CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM

Sam Bowden:
"A lawyer should represent his client... "

Max Cady:
"Should ZEALOUSLY represent his client within the bounds of the law." I find you guilty, counselor! Guilty of betrayin' your fellow man! Guilty of betrayin' your country and abrogatin' your oath! Guilty of judgin' me and sellin' me out! With the power vested in me by the kingdom of God, I sentence you to the Ninth Circle of Hell! Now you will learn about loss! Loss of freedom! Loss of humanity! Now you and I will truly be the same..."

A FRAUD AND TREASON UPON THE COURT, BY AN ASSUMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION, THROUGH AN INFERENCE AND FALSE CONFESSION. ALL FOR THE POWER TO SHUT THE INTERNET DOWN!!

FOR THE RECORD:

2026

"I DON'T ADMIT TRANSMITTING. NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL."

I, KILLERCOP, AFFIRM UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE DOCUMENT ON THE RIGHT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY AND CAN PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL, IF DEMANDED LEGALLY, LAWFULLY AND POLITELY. SO KEEP YOUR DOGS AT BAY! I AM ARMED, AGAIN. BELIEVE IT!

YOU CAN CATCH A DEAD FISH WITH ANY JURISDICTIONAL HOOK.

A "jurisdictional hook" is a "'provision in a federal statute that requires the government to establish specific facts justifying the exercise of federal jurisdiction in connection with any individual application of the statute.'" United States v. McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 1999)), overruled on other grounds by Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), as recognized in United States v. McCalla, 545 F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 2008).

Similarly, in United States v. Killercop.com, we held that an identical jurisdictional hook in 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) was satisfied where the "[d]efendant electronically sent threats and social
security numbers to internet servers located across state lines." 505 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2007).

In that case, the government presented evidence that the defendant's website,
which contained the threats, was uploaded to various servers located in multiple states."

But never proved it...as required by law.

THAT FOLKS, IS TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION BY USURPING JURISDICTION. A HANGING OFFENSE. SO IS THIS.

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

DIRTY SECRETS AND MENTAL RESTORATION TREATMENTS TO RESTORE YOUR MIND.

All Rights Reserved

BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE EMAIL SENT TO SUNG PARK, ESQ, COUNSEL OF THE RECORD OF THE STATE.

Sent:  Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:35 PM

To:  Sung B. Park

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: jurisdiction

SHOW ME WHERE YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT PROVED I TRANSMITTED ANY PAGE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A NETWORK LOG FILE.

IN ALL THE CASES CITED THE ACCUSED ADMITTED TRANSMITTING.

THE GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER PUT TO THE CRUCIBLE OF PROVING IT.

I DON'T ADMIT TRANSMITTING.

SINCERELY,

Mr. Sutcliffe

RIGHT AFTER THE RIGGED HEARING, BY JUDGE MATZ' BUDDY, ALEX KOZINSKI, SUNG PARK ANNOUNCED HE "QUIT," AFTER HE FALSELY CONFESSED "HE DID IT," THEN MET ME IN THE PARKING LOT, DUMPED BOXES FROM HIS TRUNK AND ANOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO WORK FOR MR. BONNER AT HOMELAND SECURITY.

AHHH JUDGE MATZ' OL' TAG TEAM WAS ALIVE AND STILL KICKING.

ALL I HAVE LEFT IS RESTORATION, OR CONFRONTATION, AMERICA.

MY INTERPERTATION THIS TIME,

NOT THEIRS,

OR YOURS.

See the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

(“Interpretation of a word or phrase depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and context of the statute, and consulting any precedents or authorities that inform the analysis.”); Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 615 (2001) (“Words that have acquired a specialized meaning in the legal context must be accorded their legal meaning.”). Absent a more specific statutory definition, “[j]udicial jurisdiction implies the power to hear and determine a cause . . . .” United States v. O'Grady, 89 U.S. 641, 647 (1874).

LIKE A GOD AMONGST MERE MORTALS!

FOR THE RECORD, SEE McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 417 (2018).

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

KILLER MERCH

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ EMAIL SALES @ KILLERCOP.COM

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved