Meet Judge Elena J. Duarte.
The Honorable Elena Duarte, a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge, was a wonderful keynote speaker. She spoke about the importance of community service and told some touching personal anecdotes - such as how her father, a criminal defense attorney, used to joke that his daughter "turned out bad" because she worked as a federal prosecutor.
MS. DUARTE: SO, YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE SEE IS AN ESCALATION. THERE MAY BE A "PASSIVE" THREAT ON THE WEBSITE AT FIRST, JUST AS THERE WAS IN THE CASE OF THE LAPD OFFICERS.
BUT THEN WE ESCALATE TO AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR. SO, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IT IS NOT AT ALL A LONG SHOT TO SAY THAT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR, ALTHOUGH PASSIVE, MAY
AGGRESS.
Listen to Elena's lies to the Wizard of Koz, about Killercop's wife's testimony.
Then compare Elena's lie, to the official court transcript.
NOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT:
Q What is it?
A It's a computer and a tower and a chair in my bedroom.
Q Whose computer is this?
A Killer' s.
Q Killercop's?
A Yes
OKAY, THIS MEANS THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOTAL CONTOL OF MY PROPERTY, ALONG WITH MY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
THIS ALSO MEANS THEY HAVE THE NIC WITH THE MAC. THESE ARE COMPLEX TERMS.
SAY WHAT?
11.08.2004 (Pgs 8-9)
JUDGE MATZ: "I think you need to be real careful in how
you use some of these terms."
Ummmmm, do you think Judge A. Howard Matz means "real" as opposed to fake careful? Like pretending to care about Mr. Sutcliffe's fundamental rights. Or your property.
SEE ANYTHING ABOVE ABOUT "POSTING" "TRANSFER" OR "TRANSMIT" YET? I DIDN'T THINK SO...
A showing of constitutional error under the Sixth Amendment only merits grant of the petition for habeas corpus if the
error was not harmless, that is, if it had a “substantial and
injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993).
HOP IN THE WAYBACK MACHINE AND LET'S GO BACKWARDS IN TIME TO THE TRIAL OF KILLERCOP AND LISTEN FOR THE SECRET WORD IN THE LAW CALLED "TRANSMIT," AT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
OPPPS, NOT THERE! JUDGE A.HOWARD MATZ CHANGED THE WORDS, AGAIN.
Influence in determining the jury’s verdict. AK.A. Using his words for the ammo. AK.A. Listen carefully.
Judge Matz: "Before you proceed any further, please listen carefully, members of the jury.
The witness has identified the picture as depicting Killercop's rifle. Killercop is not accused of committing any crime arising out of his possession of any weapon or ammunition.
You
may consider evidence of his possession of deciding whether the
government has met its burden of proving that if killercop made, or caused to be made, the communications that have been
alleged in this case, in making those communications, he acted
with a specific intent to threaten the persons who were the
subject of these communications.
You'll be required to apply that limiting
instruction.
It's the kind of limiting instruction --
I'll
tell you, you are allowed to take into account this evidence of
the rifle and of any evidence that there may be about
ammunition or other firearms, but only for the limited purpose I just told you."
WAS THAT A LIMIT? OR AN OPENING!!
What Matz really said:
I can change the very words of the law. There is no limit to my power! "Before you proceed any further, please listen carefully, but fail to notice how I just changed gears there, with the rifle, just to scare and mislead you. By doing that I was able to change the very words of the law!! This kind of power, will be shown in the coming afterbirth of the Sutcliffe Opinion we are creating.
Being a federal judge, I know that the Supreme Court has made very few rulings regarding the admission of evidence as a violation of due process.
Although that Court has been clear that a writ should be issued when constitutional errors have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, see Williams, 529 U.S. at 375, it has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ. Absent such “'clearly' established Federal law,” nobody can conclude that my ruling was an “unreasonable application.” Muhahahaha! Am I a great tyrant or what?
Also, fail to notice that there is no element of 18 USC 875(c) about "'making' or 'made'" the communication.
I just "made" that up. I'm a judge who is crooked. It's what I do. I just make stuff up as I go along, to ensure my wealthy friends stay out of hot water with these guys.
I did that because we talked behind your back in secret, and we noticed that we heard the Government's expert talk about "make" or "made" pages, on the computer they seized. But the Government's expert never said anything about what the law actually says and requires. Which is, 'whoever transmits... '
The accused would have argued this point, but I denied him any experts, and effective assistance of counsel. And since you know nothing of the secret hearing, or about the missing doctor, I will proceed as normal.
Now, jury, do my bidding, in the name of the law and the children. Even if that is not what the law says it says.
For I'm Harvard trained, and educated, and you are stupid drones to do my bidding, and the bidding of my masters.
Now go follow those crooked and corrupted jury instructions!" I am appointed for life and I am immune to justice!! Muhahahahaha! Opppps. Gotta run.
2011 UPDATE:
Kozinski Court held that the district court of judge A. Howard Matz did abuse its discretion by allowing the Government to present evidence of the defendant's gun possession to demonstrate that he actually intended to threaten violence. Id. at 959.
But decided to cover it up, too.
