 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
"I would like the record to reflect that I don't like being yelled at by Your Honor."
Transcript of 12.04.2002 Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM Page 18, Lines 13-25 Judge Matz: “I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Killercop that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case. I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all. So I think you could have somebody who has never see a computer but is a fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a perfectly competent, maybe absolutely bank-up job for this defendant. That’s my view.”
WELL THAT'S DANDY, THEN!! SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS ENTITLES KILLERCOP TO YOUR "VIEW," AS A LEGAL DEFENSE, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE! LETS ASK SOME OF HIS FRIENDS IF THEY FEEL, IN THEIR VIEW, WOULD THEY ACCEPT THAT AS DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS UNLIMITED EXPERTS? BY THE WAY, I NEVER FOUND THAT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH, IN HERE ARE YA'LL STACKING THE DECK OR YA JUST DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS ANYMORE? BUT EVEN A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT OF HARVARD KNOWS YOU WOULD BE INCOMPETENT TO COVER UP YOUR CRIME. MORE ON MATZ HERE: AND HERE: AND HERE AND EVEN HERE
"I can't ever be
sure whether what I say to somebody is going to be Transcript of 11.18. 2003; 8:40 A.M. Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM
KILLERCOP: She was being evasive.
JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: She just told us all that she was the one in charge after getting that delegation. Now, I'm not going to permit more inquiry into that. That's out of the question. Nobody has the right to establish something that's been established and to go over it time and time again. No one has the right, not any lawyer, not any client, to impeach somebody about something that hasn't been inconsistent.
JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: That's been established.
KILLERCOP: I'm trying to be respectful, as you
have asked me. I'm also trying to show Your Honor that this
witness became, I believe, very good friends with the agent --
Defendant (after being sentenced to 90 days in jail): Can I address the court?
Judge: Of course. Defendant: If I called you a son of a bitch, what would you do?
Judge: I'ed hold you in contempt and assess an additional five days in jail.
Defendant: What if I thought you were a son of a bitch?
Judge: I cant do anything about that. Theres no law against thinking.
Defendant: In that case, I think you're a son of a bitch. "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. |
Judge A. Howard Matz has a Harvard Degree In Verbal Know Nothingism. And That's A Fact.
Judge A. Howard Matz: "Okay. Well, I'm going to deny the motions. They are frivolous anyway, so I will issue an order in that regard." Killercop: "It was your court-appointed attorney that filed them, created them as frivolous." Judge A. Howard Matz: "I wouldn't say they're frivolous --" Killercop: "You said they are frivolous." Judge A. Howard Matz: "That's really overstating it."
No, Howard, actually this is what overstating something looks like in reality. Now where is the CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY THE LAW that you, Greg, Elena and Debra Yang hid from We The People?
11.14.2003 Judge A. Howard Matz: "it would be a huge sea change in the administration of justice to have the personal backgrounds of 'whoever' happens to be U.S. Attorney at a given time become a basis to issue subpoenas. Selective prosecution, which you 'hinted' at, has already been ruled upon. So I don’t need further argument on Ms. Yang."
Can you guess why Yang and Nicolayson and Dr. Who were treated like royalty by Lord Matz, and forgiven by Lord Kozinski?
Here is a big hint for all you detectives, from the Board Of Governors.
Prof. John C. Coffee, Ronald J. Nessim, Howard Matz , Robert S. Fink and Michael J. Madigan
Need another hint?
(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. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
