 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
IT was always about the Internet Jurisdiction.
Remember! Insinuations do not provide the kind of objectively verifiable proof that perverts require. "Where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has as of right were decided without benefit of counsel in a state criminal case, there has been a discrimination between the rich and the poor which violates the Fourteenth Amendment." Pp. 372 U. S. 353-358. "[d]enial of counsel on appeal [to an indigent] would seem to be a discrimination at least as invidious as that condemned in Griffin v. Illinois. . . ." Claims of ineffective assistance may be reviewed on direct appeal “under two extraordinary circumstances”: either “when the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of the issue, or . . . when the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) <SNIP> FOR THE RECORD, SEE McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 417 (2018). "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 DIRTY SECRETS AND MENTAL TORTURE TREATMENTS TO RESTORE YOUR MIND. (c) 1995-2026 |
An element that must be proven to convict! "It seems..." is NOT proof. Nor is "most likely." Sent by Regular Mail and E-mail: Law Office of Sung B. Park, Esq. 12.28.2005 RE: Missing Jurisdiction Motion From Official File Of CR 02-350(A)-AHM This letter shall serve to memorialize our last conversation today in your office. You informed me that in your attempt to obtain the 66 separate pre-trial motions, government's replies, and various minute orders, etc., which we sat down and identified, at your office on December 5th, 2005, you have noticed that the defense's Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction, which was “PLACED IN FILE – NOT USED, is now missing, along with another document “PLACED IN FILE – NOT USED.” You have informed me that you were unable locate these two documents and could give no explanation as to who took them from the file, when, or why. Furthermore, for the record I am requesting you file something to the Court to notify them of the missing Motions. Clearly the judge ruled on the Motion. See Transcript of 11.07.2003 Page 72, Lines 1-14 Defendant: First off, let's talk about the jurisdictional challenge. When will that be heard on? I assume prior to trial beginning.” Judge: “The jurisdictional "motion" has been denied. ” Defendant: “You denied it?” Judge: “I denied it .” Defendant: “Based on what law, authority?” Judge: “The motion lacks merit, Killercop. I already told you. If the government establishes that the facilities of interstate commerce were used, the jurisdictional element has been established and your rights have been protected. Now I'm not going to go over that ground again.” [Mr Park,] I am sure you will agree I can not receive a meaningful and through review of a ruled upon Motion if the Motion is now been taken [obstructed] from the official file. This must be what Judge Matz was referring to when he said on 09.23.2003, Page 75, Lines 3-8: “You can arrange for all subpoenas. I want the jury instructions that were previously agreed to, to make sure you make those available to Mr. Reed and I need a diskette, because I lost the one or we can't find the one. There seems to be a goblin surrounding this case… This was not the only thing to go missing in the night in this case. There was also other "missing" CD-ROMS," not that the judge cared one bit. And the Certificate from the secret hearing. And the experts and all their files and reports. All tie back to having counsel FORCED on me. Maybe the goblin took them????? One is only left to guess, I guess? 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™ EMAIL SALES @ KILLERCOP.COM (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
