FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email
MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

Don't stir things up????

THESE ARE MY RIGHTS, AND THIS IS MY LIFE, AND MY THROAT, YOU GRABBED AND TORTURED, NOT SOME EPISODE OF 24!

DO YOU ENJOY FICTION?

GOOD! ME TOO!

SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE IN 2022. IT'S A FACT YOU CAN'T DENY!

TOOTALOO!!

 

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS:
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
- - -
A. HOWARD MATZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

 

CASE: CR: 02-350 {AHM}

AND BY THE WAY, THEY EVEN USED WHAT I SAID, WHILE BEING TORTURED, AGAINST ME IN THE "SECRET PRESENTENCE REPORT."

 

GOSH, TALK ABOUT BEING COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST ONE'S SELF, AND BEING UNABLE TO CONFRONT THE ACCUSOR!!!

 

"I felt beat up and like a crushed can.  That’s what I felt like, like a crushed can all over, and my spirits were down real low.” ~Rodney King


RELATED:

Officers sprayed and beat man, jury told
A jury has heard how a group of long-serving police officers allegedly repeatedly used pepper spray, batons and riot shields to restrain a man they say refused to be photographed and fingerprinted. In the dock at Tauranga District Court yesterday was Sergeant Keith Derek Parsons, who faces two charges of assault using a blunt instrument (a baton) and one of using OC (pepper) spray as a weapon. With him were Sergeant Erle Busby, facing four counts of assault with a blunt instrument (a baton), and Senior Constable Bruce Gordon Laing and Constable John Edward Mills, both charged with assault using OC spray as a weapon. The Crown alleges Parsons, who has a 25-year police service record, pepper-sprayed Mr Falwasser in the face two or three times after the latter refused to be fingerprinted or photographed. Busby then allegedly struck Mr Falwasser from behind on the hand and wrist with separate blows as he put his hands up to protect his face. As Mr Falwasser made movements towards the door, Busby allegedly struck him on the head, causing bleeding. Mr Pilditch said that over the next 10 minutes Mr Falwasser remained in the cell, which was shrouded in pepper spray, making it "intolerable for police officers". Later, Laing and Mills continued to pepper-spray Mr Falwasser's cell as he remained there, squirting the spray through vents over a 10- to 15-minute period.

This story almost seems unbelievable – we are talking seasoned cops here, not the brash, power puffed up, ill trained teenage cops who act first and think later, one of these guys has a 25 year police record, sweet jesus, was this a one off moment of madness or was this the sort of behaviour they dish out all the time but have never been busted on?

Mr Falwasser sounds like an arsehole who got lippy and was obviously under some stress to have motivated him to take his neighbors car, not a fun guy to have to process, but IF what the Crown alleges happened here did in fact happen, there is just no way anyone could defend the beat down the Police handed out to him, it will be an interesting court case.

posted by Bomber @ 7:54 AM   11 comments

"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 HEARING OF KILLERCOP

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

Epic corruption exposes the secret trial of Killercop.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "another person, on the left," and "the person of another," person, on the right.

STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

CENSORED WIKI

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

 


Killercop: "As Ms. Potashner has conveyed to the court, I do have serious concerns at this point that there might... "


THE COURT: "Obstruction of justice by the lawyers who are representing you?"


Killercop: "By Ms. Potashner."


THE COURT: What do you mean?


Killercop: "When I was first brought into the system I let everybody know that I considered myself a political prisoner. I believe that their malicious prosecution and arbitrary prosecution about to take place against myself, by the government, specifically the FBI, I believe they have been targeting me for the -- since 1998, along with a certain branch of police departments, based on my speech that I have expressed in the past which was directed at those members of law enforcement. I believe that they've misrepresented facts, they have omitted facts. They have tampered with a document."

 

THE COURT: "Which document; do you know?"


Killercop: "Yes, sir. I have the document right here. It will take me a minute to get it."

 

THE COURT: "Go ahead."


Killercop: "Discovery page 65 and discovery page 56."


THE COURT: "Are those references to Bates numbers?"


Killercop: "Yes, Your Honor. I would draw Your Honor's attention to the upper right-hand corner of Bates 66, page 2 of 2. And note that date to the left of page 2 of 66, that was the night I was arrested. That's the night I was tortured in the police department. I have the --"


THE COURT: "That's in the year 2002."


Killercop: "That's correct."


THE COURT: "Arrested by whom, the police?"


Killercop: "Manchester. One officer in there tortured me while the other officers and members of the FBI stood by and watched."

 

Killercop: "I have been a victim. When I first arrived I first met with the public defender in New Hampshire, Mr. Sax, a very honorable man, gave me a good defense. I expressed to him I was tortured in the police department. He told me to let him know when I got here what happened. I expressed that to Ms. Potashner, that while I was being tortured, my head was being forced, I saw in the upper left hand corner behind, a video tape, a camera pointing down directly at me while I was tortured. I said, " Ms. Potashner, get that tape. I want that tape. It will show everybody standing around watching this happen."

 

"She said she would. Months went by. Then I again asked her about the tape. I said did you get the tape? 'Not yet.' I wrote her a letter. I said 'please tell me why you haven't gotten the tape if you're going to get the tape. If you are not going to, tell me why.' That letter was ignored.

She told me 'Don't stir things up.'"

 

Too late for that! And that's a fact!

 

JUST THE FACTS

 

NOTE: The Justice Department authorized waterboarding in an August 2002 memo that contained a caveat that could prove crucial to any criminal investigation. Although it allowed the approved methods to be "used more than once," the memo stipulated that "repetition will not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions." (pdf document)

 

TORTURER THOMAS

Reporting from Washington - According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.

In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure."

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."

Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty. They include an inmate who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot summer sun of Alabama. Another involved an inmate from Louisiana who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard.

According to Thomas, this harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote.

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

Scalia raised eyebrows when he repeated this view on the CBS TV program "60 Minutes." When asked about torture and cruelty toward prisoners, he discounted the possibility. "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so," Scalia said. "What's he punishing you for? He's trying to extract" information, he said.

Yoo took a similar approach in his 2002 memo. He said a CIA interrogator could not violate the law against using torture if his "specific intent" was to obtain information rather than to inflict pain.

This is one area of law where Thomas and Scalia are not in sync with the court's other conservatives.

When he was a young Justice Department lawyer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued on behalf of Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who had been punched in the mouth and kicked by a prison guard. A supervisor stood by and told the officers "not to have too much fun." The punches left Hudson with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate. Roberts argued in 1991 that this unprovoked beating was cruel and unusual punishment, and the high court agreed in a 7-2 decision in Hudson vs. McMillian.

Thomas and Scalia dissented and said Hudson did not have a "serious injury." Justice Harry A. Blackmun took them to task for this view. If adopted, it would "place various kinds of state-sponsored torture and abuse entirely beyond the pale of the Constitution," Blackmun wrote. As examples, he cited "whipping them with rubber hoses, beating them with naked fists, shocking them with electric currents, asphyxiating them short of death, intentionally exposing them to heat and cold, or forcibly injecting them with psychosis-inducing drugs."

The same issue of prison cruelty arose two weeks ago in the case from North Carolina. In a 7-2 decision, with Roberts in the majority, the court revived a suit from Jamey Wilkins, who had filed a handwritten petition to the justices. He had been punched and kicked, but a judge threw out his claim without a hearing because he did not show he had suffered a serious or permanent injury.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision and repeated its view that the use of "excessive physical force" is cruel and unusual punishment if it is malicious and unprovoked.

"I continue to believe Hudson was wrongly decided," Thomas said.

david.savage@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Maybe if Clarence was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a cop, or a Citizen, heck, even his own clerk for that matter,-- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm --he might change his mind about the right of a man, not to be man handled by another man.

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 THE 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.