The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

I COULD TAKE YOU OUT

The question is not, "Why the U.S. Government need not prove jurisdiction."

The question is, "Why should they not? Since the law requires it"


THOUGHT CRIME

Killercop's case went from a lynching, and railroading, and later became a power grab for Jurisdiction of the Internet. To the playas at the end, it was all about the power to be able to silence the Internet, and be able to "SHUT IT DOWN" if you use it.

 

First they needed to call the 'Internet' an "Instrumentality"of Interstate Commerce. Based on nothing but an "assumption" with an "inference" and a HUGE un-logical conclusion of power, but no authority.

 

Who knows if they will get away with this crime. They keep quoting and citing my decision like it has any authority, which it does not.

 

So the Chief Perverted Judge of the Ninth Circuit, forced a computer dummy on the appeal of Killercop; just as his buddy Matz had done all along, one who could barely pronounce the word "affirmatively" when discussing "Instrumentality."

 

Who then promptly "illegally quit" after a false confession to his masters.

 

Alex then had a hearing of one, to dispose of the annoyance.

 

Clearly the false confession to the court was without authority and willful. Another fraud upon the court! Quite the process they got going. Not!

 

YOU have no more right to usurp that which is not given. THAT would be treason to the Constitution.

 

>Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes. UNDERSTAND?

 

THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, AND THE INVOKING OF THE INSTRUMENTALITY CLAUSE FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WHERE IT EXISTS NOT, IN THE CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED, IS THE USURP.

 

SECRETS

SEE JUSTICE THOMAS OPINION ON "INVOKING THE FULL FORCE" OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY CONGRESS IN U.S. -V- LOPEZ. 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

 

LIES TO GAIN POWER

 

THEY ARE ALREADY CITING THE SUTCLIFFE CASE TO GAIN GREATER POWER!! WITH-OUT ANY PROOF. A TOTAL SHAM!

 

SEE EMAIL TO SUNG PARK. ID.

AROUND HERE THEY BRUSH OFF WRITS, AND RIGHTS, LIKE BLACK AND WHITE ON COWS.

 

A SECRET HEARING IN AMERICA

 

I am a soldier in the army of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is my Commanding officer. The Holy Bible is my Code of Conduct. Faith, prayer, and the Word are my weapons of warfare. I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, trained by experience, tried by adversity and tested by fire.

I am a volunteer in this army and I am enlisted for eternity. I will either retire in this army at the rapture or die in this army; but I will not get out, sell out, be talked out, or pushed out. I am faithful, reliable, capable and dependable. If my God needs me, I am there. If He needs me in the Sunday school, to teach the children, work with the youth, help adults or just sit and learn, He can use me because I am there.

I am a soldier. I am not a baby. I do not need to be pampered, petted, primed up, pumped up, picked up or pepped up. I am a soldier. No one has to call me, remind me, write me, visit me, entice me, or lure me. I am a soldier. I am not a wimp. I am in place, saluting my King, obeying His orders, praising His name, and building His kingdom! No one has to send me flowers, gifts, food, cards, candy or give me handouts. I do not need to be cuddled, cradled, cared for, or catered to. I am committed. I cannot have my feelings hurt bad enough to turn me around. I cannot be discouraged enough to turn me aside. I cannot lose enough to cause me to quit.

When Jesus called me into this army, I had nothing. If I end up with nothing, I will still come out ahead. I will win. My God has and will continue to supply all of my needs. I am more than a conqueror. I will always triumph. I can do all things through His Spirit.

The devil cannot defeat me.

People cannot disillusion me.

Weather cannot weary me.

Sickness cannot stop me.

Battles cannot beat me.

Money cannot buy me.

Governments cannot silence me and

hell cannot handle me.

I am a soldier. Even death cannot destroy me.

For when my Commander calls me from this battlefield, He will promote me to Captain and then allow me to rule with Him. I am a soldier in His army, and I'm marching, claiming victory. I will not give up. I will not run around. I am a soldier, marching heaven bound.

-KILLERCOP

 

"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 US 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OF THE COURTS TO SUPRESS THIS KIND OF SPEECH?" --Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL OF KILLERCOP

An Internet Kill Switch. Available Only @ Killercop.com since 2005!

A.K.A. To Infer: A. K. A. The place where you got tired of thinking. See also baffled and confused. A.K.A. Powerfully stupid.

Can the American experiment in freedom continue without a foundation predicated on the notion that each CITIZEN possesses a life that is their own?

I conclude that without the political recognition of unalienable rights it cannot be assured that the political system will recognize that your life belongs to you.

MATZ BIN LADEN

If you are one of the people who have to look and have to listen, and you know who you are, then it would be a prudent thing for you to do it promptly! A.K.A. You have to do it, since you are my captive now!


The Internet Kill Switch

A FRAUD UPON THE COURT!! X2

18 USC § 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

"LIBERTY, JUSTICE AND THE PURSUIT OF THOSE WHO VIOLATE IT."

A.K.A. KEEP THE DOGS AT BAY!!

I AM NOW ARMED X2 & X3

CENSORSHIP

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.

The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.

Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously perform our duty." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821)

TERRORIST TV

REGULATORS SOUNDS LIKE TERRORISTS!!

They all knew the "Internet" was not "regulated" and they wanted the power to regulate it, so they used my case to "make law" in this circuit by usurping jurisdiction, where none exists. This was done by "assuming, inferring, guessing and flat out lying. This is the treason.  

Invoking the "Instrumentality Clause" was unlawful, since it was not an element of the laws I was accused under. It was never on the table, until they all invoked it at this hearing, like a magical spell, with Kozinski's handpicked attorney from the Public Defenders Office of the District, he forced on me, one of many in the case, who then "quit" after his false confession. Going to work, of course, for Alex's good buddy, Howard Matz' good buddy, "Rob" Bonnor, over at Home Land Security.

The attorney was so dumb that "I wrote the jurisdiction challenge;" in the attached document called DefReplyBrief2.pdf, that the PERVERT tried to skate around, by claiming "the government need not prove jurisdiction."

This attorney, Sung Park, refused to include it in his first brief, so I had to tell him if he refused to insert it I would fire him, Just like I told David Reed, and Greg, so he allowed it, which is why they held oral arguments to twist the written words I wrote, using this puppet, Sung Park. Who then got a job "that day," from Judge Matz's friend, Rob Bonner, in Homeland Security.

Now because of this ruling everyone is claiming >"The Internet is an "instrumentality of Interstate commerce," so they can assume/infer jurisdiction, WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE IT.

THIS IS UNHEARD OF POWER!!!

MATZ BIN LADEN

They exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. And they cite my case, U.S. v Sutcliffe to continue to do this!! I am baffled and astonished and amazed!

NO SHEEPLE

FACTS AND LAW:
The three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power are:
a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
b) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and
c) Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

MY CASE FALLS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FIRST, AND:

a) "the use of the channels of interstate commerce"

ASK UNCLE TOM.

JUSTICE THOMAS

Concurrence (Thomas)

The "substantial effects test" has eviscerated any notion of federalism. Without boundaries limiting the Commerce Clause to truly commercial activity, >we give the federal government a blank check to regulate anything under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

An invitation to steal!

Contact the author.

What causes the "Disqualification of a Federal Judge?"

NOTHING I CAN SEE.

ISN'T TESTIFYING AS A CHARACTER WITNESS FOR MY MISSING WIFE BAD CONDUCT?

A QUOTE:

"The behavior that 'neither resulted in a conviction nor even an arrest' but that was facially unlawful, and in any event a very chilling indication of the consideration as to how likely it is that he would commit further crimes is that he undoubtedly and indisputably set up this killercop.com web site; tried to arrest via citizen's arrest a law enforcement officer carrying out "his" duties in a courthouse; the indication that his wife has made, I'm not making any findings but it's in the record, and it resulted in an issuance of a domestic restraining order in New Hampshire that he was prone to violence or at least she claimed; and the demeanor that she displayed when she testified at the trial I find to be not only consistent with that but probably the result of that. It was a demeanor combining both profound fear and embarrassment as well as enmity."

~A. HOWARD MATZ, DURING ILLEGAL SENTENCING HEARING OF KILLERCOP

FACTS

THE VITAL SIGNS!

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality.

If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

HOW ABOUT THE WHOLE STATE BEING DISQUALIFIED???

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, >whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE.

EMAIL KILLERCOP

DISCLAIMER

FAQ

CONTEXT

REWARDS

CONTACT

Copyright 1997-2022

All Rights Reserved.