 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
An accused has a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges in order to permit adequate preparation of a defense. ...U.S. Const. amend. VI.
HOW TO CHANGE "SPEECH" INTO "CONDUCT," A GOVERNMENTAL MAGIC TRICK! FIRST YOU TURN A NO INTO A YES.
JUDGE MATZ: "Ms. Potashner, if you have an intelligent, sophisticated, deliberately functioning individual who can incorporate those kinds of qualifying terms and disclaimers into anything that's posted."
"And the mere fact that they are included and incorporated would be on its face sufficient to take away the potential and otherwise clear significance of the threats or the invitations or the means of communicating danger to other people or subjecting other people to invasions of their security and privacy. Then what would be the capacity of law enforcement and of the courts to prevent this kind of "conduct?" "
MS. POTASHNER: "Of course. The disclaimers in and of themselves does not make something that is dangerous not dangerous. But I think the disclaimers... I don't think that a weapon could be created to shoot bees across a space, to train bees to go after a particular target. It's a ridiculous weapon. It's not a weapon that exists."
A judge is not the court. And speech is not conduct.
A judge is a judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully.
A judge is also an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".
Speaking of lawyers, anyone wanna recommend a good one?.
"This kind of "conduct" is actually far more devastating than assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz Source: http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence Gee, it appears that Judge Matz is really a caring kinda guy, right? Going on about how much he cares about another Citizen being assaulted...and how devastating on the Citizen it could be to them...well then how come he covered up, along with the F.B.I. and the D.O.J., this torture of a handcuffed prisoner by the police? How about the fact that he has and continues to judge American Citizens, giving out ""substantial" illegal sentences."" Why is he allowed to violate my fundamental rights under not only the Due Process clause of the fifth, and sixth amendment. Why don't I see the National Guard walking him out of the Federal Courthouse, in cuffs, at the point of a bayonet?
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." Under Article VI, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever any judge or government attorney violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge or government attorney is acting without lawful authority, has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government.
The judge or the government attorney is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge or the government attorney is collecting monies for work not performed. It is not a judicial function to attack the U.S. Constitution. It is not a judicial function to issue a void order, an order issued without jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a judge who acts without jurisdiction, is engaged in treason. It is not a judicial function to engage in a crime, especially a crime against the U.S. Government. A judge may not engage in any act in violating a person's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. When such an act occurs, the judge is deprived of total jurisdiction and his actions are not that of a judge, but are those taken in his personal capacity. The law clearly and unequivocally states that all Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The law clearly and unequivocally further states that no presumption of jurisdiction attaches automatically to any court of limited jurisdiction, but that the determination of jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must be affirmatively found within the record of the case that is before the court. In a Federal court hearing an appeal, it is the duty of the judges to be certain of their jurisdiction. They have a legal duty to inspect the record of the District trial court, sua sponte, to determine whether the District trial court held jurisdiction at all times, if a Constitutional Right was violated, and/or if any officer of the court, whether judge or attorney, engaged in a "fraud upon the court". The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a judge violates the U.S. Constitution whenever the judge issues an order without jurisdiction. The judge has committed a fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution. "It is clear and well established law that a judge must first determine whether the judge has both subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case, and further must continue to monitor the case to be certain that jurisdiction was not lost, due to any violation of a Constitutional Right, fraud upon the court, appearance of partiality of any judge, or any act which deprives the court of jurisdiction, by any officer of the court, whether attorney or judge, during the proceedings. " SAY WHAT? 03.06.2009 "This kind of conduct is actually far more devastating than assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz Source: http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence "There's a pathology that society has to deal with. There are people who want to display their prowess in Internet technology -- but they screw up big time." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz Source: http://topnews.us/content/24146-botnet-spyware-creator-gets-four-year-prison-sentence
"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 THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
Nature of the Cause HOW TO SCREW U, OUT OF A CAUSE, TO MAKE A CASE.
"what would be the capacity of law enforcement and of the courts to prevent this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
We at killercop would just settle for an unbiased judge... But we know that didn't happen at either the trial or the appeal.
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
