 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"This strikes one as being annoyed with Killercop." But he is entitled, I guess? I'll let his jury decide.
Wow! I annoyed the most powerful judge in the world? Sweet! That's what he deserves after foisting this Court Jester from the Public Pretenders office on me, knowing his good buddys Judge Matz, and the Prosecutor Debra Wong Yang, had been doing the same for several years, then letting Sung Park quit illegally. Who then promptly went to work for Judge Matz' good buddy in Homeland Security, Robert Bonner, the day Sung Park comitted fraud on the court and threw the appeal out the window with his false confession!
I was no expert, but I was pretty sure that could not be legal, or lawful, and I was right.
I must be "too smart for my own good."
Or these are the stupidest attorneys I [n]ever met.
Which one do you think will die first?
But don't be annoyed, it's only a bed story, right? Or as others say, Coffee House Bullshit!
But this illegal sentence is real!
"S. 3081: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” where Mr. Mccain (For himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Brown Of Massachusetts, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary advocating stating in relevant part: "An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy [by Judge A. Howard Matz]… may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities."
Full language of the bill appears to do away with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Amendments of the constitution, in addition to Statute 42 (1983) violations that correspond with infringements on the rights of U.S. Citizens who make complaints and report government corruption.
Videotape of LAPD, bicyclist clash is 'disturbing,' Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition that a videotaped incident between LAPD officers and cyclists in Hollywood was "disturbing" and should be investigated. The mayor shared his thoughts in a short letter to the coalition, which had asked him to comment on the video. "I fully support LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s efforts to improve the relationship between cyclists and police officers, and I was very disappointed to hear about the confrontation in Hollywood on May 28," the mayor said in the statement. "The video from that night is disturbing. The LAPD is conducting a full investigation of this incident, and I have complete confidence in Chief Beck’s commitment to making the city’s streets safe for everyone." Four police officers involved in a clash with cyclists have been removed from field duty while investigators review the incident. The Los Angeles Police Department launched an internal investigation into the Friday night altercation after a videotape that appears to show an officer kicking the wheel of a passing bicyclist circulated across the Internet. Several bike riders have accused police of other aggressive behavior during the ride, including allegations that police tackled several cyclists off their bikes and jammed a baton into the spokes of one bicycle. "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. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. |
"The most interesting is Judge Matz' "implicit finding" that KILLERCOP waived [VI. Amendment] counsel."
US v. killercop.com, Case No. 04-50189 (10.11.07)
He was charged, promply reserved all rights, and was then the trial judge, A. Howard Matz, denied the right to be informed of the true Nature and Cause of the accusation, denied Due Process, denied a speedy trial, denied assistance of counsel, denied confrontation of his accuser, and denied the right to subpoena witnesses against him. Judge A. Howard Matz also did away with all of the computer experts for the defense, in what Judge Matz and the U.S. Government called a "complex computer case."
He was also "convicted" in a secret hearing of being incompetent, and sent off for "mental treatment" to "restore" him. Before any examination took place. Think about that for a minute.
The accusations were interstate threats and transferring SSN numbers to facilitate a criminal activity. He filed for a selective prosecution. Judge Matz denied the threats to the accused were "similar." On appeal Killercop raised numerous issues. the most interesting is the trial court's "implicit finding" that he 'waived' counsel.
He went through five appointed lawyers. The first two lawyers actually "quit" the case due to an "unspoken conflict on their part." Judge Matz blamed the accused. The 3rd lawyer was incompetent with complex computer cases.
The court, "exasperated", held that Killercop's actions were akin to his wanting self-representation, and the court so deemed the implicit finding of a waiver of a the right.
The Kozinski court affirmed. The 9th held that the defendant's actions toward and relationship with appointed counsel made it clear that the district court did not err in finding self-representation.
This finding was carried over to the defendant's argument that he should have had appointed counsel for sentencing. Judge Matz' good friend Lord Alex Kozinski, no mere mortal, held that stand-by counsel acted in the defendant's interests.
This issue differs from trial representation, and once a conviction occurred, it could be argued that counsel was needed, especially with guidelines. The 9th however affirmed.
Lastly, there was no Ameline error, because the 9th held that the illegal sentence imposed by Judge Matz would have been the same. "(This strikes one as being annoyed with Killercop.)"
And a double standard!
I believe the "substantial" illegal sentence imposed by Judge Matz would have been the same, too. If only he had known!! But I don't want to talk of such matters. Or the cover up. Hush up and shhhhh!
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
