"I just had a procedural point, while Mr. Nicolaysen was still up here."
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?
You bet!! See AUGUST 27, 2003
"Michael Nighan 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
LET"S EXAMINE THE INSIDE OF GARY'S STOMACH.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted
with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.
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
NOT IN JUDGE MATZ' COURT! HE WON'T EVEN LET YOU CONFRONT HIM, BECAUSE "HE CARES ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS AND DOESN'T WANT TO INFLAME YOU."
NOT BECAUSE HE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
“[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.
So the big question is when does that become an "entitlement" instead?
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. According to the Bible, Acts 25:16, the Roman Governor Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Paul, stated: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." Many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed the right of the accused under the Confrontation Clause to have a face-to-face confrontation with the accuser, and an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser. In the 2004 decision of Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to confront one's accusers could not be taken away in cases where judges believe that testimonial hearsay evidence is reliable, because such hearsay evidence had not had its reliability tested through the procedural crucible of cross-examination.
OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA
"what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM
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 (.pdf) un-nutzzzzzz, in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law. It sure is not speedy...
I'm no expert. Anyone seen an expert yet?(.pdf) Maybe the Goblin ate him!! He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. But tell him to hurry, 'cause I am about to get legally crazy again, on account of it. But it's a secret.
Here is the rule of law: Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins. And that's a fact! Why? CauseIsaySo!! You are not entitled to anymore information, 'cause ya got no right to it. Git it? I bet you will soon enough. I'm all a Twitter waiting to see your reaction, to my reaction, to your Treatment. You'll just die when you see what I have in store for everyone in 2010.
Now move along folks, nothing more to see. Make like a Quack and disappear like Dr. Who. |
From left: David Gergen, Adam Winnick, Gary Winnick, Karen Winnick, Alex Winnick and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
A.K.A. Keep your dogs at bay, I'm now armed!
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witness against him."
Gary Winnick, the Global Crossing chairman, has
no such problems. 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.
Global Crossing Chairman Gary Winnick, once tabbed by Fortune magazine as, "The Emperor of Greed," cashed in $735 million in stock over four years while driving the company into bankruptcy, and he's but the tip of the iceberg.
All I got out of the deal was his CD-ROM. From her. Okayed by them and him. Don't worry if you don't understand. It's complex. Unless you are legally incompetent.
JANUARY 14, 2003
PUBLIC DEFENDER WILLIAM HARRIS: All right. Well, we assert that it is.
As far, Your Honor, as far, just ask the court to consider one
thing. As far as the political ramifications of this, we have
posited the possibility what if Schmoe was Winnick or some other
high ranking official of Global Crossing tied in closely to the
upper reaches of the Democratic party.
What if, there's no way I can find that out because
he's hiding behind a pseudonym. Some of the grammar I'll admit
doesn't sound like and educated guy in the upper hierarchy but I
don't know that. It could be. And if it was and there was a
lack of prosecution on this record I think we have made out our
burden. If discovery shows that Schmoe was Winnick for example,
I mean the decision, it would be political dynamite to prosecute
Winnick in this case.
In addition to the strategic problems of
having what that would do to this case. It's clear to me that a
decision to prosecute --"
JUDGE MATZ: "I've got Gary Winnick under
subpoena. I'd like to tell Mr. Winnick he doesn't have to
appear. That took a lot of hoops to get the CEO under subpoena.
Killercop wanted that."
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.
MR. HARRIS: Killercop wouldn't cooperate and
basically told me he didn't want to sign anything.
Killercop: Objection!
MS. DUARTE: Question, Your Honor.
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?
DUARTE: I have that ability, Your Honor.
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 rea-sonably 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 he's not listed as a
witness for the government, and that he is no longer counsel 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 while Mr. Nicolaysen 'was' still up here. In terms of the subpoenas, early on in the
case, when Mr. Harris was representing Mr. Sutcliffe, the court
had ordered me to ensure that Mr. Gary Winnick, who had been
subpoenaed by Mr. Harris, was made available. Breath!!
Mr. Nicolaysen
had indicated to me that that availability was no longer
necessary or required. Breath!!
So I have indicated that to
Mr. Winnick's attorney, and he is not under my subpoena
anymore.
I just wanted to make that clear because that was
kind of left hanging, and I don't think there's any written
communication that would be in the file between myself and
Mr. Nicolaysen on that point. Breath!!
THE COURT: Thank you for clarifying.
POOF!
GARY IS THEN UNSUBPOENAED BY MATZ!!
1. BY AN ATTORNEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE.
2. ON THE BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR NOW "SPEAKING FOR THE ATTORNEY" WHO IS LEGALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM THE CASE, AND THEREFORE HAS NO VOICE.
JUST LIKE HER BOSS, DEBRA WONG YANG.
WAY TO GO ALVIN!!
WAY TO GO ELENA!
NICE TAG TEAM.
DON'T IGNORE THAT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE "JUST HANGING THERE." ALONG WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE "JUST HANGING THERE."!
JUST CUT IT DOWN FROM THE TREE OF THE LIBERTY!!
The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
Contempt Of Cop
Washingtonpost.com - 'Contempt of Cop' Continued from Page 5 New D.C. police recruits were keenly aware of what they saw as deficiencies...
Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate - Blacks are booked by Seattle police for obstructing a public officer eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account, a Seattle P-I investigation of six years...
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...
Expert Officer displayed 'contempt of cop' reaction Internal Affairs
Contempt Of Cop II
CAMERA IS THE NEW SPEAK FOR GUN IN THE WILD, WILD WEST! - It's more about 'contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law.
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 marijuanna 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. 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!
My radio interview with Katherine Albrecht - Carlos Miller Photography is Not a Crime is interviewed by Katherine Albrecht, activist, radio host and privacy advocate, Tuesday afternoon where they discussed his blog, his arrests, the situation in the United Kingdom and the spread of contempt of cop cases that are popping up on the internet on a regular basis.
|
 |
