"I don't specifically remember what the allegations were. "

 

QUESTIONING BY KILLERCOP:

Q Is it a fair statement that you would not feel comfortable with someone coming to your house and entering your house without your permission?

A Yes. That would be trespassing. That's against the law.

Q Absolutely correct. Did you –

THE COURT: All right. Killercop, first of all, don't volunteer statements. Don't frown at the witness with your stamp of approval and don't testify. I've told you that many times."

There was 3 "that's" in "that" admonishment above, in case you missed it! Which that did he mean? There's only one "that." Otherwise it's "those." And now he is "volunteering his own statements" and is also in fact "testifying."

MATZ TAMPERS SOME MORE:

"Ladies and gentlemen, the charges in this case have to do with threats and have to do with the misuse or intended misuse with the intent to aid and abet the commission of fraud of social security numbers. There is no allegation in this case, and you will not be asked to determine, whether obtaining social security numbers is legal or illegal, having them is legal or illegal, or even communicating them is legal or illegal. There are certain elements that you will hear about at the time I charge you as to the posting of the social security numbers, which requires more than simply having them or getting them in order to have a crime committed. The other part of the case involving threats contains different elements, which I’ll charge you about, too. But those are the parameters of what these charges require evidence to be introduced about. You may continue, Killercop."

Ummmmm, you mean transmit? Or post? I only ask 'cause ya'll lost me at the word No.

Actually this case is about the context of the meaning and intent of the words "another person," and "[t]he person of another."

HERE IS ANOTHER PERSON & THE PERSON OF ANOTHER.

THE CASE OF "WHOIS" REALLY COVERED UNDER THIS LAW.

THE CASE OF JURY AND WITNESS TAMPERING.

QUESTIONING BY KILLERCOP:

 

Q "Arthur Andersen was their accounting firm. So there was a big investigation going on about the taxes and the compensation and employee packages the board of directors were receiving, and things like that; right?"

A: "I don't specifically remember what the allegations were. "

JUDGE MATZ: --"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whether or not there was an investigation and if there was, what happened as an outcome is irrelevant. I've permitted the last few questions because I assumed that they were designed to test this witness's credibility and capacity to remember accurately. But you are not to take into account the existence or outcome of the related litigation, although you may take it into account in evaluating whether or not the communications alleged were threats within the meaning of the law that I will instruct you about shortly. Now, please proceed. Move on to another topic."

Okay. We can change the topic to your arrest. How about that topic? For all the substantial illegal sentences you were paid to hand down. And all the rules of the laws you ignored, broke, and covered up, in the selective prosecution and cover up.

 

Or we can change it to the unlawful trial you conducted, while I was still quite mad you know! Or as you called me, [in]competent.

Or we can talk about the false jury instructions.

 

Or we can change the topic to talk about Gary's arrest under my subpoena. It was never your right to release, or "Elena's subpoena," in the first place... and I did reserve all of the rights, including and especially the right to confront.

 

 

Especially after the fraud which nullified everything.