 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
HERE WE GO AGAIN, EITHER WAY, WITHOUT READING A THING! A.K.A. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. A.K.A. GRAND JURY MISCONDUCT. "So they had it from several sources that that "was" the requirement."
"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
"Okay. I haven't read the transcript, but I can tell you that the motion lacks merit." It's Frivolus! -judge Matz to Killercop
THE COURT: Grand jury misconduct? KILLERCOP: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: What's your theory? KILLERCOP: Grand jury misconduct and/or
outrageous Government misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct,
however you want to phrase it, Government misconduct. THE COURT: What's your theory for that? KILLERCOP: My theory, Your Honor, is that the first year I was incarcerated, everybody was proceeding under a general intent crime. The Government finally superseded the indictment when the defense raised up that this was not a general intent crime, this was a specific intent crime. The Government, on that theory, then, went back to the grand jury and was supposed to apprise them that this was no longer a general intent , but a specific intent crime. I have read the transcript of the hearing of the superseding indictment, and it failed to note any mention of anyone informing the grand jury that this was all of a sudden a specific intent crime. Therefore -- I believe that the Fifth Amendment requires that defendant be convicted only on a charge considered by the grand jury. And I would cite U.S. versus Dubo -- that's spelled D-u-b-o -- 186 F. 3d, 1177, 1179, which is a Ninth Circuit case in 1999 holding that indictments failure to specify mens rea require dismissal, the requirement insuring that defendant is prosecuted, quote, "on the basis of the facts presented to the grand jury." And I would cite U.S. versus Rosi, R-o-s-i, 27 F. 3d, 409, at page 414, which is, again, a Ninth Circuit. I don't believe the grand jury was ever told that this was a specific intent crime. At least I didn't see it in the transcript.
The superseding
indictment contains, as part of its language, the necessary
allegation -- whether it can be proven or not, we'll see -- of mens rea, which addresses that case you talked about. Do you want to be heard about the rest of what
Killercop said? ELENA DUARTE: We oppose the motion, Your Honor. As to the rest of what he said -- I'm sorry. Regarding?
THE COURT: His theory that you had a duty to specifically say something about -- MS. DUARTE: I don't have the transcript in front of me, but I don't recognize and am not aware of the legal duty he's talking about. Generally I read the statute and the elements to the grand jury. I then present the indictment. So they had it from several sources that that was the requirement. THE COURT: I have considered and I reject that motion, as well, both motions, Killercop.
LOOKS LIKE I AM THE ONLY ONE READING THE LAW, AGAIN, FOLKS!
WELL THEN, SINCE NONE OF THE PLAYA'S ARE READING THE TRANSCRIPTS, OR THE LAW, OR FOLLOWING IT, LET'S SKIP 1. AND JUMP RIGHT TO THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE. Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
