT YOUR) JURISDICTION, IS AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?


We live in oppressive times. We have, as a nation, become our own thought police; but instead of calling the process by which we limit our expression of dissent and wonder "censorship," we call it "concern for commercial viability."

U.S. v. Lopez (MP3)

LOPEZ IN ENGLISH

THE BOTTOM LINE:

TOTAL DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS MEANS WAR.

UNLESS I CHANGE THE MEANING.

Due Process is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system for jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. Due Process derives from early English Common Law. The first concrete expression of the Due Process idea embraced by Anglo-American law appeared in the 39th Article of Magna Carta 1215. (Encyc. Brit.)

The Rule of Law is the supremacy of law and embodies three concepts: the absolute predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary authority over the citizen; the equal subjection of all (including officials) to the ordinary courts; and the fact that the citizen's personal freedoms are formulated and protected by the ordinary law. (Oxford Ref. Dictionary of Law).

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768). "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination." (Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910). "Where there is an absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." (Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 382; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471).

 

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