“I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Mr. Sutcliffe that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case. I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all."
“Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.”
SAY WHAT?
10.21.2003
Judge: “Now, I don’t think it is inappropriate for the record to note that I’ve previously authorized experts, or at least one expert, I didn’t go back and check the file but at least one expert, and I think could have been more then one somebody with specific skill and advanced skill in computer technology as well as to be appointed to represent or assist prior counsel. Have you seen any expert reports?”
Reed: “No. Not at all, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Has anybody discussed with you any of killercop’s prior lawyers, any expert reports that may have been generated?”
Reed: “No, Your Honor.”
Juddge: Fuck it, let's try him anyhow...
ABOUT THOSE SO-CALLED PRIOR LAWYERS
SAY WHAT?
09.23.2002
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Ms. Bednarski, are you telling me in plain language that the communications between your office or any member of your office [of the Federal Public Defenders, Central District of California] on the one hand and Mr. Sutcliffe on the other hand have been so impaired that the ability to maintain mutual trust and respect and confidence in each other’s respective obligations and positions has been shattered?"
Federal Public Defender: "Yes."
“Yes.”
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Yes."
Frivolust!
3 Peas Of A Pod
$PECIAL REWARD$ 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!
|
MATZ THE COMPUTER GOD.
AMEN
A judge is not the court.
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 recomend a good one?.
Transcript of 12.04.2002 Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM
Page 18, Lines 13-25
Judge Matz: “I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Mr. Sutcliffe that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case. I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all. So I think you could have somebody who has never see a computer but is a d(sic) fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a Perfectly competent, maybe absolutely bank-up job for this defendant. That’s my view.”
WELL THAT'S JUST DANDY!! SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS ENTITLES KILLERCOP TO YOUR "VIEW," AS A LEGAL DEFENSE, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE,
LETS ASK SOME OF HIS FRIENDS IF THEY FEEL, IN THEIR VIEW, IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT, AS DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS UNLIMITED EXPERTS AND YOU GET NONE?
WOULD YOU?
Prof. John C. Coffee, Ronald J. Nessim, Howard Matz , Robert S. Fink and Michael J. Madigan
BY THE WAY, HOWARD, NEVER DID FIND THAT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH, IN HERE.
ARE YA'LL STACKING THE DECK, OR YA JUST DON'T PLAIN CARE WHO KNOWS ANYMORE?
BUT EVEN A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT OF HARVARD KNOWS YOU WOULD BE STUPID TO COVERUP A CRIME. UNLES S YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW LIKE YOUR BUDDY, THE ALL POWERFUL WIZARD OF KOZ.
AND THAT IS A FACT.
SO IS THIS!
|
 |
