JOE SCHMOE, aka JOE SHMOE
Pages 2184-2185
ELENA DUARTE:
"And I also ask, when you consider Killercop's intent,
which you will do, that you keep in mind the following:
When you consider whether Killercop knew what threats were and he intended
to threaten, that he has made a great deal out of the Joe Shmoe threat. You
remember Joe Shmoe? I'm going to personally "(INTENTIONALLY OMITTS
"Kick your ass,)... if you don't take my information down."
He made so much of that Joe Shmoe threat, which you
can see in Exhibit 76, and one of his as well"
"I think it is, that you heard evidence that on the
seized computer from his house, he had constructed part of a website. It wasn't posted [transmitted] yet. Our expert Mr. Siebert talked about it. And its hard
copy is Exhibit 76. And in that portion of the website that was under
construction but wasn't posted [transmitted] yet, [ ignore that fact because I'll
then have no power and then have no jurisdiction!] killercop had a whole category
called "Threats of the death." Do you remember that? And the
"threats portion linked t o the Joe Shmoe that, "I will kick your ass,"
and the death portion linked back to the threat against Tracy Hall.
"Threats of the death, death threats," no
reference to litigation, [THANKS JUDGE MATZ!] no reference to anything but pure threats, because he
knew what he was doing and he meant to do it. Thank you. I have nothing [further.
]"
Transcript of 12.04.2002
Docket #71 & 73
See CONTEXT
Lists “Hillary Potashner” on behalf of
the defendant, page 2.
Counsel appearing factually was “Bill”
Harris, Esq.
See also Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel or Waiver of Counsel
See also NATURE AND CAUSE AND DUE PROCESS
Page 4, Lines 18-20
Judge: “Killercop, one of Killercop’s e-mails
itself noted that the antagonism which lead to these inherently threatening exchanges was very personal.[1]
Page 4, Lines 23-25
“The text of the letters(sic), all of those, of the
communications, all of those in Counts 1 through 4 reflect ‘inherent[2]’ threats.”
[As opposed to ‘Fake,’ ‘False,’ and ‘Un-inherent’ threats, or any other such
subjective-adjective.]
Page 5, Lines 13-15
Judge: “So I reject the notion that this pure speech. It is conduct. It’s inherently threatening and there is no
basis … “
Page 5, Lines 21-22
Judge: “It’s conduct,
it’s clearly proscecutable and that’s the basis for my ruling.”
See U.S.
v. Cassel
and U.S. v Brice, 926 F.2d 925, 931 (9th Cir. 1991)
Response to Selective Prosecution Motion to Dismiss Based on Joe Schmoe E-Mail
Page 6, Lines 3-5
Judge: “[t]hat single E-Mail [Joe Schmoe]
which was a response to a provocative communication previously sent[3] is
not in any meaningful respect comparable or like the series of communications
that underlie and that constitute Counts 1 through 4.”
MATZ LINE OF THE DAY: Page 6, Lines 8-12
“The fact is that Killercop used not only entirely
different language but was in a situation, was perceived to be in a situation,
was none at the time of the indictment to be in a situation that there was no
information suggesting Schmoe, whoever that is, was in.”
Page 6, Lines 14-15
“The nature of the communications was
different.
Page 8, Line 12-25: THIS IS HARRIS SPEAKING, NOT THE COURT
Page 9, Line 1-9
“I agree whether its true or not is relevant. But I think
you’re failing to acknowledge that the Schmoe E-mail was a response to an
E-Mail or to posting at least, not an E-Mail but a posting on the web
site.”
Page 9, Lines 14-16
Judge: “But that’s not what Killercop was doing; these
were messages and communications directed at specific people as well as others who chose to log on to the evilgx.com
website.”
Page 10, Lines 1
“But this [[-Mail from Joe Schmoe] isn’t ‘substantially
similar.’”
Court then proceeds to change the subject from substantially
similar to “Did the democrats control the Justice Department in the
year 2002?” Lines 21-22, Ibid.
INTERUPTS COUNSEL @ Page 11, line 11
Closes mind to further argument. Lines 12-16, id.
Response
to Greenwood Count
Page 14, Lines 16-17
“These are constant and recurring First Amendment concerns.”[4]
Page 21, Lines 13-22
Judge: “It wouldn’t surprise me if the issues that Mr.
Sutcliffe chooses to emphasize at trial have to do with intent
and context.[5]
Well, they could be affected by contents, some
of these. If for example there was some evidence that on the next message he
posted he said just fooling[6] or
I thought that would get a rise out of you. And … [T]hat would be relevant
evidence. That would be Brady evidence, that would be exculpatory evidence.”