 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
THIS PAGE SPONSORED BY BIG BILLY BOB'S, LOW FAT, FTP LOGS. THEY TASTE LIKE MEAT AND POTATOS!!
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."
ACTUALLY, AND FACTUALLY, IT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, BUT, IN HIZZZ ODER'S COURT, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!! SO I GUESS A TRUTH CAN BE A LIE AND A LIE A TRUTH. "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 |
Gangsta Government, American Style! Welcome To The Matztrix A.K.A. The Case Of Matz' Friends and Acquaintances Judge A. Howard Matz admits to having "friends and acquaintances" at both law firms involved with the case. Furthermore, Matz wanted both sides to submit documents without identifying which side was seeking a recusal, or specifying which relationships were the reason for that, "to avoid embarrassment". Hmmmmmmmm, whose embarrassment was he concerned about? Was Matz more worried about the secret hearing? Or the missing vital Certificate, required by the law? Or just maybe it was the missing Doctor's report which tied it all together that pushed Matz over the edge. Was he talking to Yangski? Me? I am saving up for a plane. 'Cause I love flying. And 'cause I'm mad that rules and entitlements trump my rights. And that I was denied my right to due process to confront my accusors, and prevented by secret hearings from speaking in my own defense. So I ask you again, America, what are words for, when no one listens any more? Or cares what you think. Or is allowed to speak, or not.
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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
