Judge Alvin Howard Matz, said his persecution of killercop, by trial, was "complex" based on the "novel Internet-based 'nature' of the prosecution."
To bad he refused to share that knowledge, and instead refused to protect that fundamental right when sought. (See Below, 01.17.2003)
He refused to acknowledge a lot
Especially when it protected the hate crimes of the cops against this site. Or his good buddy, Gary. And last but not least, his own tiny ass.
CLERK: “How do you plead to Count 1 of the First Superseding Indictment, guilty or not guilty?”
ACCUSED: “I cannot make a plea at this time until I know the nature of this crime, as that, and the nature has seemed, has seemed to have changed in the past. So if this court could answer a question or two I might be able to make a plea at this point. Will this court answer a question or two so I can ascertain the nature of the crime so I can prepare a proper defense?”
Judge Matz: “No!
Judge Matz: The court will construe the response to be a plea of not guilty. The plea is applicable to each of nine counts of the First Superseding Indictment. So Mr. Sutcliffe will be deemed to have plead not guilty to the charges in the First Superseding Indictment. That concludes the arraignment on the charges.”
ACCUSED: “Let the record reflect the court is proceeding in a - - “
Judge Matz: “You and Mr. - - “
ACCUSED: “ Secret jurisdiction. I demand my right to be informed of the...“
Judge Matz: “Sit down at the table.”
ACCUSED: “Nature of this crime.”
Judge Matz: “Sit down. This is not going to be a debate.”
ACCUSED: “You changed the nature once. You going to change it again?” “How can I prepare a defense here, if you won’t even tell me the nature of the crime?”
Judge Matz: “The first order of business - - “
ACCUSED: “They told me the nature was something once. Now they have changed the nature after almost a year.”
ACCUSED: "Are they going to change it again? How many - -“
Judge: “Now I am ordering you to be quiet.” The first order of business is to complete the competency examination. I have received the motion and will grant the motion, although I’m going to change slightly the language in the proposed order that the government has lodged with the court and filed. And Mr. Nicolaysen, …although there won’t be a need for you to do anything more then assist with the representation much(sic) Killercop for purposes of that competency------- examination.”
Only later would he and the selective prosecutor revel the right they both denied to the accused. The ol' "novel internet nature."
After Hizzzzzhonor refused to inform me, as [was] my right, I was made to rot away in hell for SEVEN MONTHS, of this denial of my rights, before I would read the "nature."
They now called the nature a ""novel" nature." I knew my goose was cooked. An Adjective. A discription, to discribe a discription. How do you defend an unknown nature in the form of a thought crime. Maybe a fact or noun might help or assist? Or an expert.
Thereafter I coined these types of laws, "secret nature" crimes, and "adjective-fiction" nature crimes.
UPDATE: 2009
I notice this "unconstitutional law" I was unlawfully tried under, and convicted of, was shat on by the Supremes.
"Novel" Internet nature theory" persecutions are big now in 2009.
Judge A. Howard Matz: "The defendant's personal presence is not necessary, given that he's currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen."
Nicolaysen: "Thank you so much. Your honor, government counsel tracks my thinking as well. I want to assure the court. We agonized over this. We spent well over an hour on the phone Friday. Spoke again on Saturday anticipating that your honor may very well want some feedback on this very point, so we're not trying to put words into the court's mouth by asking you to make a finding that you didn't make; however --"
Doctor Phil Says: Anything Coming Out Of The Mouth After "However," Negates Everything Before That Word.
Just Keeping It Real.
Image that...a Star Chambers hearing, live...in America.
You don't even have to be there to be judged and examined and "found;" pardon the expression, "incompetent." Wish they could have found a law book instead.
They just make it look like I were there, for the record, by forcing representatives; who refuse to assist, [3mg PDF] and are conflicted, and quacks who pretend to assist.
Crackers, if ya ask me. But remember, ""that's not an issue that I have to address
and it's not a question I'm required to answer, so I decline to do so."
Let's ask an expert
Anyone seen one?
None to be found here.
Or here.
