FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

Essential Facts

Amendment VI

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.

"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

Facts Never Slowed Judge A. Howard Matz Down! Only Protecting Rights Would Do That!

Judge Matz, with the help of his friends, instead unlawfully sped up the corruption!

HITLER SAYS

An indictment “must be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c)(1).

An essential fact would be the "nature and cause" of the crime charged.

“An indictment is sufficient if it (1) contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against him which he must defend and (2) enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Generally, an indictment is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the charged offense so as to ensure the right of the defendant not to be placed in double jeopardy and to be informed of the offense charged.” United States v. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

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


Buy Killercop a Coffee

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved