 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Does conflicted assistance of counsel, then incompetent assistance, followed by forced counsel, then more forced counsel, then no counsel, in a complex computer case, of an incompetent, indigent defendant; denied 3 computer experts previously paid for by the governement; who is then "Treated back to Competency" by a Doctor who didn't exist, strike anyone but me as even a tad odd? I call this this case, belo' me, Lord of the Rom. UPDATE: 2009 THE SUPREMES ARE OF THE OPINION THAT 1028(a) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN CASE YOU'RE LATE TO THE SHOW, THATS THE LAW KILLERCOP WAS CHARGED UNDER, INTER ALIA. BUT THE GOV SCREWED THAT ONE UP BIG TIME. ELEMENTS "Federal trial judges are forbidden to instruct on jury nullification, because they are required to instruct only on the law which applies to a case. As I have indicated to you, the burden in each instance which is here placed upon the Government is to prove each element of the offenses ... beyond a reasonable doubt, and in the event the Government fails to sustain its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to any essential element of any offense charged against each defendant, it has then failed in its burden of proof as to such defendant and that defendant is to be acquitted. In short, if the Government proves its case against any defendant, you should convict that defendant. If it fails to prove its case against any defendant you must acquit that defendant." WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department called for the release of two convicted former state lawmakers in Alaska because of prosecutorial errors, in a new embarrassment for the department after it dropped charges against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. Former Alaska state Reps. Peter Kott and Victor Kohring, both Republicans, were convicted in 2007 on bribery and extortion-related charges. Mr. Kott was sentenced to six years in prison and Mr. Kohring received a 3½-year term. Attorney General Eric Holder said a review of the two cases showed that prosecutors failed to provide information that should have been disclosed to the defense. The same type of error doomed the Justice Department in the Stevens case, which followed a years-long probe of the powerful Republican senator from Alaska. FACT: IN THE BLACK AND WHITE Interstate Thought Crime 18 U.S.C.A. 875(c) (c) Whoever transmits...
END TRANSMISSION IN BLACK AND WHITE: Why the switch by Matz from transmitts, to "Whoever makes...?" BLACK AND WHITE, BOTTOM-LINE: Matz knew the government had no proof of a transmits, at the end of the trial-in-name-only, so he changed the words of the law. He "rewrote the law." And hid the Nature. He does things like that in his Secret Chamber...in his Mystical Realm of the Ninth. Killercop calls it a Star Chamber. His "instruction" to the jury con-structively and structurely amended the indictment, when he again changed the "nature of the crime." He violated not only the letter of the law, but the "spirit of the law." Not to mention due process, his oath, and his own honor. It didn't matter to him at this point, he was on a roll of corruption and ignoring the law. Seriously, this still stands today as he refuses to correct it. DId I mention I have a CD-ROM? But like the law, it is worthless, unless you are rich and powerful, corrupted and unjust. But that's our little secret. Right, gang? CONTACT ME, IF YOU CAN.
"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) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
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? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. |
WHEN SHE IS NOT SMILING SHE IS LYING. Judge Elena J. Duarte. Listen to Elena's lies to the Wizard of Koz, about Killercop's wife's testimony. Then compare Elena's lie, to the official court transcript. Do you see anything therein about, "posting" daily? How about just "posting?" The "element" of the law says "transmits." But then again, no one involved was following the law. Or even reading it. Except me. And that is a fact. NOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT: Q What is it? OKAY, THIS MEANS THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOTAL CONTOL OF MY PROPERTY, ALONG WITH MY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. THIS ALSO MEANS THEY HAVE THE NIC WITH THE MAC. SEE ANYTHING ABOUT "POSTING" OR "TRANSMIT" YET? I DIDN'T THINK SO... A showing of constitutional error under the Sixth Amendment only merits grant of the petition for habeas corpus if the error was not harmless, that is, if it had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993).
HOP IN THE WAYBACK MACHINE AND LET'S GO BACKWARDS IN TIME TO THE TRIAL OF KILLERCOP AND LISTEN FOR THE SECRET WORD IN THE LAW CALLED "TRANSMIT," AT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. OPPPS, NOT THERE! JUDGE HOWARD MATZ CHANGED THE WORDS, AGAIN. Influence in determining the jury’s verdict. a.k.A. Using his words for the ammo. A.K.A. Listen carefully. Judge Matz: "Before you proceed any further, please listen carefully, members of the jury. The witness has identified the picture as depicting Killercop's rifle. Killercop is not accused of committing any crime arising out of his possession of any weapon or ammunition. You may consider evidence of his possession of deciding whether the government has met its burden of proving that if killercop made, or caused to be made, the communications that have been alleged in this case, in making those communications, he acted with a specific intent to threaten the persons who were the subject of these communications. You'll be required to apply that limiting instruction. It's the kind of limiting instruction -- I'll tell you, you are allowed to take into account this evidence of the rifle and of any evidence that there may be about ammunition or other firearms, but only for the limited purpose I just told you." WAS THAT A LIMIT OR AN OPENING???? What Matz really said was, There is no limit to my power! "Before you proceed any further, please listen carefully, but fail to notice how I just changed gears there, with the rifle, just to scare and mislead you. Being a federal judge, I know that the Supreme Court has made very few rulings regarding the admission of evidence as a violation of due process. Although that Court has been clear that a writ should be issued when constitutional errors have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, see Williams, 529 U.S. at 375, it has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ. Absent such “'clearly' established Federal law,” nobody can conclude that my ruling was an “unreasonable application.” Muhahahaha! Also, fail to notice that there is no element of 18 USC 875(c) about "'making or made' the communication. I just "made" that up. It's what I do, I just make stuff up as I go along, to ensure my wealthy friends stay out of hot water. with these guys. I did that because we talked behind your back in secret, and we noticed that we heard the Government's expert talk about "make" or "made" pages, on the computer they siezed. But the Government's expert never said anything about what the law actually says and requires. Which is, 'whoever transmits... ' The accused would have argued this point, but I denied him any experts, and effective assistance of counsel. And since you know nothing of the secret hearing, or about the missing doctor, I will proceed as normal. Now, jury, do my bidding, in the name of the law and the children. Even if that is not even what the law says it says. For I'm Harvard trained, and educated, and you are stupid drones to do my bidding, and the bidding of my masters. Now go follow those crooked and corrupted jury instructions!" I am appointed for life and I am immune to justice!! Muhahahahaha!
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
