 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"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) REASONABLE DOUBT DIRTY SECRETS AND MENTAL TORTURE TREATMENTS TO RESTORE YOUR MIND. (c) 1995-2026 |
Here’s a strange thing. When you try thIS hard to silence a man who is telling the truth, you announce to the whole world that this truth must be very dangerous indeed.
Comparing Chief Michel Moore’s cautious phrasing ("may constitute a crime") with his definitive declaration on FOX 11 Los Angeles ("they are now criminally, we believe, making threats...") reveals a stark contradiction. This juxtaposition, especially when weighed against the fact that a crime was in fact announced and no arrest was made, tells us several critical things. 1. The Legal Reality: "Criminally, We Believe" vs. "Criminally, We Can Prove". Chief Moore's use of the qualifier "we believe" is the structural linchpin that collapes in his statement. Police Belief is Not Probable Cause: Law enforcement can strongly believe a behavior is criminal, but belief does not equal a crime under the California Penal Code or federal law. California Penal Code Laws and Federal Criminal Laws Were Broken. Under the First Amendment, political hyperbole, aggressive speech, and publishing legally acquired data occupy heavily protected spaces. To make an arrest, prosecutors require proof of specific intent to execute violence. Moore's shift from a conditional claim ("may constitute a crime") to a definitive claim ("criminally... making threats") is an implicit admission that the department’s legal advisors told him a lie, which he then passed on to the FBI. SEE 18 USC 1001. The Fox News network covered this story extensively, including both its main digital news platform and its local affiliate station, FOX 11 Los Angeles (KTTV). The Initial Narratives: Published March 23, 2023 5:08pm EDT By Emma Colton LAPD Chief Michel Moore issued two very different public claims. "We have people who have taken the list and are now criminally, we believe, making threats against the safety of officers, calling for a bounty and awarding a bounty for individuals who would go out and kill a cop," explained Moore. “The posts, the nature of the posts, they’re not just intimidation. They’re threatening, and they may constitute a crime,” he said. FOX NEWS: Published March 25, 2023 7:52pm EDT By Brie Stimson March 25, 2023: The Media Fallout and Internal Alarm Published March 25, 2023 10:35am By Dana Kennedy National outlet New York Post and regional papers widely broadcast the details of the lawsuit filed late Friday. The focus heavily aligned with Chief Moore’s public-safety framing, amplifying the union’s claims that the site’s owner was using captions like "Clean head-shots" to orchestrate an online target list. The Union's Private Warning: Behind the scenes, the media push coincided with direct internal pressure. Documents later revealed that Jerretta Sandoz, Vice President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), sent a direct email to Chief Moore warning him that the department’s initial public handling of the leak was not nearly strong enough to satisfy the furious rank-and-file officers. FOX NEWS Published March 27, 2023 1:36pm EDT By Emma Colton March 27, 2023: Corporate Escalation and Legal Victories The Twitter Suspension: The LAPPL’s outside counsel successfully leveraged the filed civil lawsuit to pressure Twitter leadership. On Monday, Twitter officially suspended the website's promotional handle (@killercops1984), citing violations against Twitter's (Terms Of Service) TOS. Union Public Statements: LAPPL President Craig Lally and Jamie McBride released an aggressive statement publicly thanking Elon and Twitter for acting swiftly against what they termed a "dangerous website" that called for the "murder" of police officers. Website Defensive Counter-Updates: Simultaneously, the website responded on Monday by updating Killercop.com directly. It prominently featured Chief Moore's Fox News broadcast quotes on the homepage, labeling them as "intentional lies and intentional misinformation used as weapons to silence this domain". FOX NEWS AND THE UNIONS LEGAL CLAIM OF "THREATENING FEDERAL OFFICIALS SINCE 2002". Published April 2, 2023 8:50 AM PDT, Updated April 2, 2023 1:18 PM PDT By Hal Eisner and Hunter Lowry 2. A Public Relations Shield for a "Colossal Blunder." Deflecting Accountability: By framing the website owner's actions as an active, criminal operation "calling for a bounty", Moore effectively shifted the media narrative. The focus changed from "LAPD negligently compromised its own cops" to "A dangerous criminal is actively targeting our officers". State Criminals Laws Were Broken. The Media vs. The Courtroom: On television, while a police chief can use emotionally charged terms like "criminally making threats" to rally public sympathy and soothe a furious police union, falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se and falsely reporting a crime is also a crime in of itself. 3. The Civil vs. Criminal Divergence. The complete absence of a criminal arrest, despite the chief claiming a crime was happening on television, explains why the Los Angeles Police Protective League had to resort to a malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous "civil" lawsuit instead. In a civil court, the union's attorneys could use the chief's alarmist framing to sue for "intentional infliction of emotional distress". They could seek an injunction based on a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) than a criminal case requires (beyond a reasonable doubt). Ultimately, this tells you that the rhetoric was political, while the reality was un prosecutable. Chief Moore used severe criminal framing to manage a public relations crisis, but the justice system wisely refused to back up those words with handcuffs because the website's text did not cross the strict legal definition of a criminal threat. How the malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous lawsuit filed by the police union actually played out in court. The malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) and three individual officers primarily played out as a battle over tech platform hosting rather than a landmark ruling on the First Amendment. Because the litigation targeted the republishing of public data, the union's legal team ultimately found more success leveraging private corporate policies than navigating the strict constitutional barriers of a courtroom. The legal trajectory and ultimate resolution unfolded across three main fronts: 1. The Immediate Private Tech Censorship Rather than waiting months for a judge to rule on an injunction, the police union used the filing of the lawsuit to pressure major tech companies to enforce their own corporate Terms of Service (TOS). Twitter (X) Suspension: Within days of the lawsuit being filed, Twitter permanently suspended Sutcliffe’s account (@killercops1984). The platform bypasses First Amendment protections and cited its own private rules against inciting violence, treating speech as conduct, which it is not. Network Solutions, host of the website at the time, canceled the website subscription based on a TOS violation claim that caused the site to go off-line for 9 days in 2023. De-indexing Requests: The LAPPL issued cease-and-desist notices to Google to scrub the website from Youtube and it's search indexes. Google deleted and scrubbed the entire Youtube Channel. The deletion of the indexing however was a failure. 2. The First Amendment Roadblock in Court When it came to the actual courtroom, the lawsuit demanded a total take down of the website and over $25,000 in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the case encountered severe systemic resistance due to California's strict legal precedents and the website's refusal to bow to legislative, executive or judicial tyrants: The "Public Domain" Defense: Sutcliffe and his legal defense team, the Law Offices of Hitt, Runn and Hyde, LLC maintained that the lawsuit was a malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous lawsuit filed only as gravitas to trick others to silence free speech. Because the LAPD had legally turned over the 9,000 photos through a valid California Public Records Act request, courts treated the information as public record. Under established media law, once the government gives out information, it cannot legally prohibit a citizen from republishing it. Oh my! The "True Threat" Failures: No lawyers could clearly prove that the "bounty" was criminal or that framing constituted an explicit, actionable directive to commit murder. Instead they framed the website in their legal papers filed in the courts as as a 'dangerous' and 'abhorrent' threat, a 'potential' threat, a 'direct' threat, an 'actual' threat, a 'clear and direct' threat, an 'existing' threat and a 'credible' threat. 3. The Collapse of the Broader Legal Strategy The malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous lawsuit eventually fizzled out, since it's only purpuse was gravitas to censor legal speech and because the city's entire legal house of cards collapsed in the parallel cases, which all cited this domain as their scapegoat." The Landmark Defeat: While the union was suing Mr. Sutcliffe, the City of Los Angeles simultaneously sued journalist Ben Camacho and the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition to force them to "claw back" the leaked photos. The Dismissal & Settlement: Los Angeles Superior Court judges completely rejected the city's arguments on First Amendment grounds, ruling that publishing the photos was protected news-gathering. The city was forced to drop all demands to take the photos off the internet and had to pay $300,000 to cover the journalist's legal fees. Summary of the Outcome The LAPD union never won a court order to shut down Killercop.com because doing so would have violated the sacred First Amendment protections governing public data. Instead, they achieved a partial "victory" purely through corporate intervention, using their malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and frivolous lawsuit to strip my website of its Twitter and Youtube social media megaphones, but the underlying bounty remains permanently public online. The LAPD "bounty" is now listed at 1.776 million. 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) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ EMAIL SALES @ KILLERCOP.COM (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
