Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.
NEW: SOUND BYTES OF THE ORAL FALSE CONFESSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE.
ONE JUDGE TELLS HIM "THE BREAKING POINT."
Opening Statement Of Park:
Opening Statement Of Prosecutor:
Prosecutor Admits All Transfers Occurred By FTP
Prosecutor Admits They Have No Solid Proof KIllercop Transferred A Single Page By FTP.
Prosecutor Admits She In Fact Transferred The Files. (Taken Out Of Context, Of Course, Like My Trial.)
Park Admits Government Has No Proof Of A Transfer.
I certainly never told him I transferred anything.
As In Nothing.
Judge Kozinski Seems To Believe Mysterious Things Happen With The Internet. Like "Accidental Facts " Routed Just To His Tiny Wizard Mind To Give Him Jurisdiction Where He Has No Fact Other Then A False Confession, After He Spoon Feeds The Words To Make His False Record To Get Around The Fact That The Government's Burden Is They Must Prove Transmission And Not Just Assume It.
Otherwise Who Knows Where Their Power To Stop Ends Since Other People Had Access. Right, Sung Park?
Shall We Just Round Everyone Up, Or Just The Usual Suspects.
This Judge Hates That The Prosecutor Gave Me 8000 NUMB3RS. Or Maybe Debra And Elena Didn't Tell Him?
We Do Want To Represent The Record Accurately.
By the way, anyone seen an expert? If so, please have him examine our LOGS
$PECIAL REWARD$ 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!
He "Sung" Like A Bird
The "Appeal" Of Sung Park, ESQUIRE
A Couple Of Questions, America, But The Answer Can't Be "Appeal 'Strategy.'"
Since Sung Park, Esquire , one of several rampant attorneys at large , and almost the last of many conflicted ones forced on the previous owner by the Ninth Circuit , and currently employed by Homeland Security the day after the appeal, (think about that one for a moment) knew for a fact that the previous owner never would, or did, admit transmitting anything against the law; and nor did the government ever prove he did transmit anything against the law, why would he falsely confess that the accused was guilty of transmitting anything illegal when he knew the government had no proof?
Or why would the appeals court judge Alex Kozinski, force-feed him more lies , and he admit to those spoon-fed lies, knowing they were lies he could never prove.
Because neither knew anything abut the Internet? Because the government knew they had no proof?
He was offered a sweetheart deal in Homeland Security , when he went along with the conflict and threw the case on purpose.
He knew this guy might cover up for him , the way this judge is covering up.
Because he was their attorney, not mine. Just like Greg , and all the rest who have a conflict.
Examine some of the players , then play connect the dots...
You might find violations of the rights under the Bill, euphemistically labeled technical errors. Those are now sometimes called "entitlements." That way, a technical error of an entitlement is not the same as a flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution they swore to uphold, protect and defend.
Especially when they know the burden of the requirements of the law. To wit, a "transfer across state lines. "
Then to go and break it with a lie.
And ignore the laws of MAC, the NIC and IP.
Makes no sense.
IAC?
