April 2023: Several weeks ago the Chief of the Police of the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Protective League Directors, the private association that lobbies on behalf of police officers, have united in deliberately spreading false information about this website’s origins and purpose. The fabrication of this recent “scandal” originated from Chief Moore and the LAPD, calling on the LAPD to violate public records laws, and making veiled threats against the community member who created it. Various public officials and attorneys are exploiting that dispute to demonize and silence speakers in the communities who criticize them. This is a deliberate attempt to gin up a scandal in order to repress dissent about the expansion of the California police state. Let’s be clear about the stakes here: Graver police secrecy and graver police violence. And even larger cash rewards!
Police and their political lapdogs are eager to weaken the minimal transparency provided by the California Public Records Act, a law enacted in 1968 during the heyday of the civil rights movement. LAPD is attempting to end public access to information about their department, and city leaders are aiding them in this effort. They want policing to be shrouded in secrecy. Also at stake here is our lives. The more police hear political leaders like Mayor Bass proclaim that their lives are endangered by something as simple as transparency of government, they are giving police even more of a green light to treat every person around them as a threat. Black and Brown communities consistently bear the brunt of police violence.
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?"
Man is assaulted and battered on a public beach. Man makes citizen arrest. Man calls LAPD cop to hand over his prisoner. Cop, instead, releaseshis prisoner. Then arrests man for "attempted breaking and entering." Charge later dropped. [See FAQ 1 and FAQ 2 Re: Judge Larry Fiddler.]
Man sues woman who battered him. Woman who battered him brings the LAPD cop to the hearing. Man wins lawsuit for unlawful battery by woman.
City attorney steals man's audio tape, in open court on request of LAPD. Judge allows this theft.
Man files motion to return stolen property [the audio tape] and arrest city attorney.
Judge Debra Wong Yang returns stolen property, but covers up crime of city attorney, then commits contempt of court. Man charges judge Yang with contempt of court. Judge admits contempt.
Another, so called 'judge' then tries man and finds him guilty of the 'infraction.' Judge takes property from man, and refuses to return it, too. Man finds out that this so called 'judge' has no oath of office. Man exposes that fact, inter alia, on this website.
They appear to be trying to trying to vilify and discredit the man and defend themselves in the court of public opinion or against any future actions that might come.
Man moves website back online.
Shortly thereafter man is arrested by FBI and charged with Federal speech crimes for a different website but Killercop.com is dragged into the fight, with LAPD lies to Federal Agents [First Federal Crime].
FBI claims, that the LAPD Detectives claim, that man was 'selling weapons'on website during first hearing. FBI repeats this lie to a federal judge. Man cross examines the LAPD lies told by the FBI. Their lies aged like old milk.
After his arrest and during booking the man is choked by cops. FBI laughed, while he was choked by cops. Caught on Video. This is later covered up by appointed counsel, court, prosecutor and F.B.I. This is known as a selective non investigation/prosecution. [Second Federal Crime][Third Federal Crime]
6 months into the complex computer case the 'entire', read that again, Central District of California, Public Defenders Office (FPD) quits the case, citing an "'unspoken' conflict of interest." Motion granted by trial judge Matz over mans objections. Man begs judge to force them to not quit the case. Mans words fall on deaf, dumb and blind ears. Man cries. Man is then, naturally, blamed by trial judge for causing this "unspoken conflict of interest."
Judge then blames this conflict, caused by this situation he created, on the man.Orders the man to defend himself and removes all 6th amendment rights to counsel based on an"implicit finding."
Forced counsel quits. Judge rules on forced counsel;s motion BEFORE hearing and ruling on my motion to remove him. This "sudden" quitting is blamed on the man, too.
New counsel appears, again, appointed from the conflicted F.P.D office, but for a moment. Then quits.This too is blamed on the man.