 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
JUDGE MATZ CAUGHT HANDING DOWN "SUBSTANTIAL" ILLEGAL SENTENCES! GOSH, IF ONLY HE HAD KNOWN! HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT KILLERCOP'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CLAIMING THE 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT IS ONLY "PRETTY CLEAR."
Not only does Judge A. Howard Matz not follow the law, he ignores it, or just changes the words of the law. Like changing the word "right" into "entitlement" or the words "seizure" and "arrest" into "detained." "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 "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN??? BUT IT IS A SECRET! AND JUDGE MATZ LOVES A SECRET! EXAMPLES ABOUND::::: OCT 08 2004 "Blakely issues exist with regard to the loss and restitution calculations which were based in part on facts neither found by a jury nor
admitted by the appellants. We therefore vacate the appellants' sentences and remand for reconsideration in light of United States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326, (9th Cir. July 21, 2004) (applying Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines).
See United States v. Castro, No. 03-50444 (9th Cir. Aug27, 2004) (per curiam)."
[ONE MONTH AFTER THE ABOVE CASTRO RULING] Judge A. Howard Matz states to Killercop that he read the Castro decision very carefully. But omits knowledge of the above rule of the law, following the guidance he claims to seek. Listen in:
"I've read the Castro decision carefully; and of course, that decision reflects what is the fundamental background context to this motion, which is that we're waiting...for Supreme Court guidance on the aftermath of Blakely and Ameline. How soon that guidance will be provided and what it will be, I have no desire to speculate about, but facing that confusion..." Judge Matz tends to get confused easily, especially when it suits him.
NOV 17 2004 These enhancements [by Judge A. Howard Matz] violated the rule [of law] that sentence enhancements can be based only on facts, proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as announced in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967, 980 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent these questioned enhancements, the sentencing ranges
would be substantially less.
KILLERCOP'S ILLEGAL SENTENCE, ON TOP OF TAKING 18 MONTHS TO BRING HIM TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, IS THEN COVERED UP BY HIS GOOD FRIEND JUDGE KOZINSKI, WITH A FALSE CONFESSION [A LIE] TO STEAL JURISDICTION BY USING THE FOLLOWING "LET'S PLAY IGNORANT" DRIBBLE: JUN 15 2005 "We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence as to either Defendant [if it had known] that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court held in Booker. In fulfilling this mandate, the district court may hold such hearings and enter such orders as it determines to be necessary, including, without limitation, modifying or vacating its previous sentence.
IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN??? HE KNEW, THEY KNEW, YET HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAND DOWN SUBSTANTIAL PRISON SENTENCES, ILLEGALLY. ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING CONFUSION AND IGNORANCE. AND HOW MANY OTHERS DID HE ILLEGALLY SENTENCE? AND WHY IS HE ALLOWED TO REMAIN? ANSWER: ASK HIS GOOD BUDDIES! MATZ WON'T TELL ME, 'CAUSE IT'S A SECRET! AFTER THIS DOCUMENT WAS PUBLISHED, THIS HAPPENED OUTSIDE MY HOME. 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™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
