1028(a)(7) Void

THE COLOR OF THE LAW.

As a general rule, an accomplice may only be liable as a principal or accessory before the fact, for a completed crime; the aid must be given before the crime is committed, but liability as a principal will not attach until after the crime has been committed.

If no lawyers out there want to "assist" in over-turning an illegal and unjust sentence and conviction of a (Certified!) incompetent defendant in a complex computer case...we understand totally, but if not for killercop, then do it for the children.

Or I'll trade you a CD ROM. But not these CD ROMS...

"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

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

Get this...you don't have to "show any specific person," so you can "shop from the field." Okay, shop this.

Held: Section §1028(a) [supposedly] requires the Government to show that the accused knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person. But not the person of another.

Elena and Debra never proved that during the trial, inter alia.

Any "good" lawyers out there want to "assist" in over-turning an illegal and unjust sentence and conviction of a (Uncertified!) and competent defendant in a complex computer case? Maybe we can discuss it over a big Mac.

Public Pretenders need not apply.

If only Judge Matz had known! But then again, Judge A. Howard Matz is usually wrong in his opinions, especially about Freedoms, Liberty and Speech.

And he practices a form of law he calls, "Just 'cause I say so..." Just like the mob. Sounds like Extortion!! Lets ask an Expert.

"This type of prosecution is not uncommon. The Government has, by its own admission, wielded §1028A(a)(1) well beyond ordinary understandings of identity theft. One prosecution targeted a defendant who “made a counterfeit handgun permit” for another person, using that person’s real name and at that person’s request. United States v. Spears, 729 F.3d 753, 754 (CA7 2013) (en banc). Another involved unlicensed doctors who violated the law by “issu[ing] prescriptions that their [actual] patients would then fill at . . . pharmacies.” United States v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141, 148, 155–156 (CA1 2017). There was also a prosecution involving an ambulance service inflating its reimbursement rates by “mischaracteriz[ing] the nature of the transports, saying that the patients had required stretchers when they had not.” United States v. Michael, 882 F.3d 624, 628 (CA6 2018) (citing United States v. Medlock, 792 F.3d 700, 705 (CA6 2015)). Yet another prosecution involved a defendant who “provided massage services to patients to treat their pain,” but improperly billed this “as a Medicare-eligible physical therapy service.” United States v. Hong, 938 F.3d 1040, 1051 (CA9 2019)."

SOURCE: Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. ___ (2023)

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)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved