THE COURT: You are declined. You set forth -- it's
not permitted, and you've made your motion, and it's been
granted with the qualifications that I already said. Mr. Nicolaysen no longer is your attorney. Before I get to the question of the earlier
transcript, did you want to be heard, Ms. Duarte?
"I just had a procedural point, while Mr. Nicolaysen was still up here."
A Procedural Crucible
He was there alright, but under the law he was gone, and did no longer exist, after having been "removed" as Killercop's "assistance" of counsel by Hizzzzonor, A. Howard Matz. And the prosecutor knew that.
A first year Harvard graduate knows that!
Would she cross the line? Would they both cross it and break the law? You bet!! See AUGUST 27, 2003
The Supreme
Court has indicated that a defendant's right to present a
defense stems both from the right to due process provided by
the Fourteenth Amendment, see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410
U.S. 284, 294 (1973), and from the right "to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" provided by the
Sixth Amendment, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23
(1967) (explaining that the right to compulsory process would
be meaningless if the defendant lacked the right to use the
witnesses whose presence he compelled).
"Michael Nighan Statutory_ID 11640772X, couldn't believe his eyes. As Global Crossing's North America director of regulatory affairs, one of Nighan's tasks was to review all of the startup telco's marketing and sales material. But what confused him in late 1999 was a map of Global Crossing's network that showed a fiber-optic loop around the continent of Africa. "What's this?" asked Nighan. He was told it was Africa One, an undersea broadband cable that Global Crossing planned to build for a group of telecom carriers. "But I said it didn't belong on a map of our network because one, it doesn't exist, and two, even if it did exist, it wouldn't belong to us," says Nighan, who left Global Crossing last November. The response Nighan got was, "Gary (CEO Gary Winnick) wants it there." So it stayed on the map." - Fortune Magazine,"Global Crossing: The Emperor of Greed" - June 24, 2002
The
Supreme Court has explained that the right of confrontation
“means more than being allowed to confront the witness
physically.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974).
Rather, “[t]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is
to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross examination.”
Id. at 315-16
“[The Confrontation Clause] guaranteed a defendant’s right
to confront those ‘who bear testimony’ against him.” (quoting
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004)
Held:
Under Crawford, a witness’s testimony against a defendant is inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U. S., at 54.
The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye.
Gary, did you know that the Federal statute that gives the FBI jurisdiction in kidnapping cases is called the “Lindbergh law”, which arose from the highly publicized kidnapping of Charles and Anne Lindbergh’s son by Bruno Richard Hauptmann?
The Lindberghs were wealthy, but Charles may have been the most famous and beloved person in America at the time. Not like you.
"I want you to communicate to the lawyer or
to Mr. Winnick," or the Company Leadership, that Killercop is actively seeking to exercise his right to confront Gary, face to face, in 2010. And all the money in the world won't be able to protect him. Killercop will enforce, and protect, this right, at all costs.
Gary Winnick, the Global Crossing chairman, has
no such problems, yet. In California, he was renovating his
$94 million palatial estate. You can't see much from the ground, but
an aerial view offers the full majesty of a home with 15 bedrooms and
17 bathrooms is overlooking the Bel Air Country Club.
PUBLIC DEFENDER BILL HARRIS: "So if this trial is going to be continued, one
of the things that I'll want to do is somehow withdraw that in a
manner that we can get Mr. Winnick again, if and when.
JUDGE MATZ: I can arrange that. He's not listed as a
witness for the government. There are 24 people.
MR. HARRIS: Is he on the government's list?
JUDGE MATZ: No. I'm telling you that he's not, not the
list I was just handed today. Now I want to know what happened
with respect to these stipulations.
JUDGE MATZ: There's one other thing, before you ask
your question, before I forget. There is a subpoena that
apparently has been served on Gary Winnick. I notice that Gary
Winnick is not identified on the government's witness list. And
I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the government has the
ability to communicate with Mr. Winnick or with his lawyer; is
that correct?
JUDGE MATZ: I want you to communicate to the lawyer or
to Mr. Winnick or to both, that although he doesn't have to respond to the subpoena on the date or under the terms that it
may have contained, he remains responsible to respond on
whatever date he is later notified.
In effect, what I'm saying is that the subpoena,
although it was issued and served through the auspices of Mr. Harris, it's like a court subpoena. I don't want anybody to
have to go through any protracted or new ground of efforts to
subpoena him anew. So the subpoena remains outstanding, although the trial
date has been continued. Please communicate that to Mr. Winnick
and his lawyer.
DUARTE: I will, Your Honor.
"Crawford required for testimonial statements,'under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial,'” id., at 52,
AUGUST 27, 2003
THE COURT: You are declined. You set forth -- it's
not permitted, and you've made your motion, and it's been
granted with the qualifications that I already said. Mr. Nicolaysen no longer is your attorney. Before I get to the question of the earlier
transcript, did you want to be heard, Ms. Duarte?
Forget the fact that Gary's not listed as a
witness for the U.S. government, and that Greg is no longer attorney of record, or has any authority to speak...Deep breath!!
DUARTE: I'm sorry, Your Honor, yes, very briefly.
I just had a procedural point whileMr. Nicolaysen 'was' still up here. In terms of the subpoenas, early on in the
case, when Mr. Harris was representing Killercop, the court
had ordered me to ensure that Mr. Gary Winnick, who had been
subpoenaed by Killercop, was made available.
Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...
Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...
Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.
