FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

CONTACT KILLERCOP

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

"So the subpoena [for Gary Winnick] remains outstanding, although the trial date has been continued. He remains responsible to respond on whatever date he is later notified."

THE COURT: "You are declined. You set forth -- it's not permitted, and you've made your motion, and it's been granted with the qualifications that I already said. Mr. Nicolaysen no longer is your attorney. Before I get to the question of the earlier transcript, did you want to be heard, Ms. Duarte?"

 

Ms. Duarte: "I just had a procedural point, while Mr. Nicolaysen was still up here."

 

SIMON SAYS!

A Procedural Crucible

 

He was still up there alright in fact, but under the law he was gone, and did no longer exist, after having been "removed" as Killercop's "assistance" of counsel by Hizzzzonor, A. Howard Matz. And the prosecutor knew that fact, as well as this fact, too!

 

He was at that moment "no longer my attorney."

 

We all stood, alone. Each representing themself. But none represented me. A first year Harvard student knows that!

 

Would she cross the line? Would they both cross it and break the law? You bet!! They were all on a roll. See AUGUST 27, 2003.

 

The Supreme Court has indicated that a defendant's right to present a defense stems both from the right to due process provided by
the Fifth Amendment, and from the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" provided by the
Sixth Amendment, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23 (1967) (explaining that the right to compulsory process would be meaningless if the defendant lacked the right to use the witnesses whose presence he compelled).

 

According to the Bible, Acts 25:16, the Roman Governor Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Paul, stated: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." Many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed the right of the accused under the Confrontation Clause to have a face-to-face confrontation with the accuser, and an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser.

LIARS AND THIEVES!!

 

"Michael Nighan Statutory_ID 11640772X, couldn't believe his eyes. As Global Crossing's North America director of regulatory affairs, one of Nighan's tasks was to review all of the startup telco's marketing and sales material. But what confused him in late 1999 was a map of Global Crossing's network that showed a fiber-optic loop around the continent of Africa. "What's this?" asked Nighan. He was told it was Africa One, an undersea broadband cable that Global Crossing planned to build for a group of telecom carriers. "But I said it didn't belong on a map of our network because one, it doesn't exist, and two, even if it did exist, it wouldn't belong to us," says Nighan, who left Global Crossing last November. The response Nighan got was, "Gary (CEO Gary Winnick) wants it there." So it stayed on the map." - Fortune Magazine,"Global Crossing: The Emperor of Greed" - June 24, 2002


 

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the rightto be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.

 

The Supreme Court has explained that the right of confrontation “means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). Rather, “[t]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross examination.” Id. at 315-16

 

“[The Confrontation Clause] guaranteed a defendant’s right to confront those ‘who bear testimony’ against him.” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004)

 

Held: Under Crawford, a witness’s testimony against a defendant is inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U. S., at 54.

 

So the big question is when does that become an "entitlement" instead?

 

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye.

 

According to the Bible, Acts 25:16, the Roman Governor Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Paul, stated: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." Many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed the right of the accused under the Confrontation Clause to have a face-to-face confrontation with the accuser, and an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser. In the 2004 decision of Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to confront one's accusers could not be taken away in cases where judges believe that testimonial hearsay evidence is reliable, because such hearsay evidence had not had its reliability tested through the procedural crucible of cross-examination.

 

Gary, did you know that the Federal statute that gives the FBI jurisdiction in kidnapping cases is called the “Lindbergh law”, which arose from the highly publicized kidnapping of Charles and Anne Lindbergh’s son by Bruno Richard Hauptmann?

 

The Lindberghs were wealthy, but Charles may have been the most famous and beloved person in America at the time. Not like you.

 

Gary Winnick is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Capital Group, a diversified private investment firm founded in 1985. He is also Chairman and Founder of advanced concrete technology company iCrete, LLC.

 

Education: BA, C.W. Post campus of Long Island University, 1969

 

Personal: Gary Winnick was born in 1947 and grew up in Roslyn, New York.

 

"ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL THAT 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

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

EPIC CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

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?

ARE YOU STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

FAQ 1 FAQ 2

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

Keep your dogs at bay, I'm now armed! X2 A.K.A. The case of "It would be political dynamite to prosecute Winnick in this case. "

WINNICK AND MAYOR OF LA

From left: David Gergen, Adam Winnick, Gary Winnick, Karen Winnick, Alex Winnick and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and coming up in the rear of the picture, George Washington representing himself!!

THE SPIRIT

"I want justice, and there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'

"GARY, ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO LOOK AT YOURSELF AND YOUR HOUSES?

"I want you to communicate to the lawyer or to Mr. Winnick," or the Company Leadership, that Killercop is actively seeking to exercise his right to confront Gary, face to face. And all the money in the world won't be able to protect him. Killercop will enforce, and protect this right at all costs.

Either Gary appears willingly, or by force. But either way he will answer to Killercop. The law requires it. As well as the "interests of justice."

And around here Killercop enforces the Rule of Law! Not the Law of Rule! I also now know the difference 'tween a person, and the person of another.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witness against him."

Gary Winnick, the Global Crossing chairman, has no such problems, yet. In California, he was renovating his $94 million palatial estate. You can't see much from the ground, but an aerial view offers the full majesty of a home with 15 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms is overlooking the Bel Air Country Club.

Global Crossing Chairman Gary Winnick, once tabbed by Fortune magazine as, "The Emperor of Greed," cashed in $735 million in stock over four years while driving the company into bankruptcy, and he's but the tip of the iceberg.

All I got out of the deal was this CD-ROM. From her. Okayed by them and him.

Don't worry if you don't understand. It's complex.

Unless you are legally incompetent. It's a different reality.

FORCED REALITY

JANUARY 14, 2003

PUBLIC DEFENDER WILLIAM HARRIS: All right. Well, we assert that it is. As far, Your Honor, as far, just ask the court to consider one thing. As far as the political ramifications of this, we have posited the possibility what if Schmoe was Winnick or some other high ranking official of Global Crossing tied in closely to the upper reaches of the Democratic party.

What if there's no way I can find that out because he's hiding behind a pseudonym. Some of the grammar I'll admit doesn't sound like and educated guy in the upper hierarchy but I don't know that. It could be.

And if it was and there was a lack of prosecution on this record I think we have made out our burden. If discovery shows that Schmoe was Winnick for example, I mean the decision, it would be political dynamite to prosecute Winnick in this case.

In addition to the strategic problems of having what that would do to this case. It's clear to me that a decision to prosecute --"

JUDGE MATZ

JUDGE MATZ: "I've got Gary Winnick under subpoena. I'd like to tell Mr. Winnick he doesn't have to appear. That took a lot of hoops to get the CEO under subpoena. Killercop wanted that."

PUBLIC DEFENDER BILL HARRIS: "So if this trial is going to be continued, one of the things that I'll want to do is somehow withdraw that in a manner that we can get Mr. Winnick again, if and when.

JUDGE MATZ

JUDGE MATZ: I can arrange that. He's not listed as a witness for the government. There are 24 people.

MR. HARRIS: Is he on the government's list?

JUDGE MATZ

JUDGE MATZ: No. I'm telling you that he's not, not the list I was just handed today. Now I want to know what happened with respect to these stipulations.

MR. HARRIS: Killercop wouldn't cooperate and basically told me he didn't want to sign anything.

Killercop: Objection!

SORRY NANCY!

MS. DUARTE: Question, Your Honor.

JUDGE MATZ

JUDGE MATZ: There's one other thing, before you ask your question, before I forget. There is a subpoena that apparently has been served on Gary Winnick. I notice that Gary Winnick is not identified on the government's witness list. And I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the government has the ability to communicate with Mr. Winnick or with his lawyer; is that correct?

DUARTE: I have that ability, Your Honor.

JUDGE MATZ

JUDGE MATZ: I want you to communicate to the lawyer or to Mr. Winnick or to both, that although he doesn't have to respond to the subpoena on the date or under the terms that it may have contained, he remains responsible to respond on whatever date he is later notified. In effect, what I'm saying is that the subpoena, although it was issued and served through the auspices of Mr. Harris, it's like a court subpoena. I don't want anybody to have to go through any protracted or new ground of efforts to subpoena him anew. So the subpoena remains outstanding, although the trial date has been continued. Please communicate that to Mr. Winnick and his lawyer.

DUARTE: I will, Your Honor.

"Crawford required for testimonial statements,'under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial,'” id., at 52,

ANOTHER INJUSTICE

AUGUST 27, 2003

JUDGE MATZ

THE COURT: You are declined. You set forth -- it's not permitted, and you've made your motion, and it's been granted with the qualifications that I already said. Mr. Nicolaysen no longer is your attorney. Before I get to the question of the earlier transcript, did you want to be heard, Ms. Duarte?

 

Forget the fact that Gary's not listed as a witness for the U.S. government, and that Greg is no longer attorney of record, or has any authority to speak...Deep breath!!

 

A criminal defendant's constitutional rights may be violated when "witnesses are made unavailable through the suggestion, procurement, or negligence of the government." United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 608 F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

DUARTE: I'm sorry, Your Honor, yes, very briefly. I just had a procedural point while Mr. Nicolaysen 'was' still up here. In terms of the subpoenas, early on in the case, when Mr. Harris was representing Killercop, the court had ordered me to ensure that Mr. Gary Winnick, who had been subpoenaed by Killercop, was made available.

Breath!!

Mr. Nicolaysen "had" indicated to me that that availability was no longer necessary or required. Breath!!

So I have indicated that to Mr. Winnick's attorney, and he is not under "my subpoena" anymore. I just wanted to make that clear because that was kind of left hanging, and I don't think there's any written communication that would be in the file between myself and Mr. Nicolaysen on that point. Breath!!

JUDGE MATZ

THE COURT: Thank you for clarifying.

POOF!

GARY IS THEN UNSUBPOENAED BY MATZ ON NO AUTHORITY BUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

1. BY AN ATTORNEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE.

2. ON THE BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR NOW "SPEAKING FOR THE ATTORNEY" WHO IS LEGALLY ALREADY "REMOVED FROM THE CASE," AND THEREFORE HAS NO VOICE.

JUST LIKE HER BOSS, DEBRA WONG YANG.

WAY TO GO ALVIN!!

WAY TO GO ELENA!

NICE TAG TEAM.

DON'T IGNORE THAT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE "JUST HANGING THERE." ALONG WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE "JUST HANGING THERE."!

JUST CUT IT DOWN FROM THE TREE OF THE LIBERTY!!

The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

 

ALEX KOZINSKI COMMITS AND COVERED UP CRIMES

THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES THE LAW AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE PERSECUTION IN A SECRET HEARING.

A COVER UP BY JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

POD SERVER

Sponsored By Psych Ward Entertainment.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright 1997-2022

THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE.

EMAIL KILLERCOP

Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.