Move along, folks... Nothing to be found here.

"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

c

Home | A Secret | A Mistake

A Cover Up | Jurisdiction | Woe

A Ring | Just 'cause | A Raid

| Corruption | Witch Hunt | Email | Videos | Fascists | A Rape

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! c c c
c

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

A GANG AFFILIATED PERSON

YO, YO, YO, FEDERAL JUDGE, A. HOWARD MATZ IS A KNOWN MOB ASSOCIATE, A.K.A. "A GANG AFFILIATED PERSON" OF NO INTEREST."


"If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall

"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 Alvin Howard Matz

 

"This kind of conduct is actually far more devastating than Assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz

Remember Kids, Stay Away From Uncle Pervy Kozinski! And Yale!

We are moooooooooooved by such gibberish!

 

And since, under the so called law of the law, I am legaly still incompetent, without the "vital" certificate required by the law, I moooooove that Alvin Howard Matz correct the laws he broke.

 

The Supreme Court has, on occasion,
described incompetency in terms of a right not to be tried. E.g., Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (“A criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent.”); Drope, 420 U.S. at 171 (holding that an incompetent defendant “may not be subjected to a trial”); id. at 172 (describing “a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent”).


"If law was always clear, we wouldn't have judges."

Wiseguy

Psssst, you forgot to mention Attorneys And Perverts!


Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "You wrote that the law is always in a, quote, necessary state of flux, close quote. You wrote that the law judges declare is not, quote, a definitive — capital L — Law that many would like to think exists, close quote, and, quote, that the public fails to appreciate the importance of indefiniteness in the law. Can you explain those statements? And why do you think indefiniteness is so important to the law?"

Sotomayor

Sotomayor: "It's not that it's important to the law as much as it is that it's what legal cases are about. People bring cases to courts because they believe that precedents don't clearly answer the fact situation that they're presenting in their individual case. ... If law was always clear, we wouldn't have judges.

It's because there is indefiniteness not in what the law is, but its application to new facts that people sometimes feel it's unpredictable."

A judge is not the court. And speech is not conduct or behavior.

BOTTOM LINE:

INDEFINITESS IN THE LAW ALLOWS THE APPLICATION OF NO TO MEAN YES. AND A VERY CLEAR LAW TO BECOME "PRETTY CLEAR." OR WORSE, AN "EXAMINATION" TO BECOME A "TREATMENT."

UNDERSTAND?

THAT'S OKAY IF YOU DON'T, BECAUSE IT'S COMPLEX.

NOT!

IF YOU CAN'T BULL SHIT THE PEOPLE WITH THE "INDEFINITESS" THEN GET YOUR GOOD BUDDIES IN HIGHER POSITIONS OF POWER TO TAKE THE APPEAL, AND COVER UP YOUR "INDEFINITESS."

 

The shell game goes on INDEFINITLY..

Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional law scholar and dean of the UC Irvine School of Law

“She did a wonderful job of following a script that gives such a misleading and inaccurate impression of what Supreme Court justices really do. She said many times that judges apply the law, they don’t make the law. Every first-year law student learns that judges make the law. Everything the Supreme Court does makes law, by definition. "

It is known as practicing law from the bench, and that is a crime in itself.

$PECIAL REWARD$ 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?

"Did you know that threats are not inherently protected under the Constitution. If "coupled with violence" and the other elements, they can be proscribed, and they definitely can be the basis for a criminal prosecution."

I am going for a walk now, into the nature. Care to join me? You are entitled to come along only 'cause I say so, but you have no right. And it seems that's the end of IT. So just shut it down!

 

 

COVER UP OF HATE CRIMES AND CENSORSHIP

 

"THE LAW IS 'PRETTY CLEAR,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT." ~~Judge Alvin Howard Matz, 09.26.2003 CASE FILE: US v KILLERCOP.COM

Matz concentrated his energies on attacking and harming the Davis’ under the color of law.

 

EMAIL JUDGE MATZ

think

“What the government did was go ‘fire, aim, ready,’ ” he said. “They arrested killercop, then they started their investigation.”

 

Matz is also known by his buddies as "a[n]
un reasonable factfinder."


"THE LAW IS 'PRETTY CLEAR,'AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT."

"THE LAW IS 'PRETTY CLEAR,'AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT."

"THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR,'AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT."

"THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT."

 

 

An accused has a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges in order to permit adequate preparation of a defense. ...U.S. Const. amend. VI.

 

"Matz concentrated his energies on attacking and harming the Davis’ under the color of law."

Fact

Prior to this, Matz had concentrated his energies on attacking this website personally, and obstructing justice in a complex computer case, with the "nature" of the crime charged, a "novel internet theory," by the prosecution.

Knowing this, he gave an incompetent and indigent defendant the dumbest of the dumb, for a defense. If you call that a defense. I don't. I am "pretty" definite about that fact.


indefiniteness in the law

The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science.” ~Charles Macklin

 

Guns: Sotomayor was one of three judges who upheld a New York state law banning possession of "chuka sticks," a martial arts weapon, against a challenge that contended the law was a violation of the Second Amendment. At issue was whether last year's Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual's constitutional right to own guns for self-defense should apply to state laws. The appeals panel said last year's case left that question unanswered and that it was bound by an 1886 Supreme Court ruling. The judges said they would leave "to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overturning its own decisions."

Anti-terrorism laws: Sotomayor joined an appeals court ruling that struck down parts of the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act that prohibited Internet service providers from telling customers when the government asks for private information about them. But she also dismissed complaints of Citizens about random searches, instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, aimed at stopping terrorists on a ferry over 300 miles north of New York City.

 

"We ought to be able to travel within our country without being subject to being searched."

Steven Says

Such raw, naked power shows that these judges are not to be considered mere "ordinary mortal"

Especially one's who get so easily "annoyed."

When that happens there is usually more vigilantism.


America needs " law and order." But the leaders bring us attorneys of disorder.

Where the law is never finite.


"Everyone could have done more to protect defendant’s Rights at trial."~Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 08.19.2009

But Don't Cry For Me or Tom Ridge. His Oath meant nothing either.


 

“Vagueness doctrine is an outgrowth not of the First Amendment, but of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” United States v. Williams, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 1845 (2008). “Vague statutes are invalidated for three reasons:

(1) to avoid punishing people for behavior that they could not have known was illegal;

 

(2) to avoid subjective enforcement of laws based on ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement’ by government officers; and

 

(3) to avoid any chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.” Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 916, 928 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied if it failed to put a defendant on notice that his conduct was criminal. United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 811 (9th Cir. 2001). A statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face if it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Williams, 128 S. Ct. at 1845. For statutes like § 1037 involving criminal sanctions “the requirement for clarity is enhanced.” Info. Providers’ Coal. for the Def. of the First Amendment v. FCC, 928 F.2d 866, 874 (9th Cir.1991).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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