CONTACT KILLERCOP

Hey Mac, check this out.

Ethernet addresses are known as Media Access Control (MAC) addresses, hardware addresses, or sometimes just Ethernet addresses. Since many computers may share a single Ethernet segment, each must have an individual identifier. These identifiers are hard-coded on to the NIC. A NIC is a Network Interface Card. A MAC address is a 48-bit number, also stated as a 12-digit hexadecimal number. This number is broken down into two halves, the first 24-bits identify the vendor of the Ethernet card, and the second 24-bits is a serial number assigned by the vendor.

See INTRODUCING NETWORK ANALYSIS, SYNGRESS PUBLISHING,

"Clearly, the FBI needs engineering personnel to develop and deploy sophisticated electronic surveillance capabilities in an increasingly complex and technical investigative environment, skilled CART personnel to conduct the computer forensics examinations to support an increasingly diverse set of cases involving computers, as well as expert NIPC personnel to examine network log files to track the path an intruder took to his victim."

"Defendant could not be convicted of interstate communication of threats absent proof of transmission in interstate commerce." U.S. v. Oxendine, 531 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1976)

"[W]hile the Government was required to prove that [the defendant]'s phone call crossed a state line [a fact in dispute here], the Government did not need to prove that [the defendant] knew of the interstate nexus." United States v. Whiffen, 121 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 1997) citing U.S. v Darby , 37 F.3d at 1067.

"[T]he very nature of a [double jeopardy][or jurisdictional] claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from, the principal issue at the accused's impending criminal trial, i. e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars his prosecution, the defendant makes no challenge whatsoever to the merits of the charge against him. Nor does he seek suppression of evidence which the Government plans to use in obtaining a conviction.

Rather, he is contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him." Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 507 (1979)

“It ruined my life, my wife’s life, and my family’s life,’’ he says.

Doctors vs. Gun Owners Doctors

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Now think about this:

Guns: The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million) (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188. Statistics courtesy of FBI.

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor. This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on attornys for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

"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?"

WHOIS

WSJ

2023 HIT LIST

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

(c)1997-2023

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the assistant prosecutor Elena J. Duarte had a reasonable doubt...

"The fact that he [Killercop] had access to it shows his identification, shows it was 'most likely' him that posted it." --Elena Duarte, A.U.S.A. Closing Statement, 12.04.2003, --Page 2139, lines 14-15

FACT: Probable cause -- is much lower than the standard to convict someone of a crime -- which is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reading Backwards In Time
Cut To Day 12 Of The Trial:
Transcript of 12.04.2003
Docket #323

Page 2139, Lines 11-15
PROSECUTOR: "Now, remember ladies and gentlemen, theft is not an element. It's not charged. We don't need to prove it. We don't have to prove that he stole the stuff. But, again, access. The fact that he had access to it show his identification, shows it was most likely him that posted it." Or not.

Page 2143, Lines 21-25
PROSECUTOR: "And all of the representatives that testified, testified that the manner in which to upload Webpages to the website that they hosted was [generally] by 'FTP' - File Transfer Protocol - which is the transfer of the electronic data from one area to another."

Page 2147, Lines 11-16
PROSECUTOR: "Now, you also heard the elements of the second group of charges: Transferring social security numbers with the intent to aid and abet. And you heard the elements of that: That the defendant acted knowingly, that he transferred the number, that it was in a manner affecting interstate commerce."

Reading Backwards In Time
Cut To Day 8 Of The Trial:
Transcript of 11.25.2003
Docket #304 & 316 (AMENDED)

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: WILLIAM SIEBERT, Director of Customer Relations, Guidance Software/computer forensics consultant.

Page 1608, Lines 15-20
PROSECUTOR: "In you opinion, were they the product of visiting a site, perhaps making a download or two, and then backing up that data?"

ANSWER: "It is possible that that is the product of 'downloading' a webpage or an - downloading the webpage or actually creating it on his machine and uploading it back to the Internet." Or both! Since anything is possible.

Page 1608, Lines 21-25, Page 160, Lines 1-4
PROSECUTOR: "In you examination of the seized media, were you able to form an opinion on who created - I should say, on whether the website 'evilgx.com' was created on the computer that you were examining?"

ANSWER: "Yes. I would most definitely say that the 'evilgx.com' webpages were built on the hardware seized from Killercop."

PROSECUTOR: "Nothing further, Your Honor."

COURT: "Okay. Anything further?"

KILLERCOP: "Yes, Your Honor, just one question."

Page 1609, Lines 7-11 and 17-21
KILLERCOP: "Of these pages you talked about that were created - on 'evilgx' that were created on this computer, can you tell with 100 percent accuracy whether all of these pages were created by the defendant?"

ANSWER: "No, I cannot."

KILLERCOP: "And if those pages were downloaded to somebody else who had FTP access to that website, they could tinker with the page, too, couldn't they?"

ANSWER: "Yes. They could alter the Webpages that were up on the internet."

KILLERCOP: "Can you tell, through your analysis, where physically the defendant or anybody was when that page, or any of those pages, was put up on the website?"

ANSWER: "No, I can't tell you where the computer was physically located when the webpages were created and posted to the internet."

KILLERCOP: "Nothing further, Your Honor."

Cut To Day 7 Of The Trial:
Transcript of 11.24.2003
Docket #301 & 315 (AMENDED)

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: MONTE WHITE, Customer Support Manager, Intercosmos MediaGroup, New Orleans, Louisiana.
INVOLVES EXHIBTS: 42& 43

Page 1307, lines 11-13
PROSECUTOR: "In other words, do those logs reflect the successful uploads to the website?"

ANSWER: "No."

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: DAVID JOHNSON, Team Lead for Network Abuse Team, Comcast Cable Company.
INVOLVES EXHIBTS: 31 & 32

Page 1276, Lines 4-25
PROSECUTOR: "Does this [exhibit] also show any kind of identifying feature or address for the computer [of the accused]?"

ANSWER: "On the bottom portion of the page, it shows the MAC address of the computer"

QUESTION: The which address?"

ANSWER: The MAC address."

QUESTION: "Without getting to technical, what is the purpose of assigning a MAC address to this account?"

ANSWER: "The MAC address actually is the single identifier for a PC or a computer device, and that is essentially what ties a computer to an IP address at a given time."

QUESTION: "Does that MAC address actually correspond to hardware in the user's computer?"
ANSWER: "It does."

Page 1278, Lines 1-17
Q: "What time do these - what time frame do these records cover ...?"

A: "They cover the period of February 1, 2002 to March 22, 2002."

Q: "And were there any records available before that time for this computer and this IP address?"

A: "No."

Q: "So do you know whether or not -- this IP address that was originally assigned in November and that we see being used from February on, do you know whether or not for sure that was the same IP address being used in the interim?"

A: "No."

Page 1280, Lines 3-15
KILLERCOP"
Q: "To your knowledge, does AT&T or Comcast have any knowledge of any logs available for any dates between January and March 29th of disconnect and connect times from that cable modem?"

A: "Not to my knowledge."

Q:" To your knowledge, does Comcast or AT&T have any logs available for locations of that cable modem between January and March of 2002?"

A: "Locations of the actual cable modem device as to who - which customer may have had it at that time?"

Q: "Well, the IP address. I'm speaking specifically to the IP address?

A: " Okay. To the IP address, not to my knowledge."

Cut To Day 6 Of The Trial:
Transcript of 11.19.2003
Docket #299

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: JEFFERY CUGNO, Special Agent, FBI

ARRESTING AGENT IN THE CASE:

FBI LINES OF THE DAY: "There were several investigative leads that probably were not followed up that probably should have been."

Question By Accused: "Why weren't they?"

Answer By Prosecutor and Judge: "Objection. Irrelevant." "Sustained." Page 1183, Lines 19-24.

JUDGE LINES OF THE DAY: "Move On KILLERCOP. No sidebars, period. Zero, none. Move on." Page 1197, Lines 5-6. "There is no basis whatsoever for you to engage in inquiries that are part of what you think is evidence that would support a claim of selective prosecution." Page 1211, Lines 8-10.

Page 1150, Lines 5-7
KILLERCOP: "That IP address is yours for quite a while? It's not going to disappear; it's a fixed IP?"

A: " I believe so, but I think there are some exceptions."

Page 1146, Lines 3-12
KILLERCOP: " Would you tell the jury what an IP address is?"

A: "An IP address, which has been previously described to you, are a set of numbers that are separated by a decimal point, and that generally11 refers to the physical location of a computer and it's unique to that computer during a time period."12

Page 1063, Lines 11-16
INVOLVES EXHIBIT 44
KILLERCOP: "So the defense understands, the defense is not allowed to impeach the statements represented to be true in that document; is that correct?"

JUDGE: "That's correct. That document has been received."

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: MAURICE GILMORE, Owner of Hosting Solutions, Virginia. HOST from January 9 till February 18, 2002. (See page 1114) INVOLVES EXHIBIT 36 "Subscriber Info," not FTP log transfer info!

Page 1108, Lines 8-18
PROSECUTOR: "By 'uploading their website,' is there a particular method or way to upload that your system used?"

A: "Yes. Our clients, they use a protocol FTP. And what they'll do, from they're home PC, they'll just upload their contents to our servers.

Q: And by 'upload' to your computer, does that constitute a physical transfer to your computer?"

A: " Yes. It does."

Cut To Day 2 Of The Trial:
Transcript of 11.13.2003
Docket #295

ENTER: GOVERNMENT WITNESS: FRANK HARRILL, Special Agent, FBI, Original Case Agent In Charge

Page 417, Lines 7-25
PROSECUTOR: "Once a website is on the Internet, can it be changed?"
A: "It can."
Q: "How is that?"
A: Anyone with access to the website can upload - we've talked about FTP - updated content, and they could change one web page or they could change the entire website at virtually anytime."

Page 416, Lines 10-16
PROSECUTOR: "Okay. And once these websites are constructed - or during their construction, how do they get onto the Internet?
A: The - once someone has constructed the website content, it's usually uploaded to the Web host. It's done by, normally, FTP - or 'File Transfer Protocol' -and that is an Internet service that allows you to transmit large quantities of data in a fairly expeditious way across the Internet to the Web host."

Transcript of 11.07.2003
Docket #280

Page 62, Lines 15-18
Judge: "The Planned Parenthood case makes it clear that there is no constitutional infirmity in 875(c). The facts of this case will warrant a prosecution.

Page 63, Lines 12-25 deals with jurisdiction Motion filed early in 2003.

Defendant: "I don't believe the Government can prove that and I demand the Government have to prove that before they try me."
Page 64, Lines 1-7
Judge: "Your demand that the Government have to prove that is granted. The Government will have to prove that the facilities of interstate commerce were used in connection with the conduct alleged in the indictment. If it proves that, there is no jurisdictional barrier to an other wise valid conviction."
Defendant: "Thank you, Your Honor."

Page 72, Lines 1-14
Defendant: First off, let's talk about the jurisdictional challenge. When will that be heard on? I assume prior to trial beginning."
Judge: "The jurisdictional motion has been denied."
Defendant: "You denied it?"
Judge: "I denied it."
Defendant: "Based on what law, authority?"
Judge: "The motion lacks merit, Killercop. I already told you. If the government establishes that the facilities of interstate commerce were used, the jurisdictional element has been established and your rights have been protected. Now I'm not going to go over that ground again."

Transcript of 09.02.2003

Defendant: "Thank you, Your Honor. One last objection. I do seek sanctions on Mr. Nicolaysen for failing to turn over that file as ordered. My concerns one, that man has threatened me in the past if I pressured him or made him look bad or forced him to do anything, go to court, he would make sure I lose. Now, he's got my whole world in his hands, my whole world are in his hands right now in that file. All weekend he might be taking stuff. He might be loosing stuff, misplacing stuff. I don't know. All I know [is] this man has threatened me in the past to make me lose this case. Now he's ignoring everybody, doing his own thing. I want that noted for the record."
Judge: "Okay. It is noted."
Page 13, Lines 1-5
I believe I have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of those charges. It's not personal towards this court, but It's my understanding that a court which has lawful jurisdiction is a competent court. One, which lacks lawful jurisdiction, is an incompetent court."

ERROR ON PAGE 13, LINES 6-7
"I believe that this Court is proceeding as an incompetent court [until jurisdiction is proved] over me.

Page, 13, Lines 7-21
I have asked for it time and time again. I want that right. And I want notice any time I'm brought further into this courtroom. I don't like being hailed into a court without any notice about what's to take place. I wish this court to protect that right as well. Other then that, I proceed with all rights reserved until jurisdiction is proved."
Judge: "Would you like to meet with Mr. Reed?"
Defendant: "As well as I do not recognize this court, I do not recognize - -"
MAJOR INTERRUPTION AT THIS POINT BY JUDGE:
Judge: "So is it your choice not to have anything in the nature of even a preliminary conversation with Mr. Reed this afternoon?"
Defendant: "I believe I stated my objection very clearly."

Yes, Your Honor. First I'd like the record to reflect I am not proceeding pro per. If anything, I'll be proceeding suri juris on my own right, not on my own behalf. I object to any other counsel being foisted over to me. I object to previous just removed counsel's substituting a man on the spot as to be his replacement."19

Cut To Competency Hearing:
Transcript of 08.27.2003
Docket #188

Page 9, Lines 2-15
Accused: "[I] object to your sitting on the bench, ruling against me in any way, shape or form under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. I would like you to recuse yourself forthwith and assign another judge to rule on any further matters. Furthermore, I want the court to take judicial notice, which it has failed to do on numerous occasions, to my challenge to the jurisdiction on the subject matter in this courtroom. Will you take judicial notice of that now?"
Judge: "KILLERCOP, those are matters which are not appropriate to raise. I deny your motion to recuse myself. I deny your contention that the court lacks jurisdiction."

Cut To Pre-Trial Hearing:
Transcript of 03.14.2003
Docket #139 Page 69, Lines 14-20

KILLERCOP: "I challenge the jurisdiction of this court. This examination is unlawful; and you're holding me unlawfully; and I fully seek to exercise every remedy under the law to make sure you feel how you're making me feel. You have no honor. You have lost all sense of honor in this courtroom. 'Kangaroo Court.'"

JUDGE: "All right. We're adjourned."

Cut To Pre-Trial Hearing:
Transcript of 01.17.2003
Docket #118

SEE JURISDICTION CHALLENGE "PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED" (12.05.03)

Page 14
"Those finding in turn arise out of and refer to and include findings that KILLERCOP has displayed apparent confusion about the proper rolls of any counsel and all counsel, at least those counsel who have represented him thus far in this case, vis-à-vis the client and particular vi-a-vis him. (SEE WAIVER OF COUNSEL) KILLERCOP has displayed some apparent confusion as to the actual charges and what they consist of and what the elements are. (SEE NATURE AND CAUSE) (SEE COMPETENCY )

Transcript of 04.09.2002

Page 29, Lines 13-15
Potashner: "At this point KILLERCOP has raised and we are investigating a possible commerce clause motion, interstate federal jurisdiction motion as well ..."

Going Further Backwards In Time
Cut To Arraignment of Original-Complaint:
Transcript of 04.09.2002
Docket #07

Pages 9-10, Page 9, Lines 22-25
JUDGE: "Do you understand the nature of the charge that's made in that document?"

KILLERCOP: "No. I understand the Cause, but I'm reserving my right to challenge subject-matter- "jurisdiction and the nature of the claim."
JUDGE: "Certainly all your rights are reserved."
KILLERCOP: "Thank you."
JUDGE: "Certainly all your rights are reserved."
KILLERCOP: "Thank you.
JUDGE: "It's simply a question of whether you understand the nature of what the document says."
KILLERCOP: "I do not recognize the nature of this charge. I understand the cause - -"
JUDGE: "Okay.
KILLERCOP: "because I can read, But --."
JUDGE: "I think that's the same thing. I understand the distinction you're drawing. And for my purposes -"
KILLERCOP: "Thank you."
JUDGE: "I'm satisfied that you understand the cause there." [But not the Nature]

RELATED

Subpoena To ISP for Subscriber Info

See also: DOCKET #110 (1.14.2003) Writ of the Mandamus to Compel; Motion to Dismiss Counsel For the Ineffective Assistance; Motion to dismiss for the lack of Jurisdiction;...

See also DOCKET page 45, between #327 and #328, PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED: Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-9 for lack of jurisdiction [Entry Date 12/05/03] THIS WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN AND NOTED ABOVE AFTER THE TRIAL TOOK PLACE.

03.11.04
DOCKET # 371 & 357 (Hearing Transcript 03.01.2004)
MINUTE ORDER:
"Mr. Willis failed to make it clear that he was supposedly 'specially appearing' to explain to Mr. McAfee's absence attributable to his kidney condition. Mr. McAfee's purported challenge to this court's jurisdiction echoed in Mr. Willis's utterly confused declaration filed on March 9, 2004 is palpably unfounded, but the court will not explore further sanctions for such frivolous filings unless they are repeated in the future."

As the Supreme Court established in Jackson v. Virginia, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction requires us to determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

"Cornelius Dupree spent the prime of his life behind bars because of mistaken identification that probably would have been avoided if the best practices now used in Dallas had been employed," Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, said in a press release. "Let us never forget that, as in the heartbreaking case of Cornelius Dupree, a staggering 75% of wrongful convictions of people later cleared by DNA evidence resulted from misidentifications."

UMMMM, SO YOU WOULD ARGUE IT WAS MOST LIKELY HIM THAT RAPED HER? THAT'S STUPID!

See: An Outline for the Perplexed
See also: Federal Judges Bench Book on Interstate Commerce

Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace:

Uploader v. Downloader

Computer And Internet Crimes

Internet Jurisdiction and related Summary Of Cases

See also: Jurisdiction Issues and Selective Prosecution

"The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers that allows millions of people to communicate and exchange information. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 849-50 (1997); In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The World Wide Web, the best known category of communication over the Internet, consists of a vast number of electronic documents stored in different computers all over the world. Reno v. ACLU, 421 U.S. at 852.

Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can "publish" information on the Web in the form of a "web page" or "website." A website consists of electronic information stored by a hosting service computer or "server." The owner of the website may pay a fee for this service. Each website has a unique domain name or web address (e.g., Amazon.com or Lycos.com), which corresponds to a specific location within the server where the electronic information comprising the website is stored. A person who wishes to view the website types the domain name into a computer connected to the Internet. This is essentially a request to the server to make an electronic copy of the website (or at least the first page or "home page") and send it to the user's computer. After this electronic information reaches the user's computer, it is downloaded for viewing on the user's screen. See generally Preston Gralla, How the Internet Works (1999)." Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., No. 99-55106, 8/23/02.

"If a user wishes to view the website, the user requests that the server transmit a copy of the document to the user's computer. When the server sends the document to the user's computer for viewing, a transfer of information from the website owner to the user has occurred. " (Id.)

"I dissent, however, from Part B of Section I, which holds that the term "intercept" in the Wiretap Act, as applied to electronic communications, refers solely to contemporaneous acquisition. I conclude instead that "stored electronic communications" are subject to the statute's intercept prohibition as well." REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.

SEE ALSO

Jurisdiction 2005

Issues Regarding Jurisdiction
1 United States v. McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003)

2 The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. McCoy, 323 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003)

3 The computer NIC was never entered as an exhibit, nor was the computer as a whole, either.

4 MAC addresses are unique, and no two computers should have the same one. However, this is not always the case. Occasionally there could be a manufacturing error that would cause more than one network interface card to have the same MAC address, but mostly, people will change their MAC addresses on purpose. This can be done with a program, such as ipconfig, that will allow you to fake your MAC address. Faking your MAC address is also called spoofing.

5 See Government's Response To Court's Order On Computer And Email Evidence, United States Of America V. Zacarias Moussaoui, Crim. No. 01-455-A Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division (Sept. 2002). "In October 2001, further investigation revealed that that IP address was assigned to PC11, a lab computer on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, using Network Interface Card identified with MAC address 00:B0:D0:43:85:C8." Page 12, Ibid. Source:

6 "Clearly, the FBI needs engineering personnel to develop and deploy sophisticated electronic surveillance capabilities in an increasingly complex and technical investigative environment, skilled CART personnel to conduct the computer forensics examinations to support an increasingly diverse set of cases involving computers, as well as expert NIPC personnel to examine network log files to track the path an intruder took to his victim. In cases such as Los Alamos or Columbine, both NIPC and CART personnel were called in to bring their unique areas of expertise to bear on the case." See, Statement for the Record of Louis J. Freeh, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation on Cybercrime Before the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Washington, D.C. February 16, 2000

TWITTER (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.

NY TIMES HIT PIECE

FOX NEWS HIT PIECE

NBC NEWS HIT PIECE

MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE.

LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT.

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

All Rights Reserved.