FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

EMAIL

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

CONFORM!! OR YOU WILL BE ASS-IMILATED.

 

ASS-IMILATED.

>A.K.A. An idea to tax and regulate the consumers, the hosting companies, banks and credit card companies >even more>, by "Pressure" and "Indirect Pressure" >to unleash a Tsunami of Federal felony casessent down from A God.


Is Internet "Exceptionalism" Dead? A.K.A. 1984 Due pressure replaces Due Process.

SAY WHAT?

“By placing "pressure" on [intermediaries like hosting companies, banks and credit card companies] to cut off service to customers [who break the law,] we can indirectly place pressure on companies, banks and credit card companies.”

That Orwellian quote is from Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Josh Goldfoot, Department of Justice litigator, in 2011.

MAGIC TRICK

“>Any Internet user who cares about free speech or has a controversial or unpopular message should be concerned about the fact that 'intermediaries' might not let them express it.” ~Marcia Hofmann 2010

Alex and Josh above attempt to illustrate their point with the example of "secondary" liability for "copyright" infringement and [use, of all things, gasp,] Judge Kozinski’s own Roommates.com decision. Indeed. They reject “the conceit that [cyberspace] exists at all” as a distinct, let alone "exceptional" place, as well as arguments that the costs to Internet companies of handling traditional regulations are too high.

Alex Kozinski

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Josh Goldfoot, Department of Justice litigator—each writing only in their "private" [nudge, nudge, wink-wink] capacity—in “A Declaration of the Dependence of Cyberspace.” 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts 365 (2009).

Source: [Edited for the clarity-above]

Exceptionalism (if it is to even be "percieved" to be a "real" word) is the "perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is "" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to "conform" to "normal" rules or "general" principles. ..."

Source:

In short, Alex Kozinski and Josh want nothing more than to regulate the local state, even more, and tax and regulate the consumers, the hosting companies, banks and credit card companies more, by "pressure" and "indirect pressure" at a federal and state level and create a bigger tsunami of federal cases.

Kozinski and Josh sound like an Internet-Thought-Nazi to me, 'specially now that his good buddy Judge Matz is in fact "applying" those same thoughts and pressure.

And 'specially when they get to "perceive" their institutional use of their "special" agents @ their disposal and using special factors (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) against America's children's, children.

Otherwise probably means "without a doubt."

And the tsunami of federal cases, they will "self impose upon themselves" will leave behind a water shed moment in time. Just like Adolf Hitler.

It is all about the control and power of the Internet. @ their hands, of course. And such corrupted hands they are, wasting valuable resources.

Resources are diminished and misspent, however, and confidence undermined, if there is judicial disregard for the sound and established principles. That judicial disregard is inherent in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit here under review.

BACKUP COPY:

"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

YOU FAILED TO CONFORM TO THE NORMAL RULE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE!

YOU CONFORMED TO THE GENERAL RULE OF THE NORMAL PRINCIPLE!! IT WAS PRUDENT!

AM I PRETTY CLEAR?

YOUR ANSWER IS NOT NECESSARY!


The case of

"Now someone will die."

A COMIC

"May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make any "Factual findings" in regard to the Reasonable cause standard" under the statute since there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?" ~Greg Nicolaysen.

THE BIG TOP RING LEADER

In a case decided last Friday (December 10, 2011), a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of Prabhat Goyal, former CFO of Network Associates, Inc., the producer of antivirus and network security software formerly known as McAfee. What makes this reversal so remarkable is that the panel tossed out the verdict not on the basis of some misstatement of the applicable law by the judge. It actually overturned the decision of the jury, one of the most unusual outcomes in appellate law. That outcome is rare because the court’s standard must be: “whether ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”

"Mr. Goyal had the benefit of exceptionally fine advocacy on appeal, so he is spared the punishment for a crime he didn't commit. But not everyone is so lucky. The government shouldn't have brought charges unless it had clear evidence of wrongdoing, and the trial judge should have dismissed the case when the prosecution rested and it was clear the evidence could not support a conviction. Although we now vindicate Mr. Goyal, much damage has been done. One can only hope that he and his family will recover from the ordeal. And, perhaps, that the government will be more cautious in the future." ~Chief Judge KOZINSKI, concurring:

FOOL

Perhaps. But I would not count on it.

"§223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) of the CDA are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and are substantially overbroad. The Internet is entitled to the full protection given to media like the print press; the special factors justifying government regulation of broadcast media do not apply.

THOUGHT CRIME:

YOU FAILED TO CONFORM TO THE NORMAL RULE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE!

YOU CONFORMED TO THE GENERAL RULE OF THE NORMAL PRINCIPLE!!!

AM I CLEAR!!!! AND HAVE YOU SEEN THIS!!!! YES OR NO!!!!

PERVERTS

QUOTE: "The Internet is "a seductive playground" for unscrupulous individuals bent on defrauding innocent victims. The facts before us clearly illustrate this point." ~Judge Alex Kozinski.

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.