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.
SAY WHAT?
09.26.2003
"HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED, BUT NOT ALL" ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz, from 09.26.2003 Case# 02-350(A) AHM, Page 61, Line 24
Instead of having the courage to stand up against the L.A.P.D. and F.B.I., Lord Alvin Howard Matz turned tail and ran from the challenge. Because he was secretly on their side as his own words told the story.
"COMMUNICATING"
MAGIC TRICK!
HOW TO CHANGE "SPEECH" INTO "CONDUCT"
JUDGE MATZ: "Ms. Potashner, if you have an intelligent, sophisticated, deliberately functioning
individual who can incorporate those kinds of qualifying terms and disclaimers into anything that's posed.
"And the
mere fact that they are included and incorporated would be
on its face sufficient to take away the potential and
otherwise clear significance of the threats or the
invitations or the means of communicating danger to other
people or subjecting other people to invasions of their
security and privacy. Then what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to prevent this kind of conduct? "
MS. POTASHNER: "Of course. The disclaimers in and
of themselves does not make something that is dangerous not
dangerous. But I think the disclaimers... I don't think that a weapon could be created to
shoot bees across a space, to train bees to go after a
particular target. It's a ridiculous weapon. It's not a
weapon that exists."
THEY WERE BOTH WRONG.
A judge is not the court. And speech is not conduct.
A judge is a judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully.
A judge is also an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".
Speaking of lawyers, anyone wanna recommend a good one?.
"This kind of conduct is actually far more devastating than assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz
Source: http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence
Gee, it appears that Judge Matz is really a caring kinda guy, right? Going on about how much he cares about another Citizen being assaulted...and how devastating on the Citizen it could be to them...well then how come he covered up, along with the F.B.I. and the D.O.J., this torture of a handcuffed prisoner by the police?
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶60.23.
The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
Under Article VI, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever any judge or government attorney violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge or government attorney is acting without lawful authority, has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government.
The judge or the government attorney is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge or the government attorney is collecting monies for work not performed. It is not a judicial function to attack the U.S. Constitution.
It is not a judicial function to issue a void order, an order issued without jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a judge who acts without jurisdiction, is engaged in treason.
It is not a judicial function to engage in a crime, especially a crime against the U.S. Government.
A judge may not engage in any act in violating a person's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. When such an act occurs, the judge is deprived of total jurisdiction and his actions are not that of a judge, but are those taken in his personal capacity.
The law clearly and unequivocally states that all Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The law clearly and unequivocally further states that no presumption of jurisdiction attaches automatically to any court of limited jurisdiction, but that the determination of jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must be affirmatively found within the record of the case that is before the court.
In a Federal court hearing an appeal, it is the duty of the judges to be certain of their jurisdiction. They have a legal duty to inspect the record of the District trial court, sua sponte, to determine whether the District trial court held jurisdiction at all times, if a Constitutional Right was violated, and/or if any officer of the court, whether judge or attorney, engaged in a "fraud upon the court".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a judge violates the U.S. Constitution whenever the judge issues an order without jurisdiction. The judge has committed a fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.
"It is clear and well established law that a judge must first determine whether the judge has both subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case, and further must continue to monitor the case to be certain that jurisdiction was not lost, due to any violation of a Constitutional Right, fraud upon the court, appearance of partiality of any judge, or any act which deprives the court of jurisdiction, by any officer of the court, whether attorney or judge, during the proceedings. "
SAY WHAT?
03.06.2009
"This kind of conduct is actually far more devastating than assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz
Source:
http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence
Mirror: 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 Alvin Howard Matz
Source:
http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence
Mirror: Here
$PECIAL REWARD$ 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? He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. And that's a fact!
|
Nature of the Cause
HOW TO SCREW U, OUT OF A CAUSE, TO MAKE A CASE.
"what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to prevent this kind of SPEECH?" -A. Howard Matz, PRETRIAL HEARING/KILLERCOP.COM,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
We at killercop would just settle for an unbiased judge... But we know that didn't happen at either the trial or the appeal.
A once sided debate with Lord Matz, Hizzzzzhonor!
Prosecutor Zeidenberg was equally anxious to exonerate Hillary Clinton, telling Judge Matz, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form. In fact, it's just the opposite. The evidence will show that David Rosen was trying to keep this evidence from the campaign." This case is being referred to in the media as a “mother of all cover-ups.”
Judge Matz would later say my persecution by trial was "complex" based on the "novel Internet-based 'nature' of the prosecution" To bad the court refused to share that knowledge, and instead refused to acknowledge and protect that fundamental right when I sought to be informed. (See next story) Matz refused to acknowledge a lot, when he protected the hate speech crimes of the cops against this site.
SAY WHAT?
01.17.2003 Pages 11-12
CLERK: “How do you plead to Count 1 of the First Superseding Indictment, guilty or not guilty?”
ACCUSED: “I cannot make a plea at this time until I know the nature of this crime, as that, and the nature has seemed, has seemed to have changed in the past. So if this court could answer a question or two I might be able to make a plea at this point. Will this court answer a question or two so I can ascertain the nature of the crime so I can prepare a proper defense?”
Judge Matz: “No!
Judge Matz: The court will construe the response to be a plea of not guilty. The plea is applicable to each of nine counts of the First Superseding Indictment. So Mr. Sutcliffe will be deemed to have plead not guilty to the charges in the First Superseding Indictment. That concludes the arraignment on the charges.”
ACCUSED: “Let the record reflect the court is proceeding in a - - “
JUDGE: “You and Mr. - - “
ACCUSED: “ Secret jurisdiction. I demand my right to be informed of the...“
JUDGE: “Sit down at the table.”
ACCUSED: “Nature of this crime.”
JUDGE: “Sit down. This is not going to be a debate.”
Accused: “You changed the nature once. You going to change it again?”
“How can I prepare a defense here, if you won’t even tell me the nature of the crime?”
Judge: “The first order of business - - “
Accused: “They told me the nature was something once. Now they have changed the nature after almost a year.”
Page 13
“Accused: Are they going to change it again? How many - -“
Judge: “Now I am ordering you to be quiet.” The first order of business is to complete the competency examination. I have received the motion and will grant the motion, although I’m going to change slightly the language in the proposed order that the government has lodged with the court and filed.
And Mr. Nicolaysen, …although there won’t be a need for you to do anything more then assist with the representation much(sic) Mr. Sutcliffe for purposes of that competency------- examination.”
JUDGE MATZ NEVER DID "complete the competency examination."
SAY WHAT?
04.14.2003
Judge A. Howard Matz: "The defendant's personal presence is not necessary, given that he's currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen."
Nicolaysen: "Thank you so much. Your honor, government counsel tracks my thinking as well. I want to assure the court. We agonized over this. We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday.
Spoke again on Saturday anticipating that your honor may very well want some feedback on this very point, so we're not trying to put words into the court's mouth by asking you to make a finding that you didn't make; however --"
Image that ...a Star Chambers hearing, live...in America. You don't even have to be there to be judge and examined, they just make it look like you were there for the record by forcing representatives; who refuse to assist, and quacks who pretend to assist, examine and treat you, but don't. Some don't even exist!!
Crackers, if ya ask me. But remember, ""that's not an issue that I have to address
and it's not a question I'm required to answer,
so I decline to do so."
Let's ask an expert...anyone seen one?
None to be found here.
Or here.
NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET:
THE MAN WHO WASN'T ALL THERE: AKA
DOCTOR WHO, A.K.A. DOCTOR TOM A.K.A. THE MISSING CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY THE LAW.
Ooooooo, Alvin is getting busy.
Nature & Cause
MATZ LINE OF THE TRIAL, IN NAME ONLY: Transcript of 12.04.2002, 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.”
It's complex. Okay, it's not! Okay, it is complex, and not complex. And that's a fact!
|
 |
