Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.
SAY WHAT?
09.26.2003
"KILLERCOP'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED, BUT NOT ALL " ~Judge A. Howard Matz , 09.26.2003 , Page 61, Line 24
"And in the year 2010 we're still trying to figure out if you've got a lawyer that's going to be okay for you the way you see it . That's not going to happen because at some point I have the power and the obligation to find that you have waived your right to have a lawyer represent you . And then you're going to trial on your own . But either way , you're going to trial! " ~Judge A Howard Matz, Annoyed . 01.14.2003 Pretrial of killercop.
Isn't the job of a judge to "ensure the rights of the accused ? Who stands alone .
Would you care to respond, Judge Matz? Killercop didn't think so...
"While computer criminals have many technological resources at their
disposal, we have our own technology experts , as well as a host of legal "remedies" to punish those who exploit the Internet for nefarious purposes , " said United States
Attorney Thomas P. O' Brien.
YO, YO, YO, FEDERAL JUDGE, A. HOWARD MATZ IS A KNOWN MOB ASSOCIATE , A.K.A. "A GANG AFFILIATED PERSON." SO IS HIS HOMIE, JUDGE ALEX "THE PERV " KOWZINSKI!
QUOTE:
"The Internet is " a seductive playground " for unscrupulous individuals bent on defrauding innocent victims . The facts before
us clearly illustrate this point. " ~Alex Kozinski
"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
Killer Bull says, "I am Moooooooooooved by such gibberish!
A) Illegally locking a man up , and then leaving him to rot in prison, then doing nothing to free him...that is "far more devastating than assaulting a prison officer!! COW POOP ON YOU!
From the view here, it appears that the prison guards are doing the assaulting, and the F.B.I. is egging it all on.... Or just standing by and watching it happen, like Jeffrey. Or covering it up.
According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas , a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.
A FACT:
Under the so-called rule of the law , I'm legally still incompetent, without the "vital" certificate required by the law , I mooooooove that Alvin Howard Matz, and company , correct the laws they broke . And that is a fact!
The Supreme Court has, on occasion, described incompetence 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”). And the same goes for any illegal sentence!
Once Upon A Time There Was Liberty And Freedom Across The Land . But That Was Then And This Is Now.
The "void for vagueness" doctrine is deeply rooted in our right to due process (under the Fifth Amendment ) and our right to know the nature and cause of an accusation (under the Sixth Amendment ). The latter right goes far beyond the contents of any criminal indictment. The right to know the nature and cause of an accusation starts with the statute which any defendant is accused of violating. A statute must be sufficiently specific and unambiguous in all its terms, in order to define and give adequate notice of the kind of conduct which it forbids. If it fails to indicate with reasonable certainty just what conduct the legislature prohibits, a statute is necessarily void for uncertainty, or "void for vagueness" as it is usually phrased. Any prosecution which is based upon a vague statute must fail together with the statute itself. A vague criminal statute is unconstitutional for violating the 6th Amendment. But that was when words mattered.
America needs " law and order." But the leaders bring us attorneys of disorder . And others would would divide the states up and apart . And that is a fact! And a shame!!
Where the law is never finite . And that is a finite fact! Words don't matter under such a system. And no can become yes!
ASK AN EXPERT!
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. And that is a fact! Then more people die!
But the judges in my story only care about covering up for their buddys . And about their porn.
MATTHEW 7:1-5:Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's
eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt
thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and
behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite , first cast out the
beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the
mote out of thy brother's eye."
What is clear is that victory at all costs has become more important than winning while preserving the justice system.
The buck stops with A.G. Holder.
IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE MY ASS.
JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ IS MAD , AND ARROGANTLY FLAUNTS THE LAW BY HANDING DOWN "SUBSTANTIAL" ILLEGAL PRISON SENTENCES, EVEN AFTER BEING TOLD WHAT HE WAS DOING IS ILLEGAL . AND TRYING PEOPLE WHO HAD A RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED!
Matz is also known by his buddies as "a[n]
un reasonable fact finder."
The three c’s -- cronyism , corruption and conspiracy. That's a fact! Look it up in Black and White. Now hury up Mr. Cop, before someone dies.
When Judge Matz breaks the law , or wants to cover one up , it is called a mistake , an error , and a defect . The way my rights were called entitlements. Sort of a slight of hand, quick shuffle.
A.K.A. FREE SPEECH ONLY ALLOWED EXTERNALY BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT : EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SECRET !
18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), which provides, in relevant part:
KILLERCOP IS REQUESTING ATTENTION!!! OH, OH, PICK ME NEXT!!!
(Large.pdf)
EMAIL JUDGE MATZ
CALL JUDGE MATZ
COMING SOON, VISIT JUDGE MATZ
BUT DON'T TELLL HIM, OR THE AUTHORITIES, YOU HEARD IT HERE.
THAT'S THE NEW RULE OF LAW!
RULES TRUMP RIGHTS!! A SECRET JUST LOOMING THERE!! Shhhhhhhhh!
“What the government did was go ‘fire, aim, ready,’ ” he said. “They arrested killercop , and then they started their investigation . ”
And that my readers, and jury , is a fact.
"YOU KNOW, WE REALLY -- YOU'VE PUT YOUR
FINGER ON SOMETHING THAT IS A CONCERN. WE REALLY HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL - - I MEAN, EVEN WHEN YOU START OUT WITH A CASE
THAT'S BASED ON SPEECH OVER THE INTERNET , YOU OBVIOUSLY GAVE
A LOT OF THOUGHT , AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF
THOUGHT TO CRAFTING LAWS THAT BALANCE FREE SPEECH AGAINSTTHREATS TO SOCIETY .
I'M NOT QUESTIONING AT ALL THAT THIS IS AN
APPROPRIATE CASE TO BRING.
AND AS I SAID, THESE ARE WHAT I
CONSIDER TO BE SERIOUS CHARGES .
BUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS LOOMING THERE AS A GLOBAL CONTEXT FOR THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION .
AND, THEN, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOES APPEAR , AT LEAST THERE'S
SOME SUGGESTION , THAT KILLERCOP WOULD HOLD SOME UNCONVENTIONAL VIEWS . BUT NEITHER IS THAT CRIMINAL -- WHICH NO ONE IS
SUGGESTING AT ALL -- NOR IS IT DANGEROUS . " ~Federal Judge A. Howard Matz. Central District, California. Pg 59, APRIL 12, 2002 Case: CR 02-350-AHM
A PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN IN THE SECRET PSR, REGARDING KILLERCOP'S SPEECH FROM 1998 , WHICH SOMEONE IN THE PSR IS SUGGESTING IS VERY DANGEROUS .
SUGGEST DANGER, WHERE NONE EXISTS, AT ALL, ALOT.
RULE
1
"THE LAW IS 'PRETTY CLEAR ,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT ."
RULE
2
"THE LAW IS 'PRETTY CLEAR ,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT ."
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
RULE
3
"THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR ,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT ."
PLAY FAIR
RULE
4
"THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR ,' AND I DID NOT FOLLOW IT ."
NO MEANS NO AND NO CHEATING!
A THOUGHT CRIME
But the questions — whether a defendant is entitled to
a lawyer during a certain proceeding and whether the denial
of a lawyer gives rise to automatic reversal of the entire conviction
because of the difficulty of determining the impact a
lawyer may have had — are obviously distinct. That much is pretty clear. I mean, probably. At least it seems prudent to think about such a denial.
A BEDTIME STORY BY MATZ' GOOD BUDDY , ALEX KOZINSKI , PERVERT AND LIAR.
