THE STORY CHANGES, ONCE AGAIN, FROM "TRANSMIT," TO "PUT BY VIRTUE?"

"I don't see any aiding and abetting allegation in the indictment on the first four counts... What I really should have asked is, what's the authority...?" ~JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:

"I don't see any aiding and abetting allegation in the indictment on the first four counts... It's a straightforward charge of willfully transmitting the threats [Note to self, he left off the adjective "true". Then he leads witness.]

Why do "we" need and what would be the basis for including an aiding and abetting instruction as to that?"

MS. DUARTE: "Your Honor, I usually include aiding and abetting even if it's not in the indictment. In this case, I believe the reason would be if, for some reason, someone on the jury would think that the defendant himself didn't actually transmit the threats, but they were TRANSMITTED BY VIRTUE of their being on the Internet, passing from computer to computer,
host to host, in and of itself the fact that he didn't transmit them physically, but actually, by putting them on there [un-physically??], making them available and all that, aided and abetted the actual transmission, that would kind of catch that argument."

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ:"I knew that's what you were going to say.

What I really should have asked is, what's the authority for including the instruction? I think there is a right that you have as an advocate for your client. That's something I remember from past practice.

But what is the basis, legally?

Can you cite me any authority for including an aiding and abetting instruction even though the indictment doesn't specifically allege aiding and abetting?"

MS. DUARTE: "Not off the top of my head. I know that there are cases that say that aiding and abetting of Section 2 is a component of every indictment whether or not it's explicitly there."

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: "I think you are right, but here is what I'm going to direct you to do. I'm not going to delete it right now because I think it's a correct way to proceed, and there hasn't even been an objection by the defendant.

However, call up to your office and have them prepare a bench memo or a trial memo, a two-sentence memo, that can be filed, so at least the record will be complete, setting forth whatever authority has been recognized or used to incorporate that kind of aiding and abetting allegation, even in the absence of a specific reference in the indictment.

I'm confident it's there because I remember from decades ago that it used to be "commonly" done, but I want to make sure, in fairness to the defendant.

In any event, instruction 23C, currently on page 26 of the set that I've circulated to the parties this morning, is a correct statement of what a true threat is..., namely, the reasonable objective person test. Would you like to be heard, Killercop?"

KILLERCOP: "Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, I think what we have here is -- the issue is that the Court and other parties are trying to define what is "true." And I'm sure Your Honor is wise enough to know that that's like trying to define common. There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

The issue here is a "threat," not what's "true." That's for the jury to decide. The case law, which goes back for almost a hundred years, nobody has been able to define -- the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never defined a "threat.'' This is the standing case law for the Ninth Circuit, Your Honor: The Kelner case, the Roy -- this is what the instruction --"

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: Kelner is Second Circuit. I've looked at these cases. They are old cases and they are not cases that define "threat in the careful manner, in the more recent manner, than the Ninth Circuit did in 1999. But I can't understand -- I want to make sure I do understand. If you look at 23C in the set that I've circulated, what is your real objection? Are you simply proposing that the word "true" be deleted, on line 3 and on line 4?

KILLERCOP: No. I object to the whole thing. It's full of adjectives, Your Honor. It's very confusing.
It's like the word "common." It's a reasonable person, true threat?
It goes to -- it doesn't really define who gets to define what the threat is.

It says, "A statement is a true threat where a reasonable person would foresee that the "listener," so that's the speaker test?; is that correct? It's not the listener test?

Because I know that some circuits define it as to what the "reasonable listener would interpret and the other circuits have the "reasonable speaker" [test]. Once we start splitting hairs , using adjectives, as I tried to demonstrate with Agent Cugno, when he first took the stand, you get lost on a tangent. You lose sight of the fact as to what is a threat.

I mean, you could say, is it a cute threat? A funny threat? A false threat? A happy threat? I mean, it never ends.

JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ: You will be entitled, Killercop, when you deliver your closing argument, to argue these things. You can, if you find it helpful to yourself, have this list, or checklist, available to you to go down. And as long as you do it linked to the evidence or to reasonable inferences from the evidence, you can argue all of these points because 23C, as I've proposed it, would entitle you to do that, because the jury will be instructed to consider the threats in light of their entire context. So if you want to ask them to consider any of these -- or all of these seven factors, you'll be entitled to do so. But you are not entitled to have an instruction that singles those out to the exclusion of others.

UPDATE: IT WAS THE "OBJECTIVE REASONABLE PERSON LISTENER TEST. WHICH IS A "GENERAL INTENT" CRIME, NOT A "SPECIFIC INTENT" CRIME.

YET KILLERCOP WAS CHARGED WITH 875(C), WHOSE NATURE IS A SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME. YA CAN'T HAVE YER CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

MEET THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE FULL INVESTIGATION.

MEET THE ARRESTING AGENT.

"SPECIAL" AGENT JEFF

MEET THE JUDGE, ALVIN "SPECIAL CASES" MATZ. HE'S NUTZZZ

MEET THE PROSECUTOR, "SPECIAL" LITTLE DEBBIE WONG YANG.

MEET DEB'S ASS-ISTANT, "SPECIAL" ELENA.

THE REST OF THE GANG IS HERE. NOW, ISN'T THAT SPECIAL?

WELL, EVERYONE'S HERE EXCEPT THIS GUY, AND HIS CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY THE LAW.

"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?"

WHOIS

WSJ

NY TIMES HIT PIECE

FOX NEWS HIT PIECE

NBC NEWS HIT PIECE

2023 HIT LIST

(c)1997-2023

All Rights Reserved.

TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.

DID JUDGE MATZ REALLY BREAK THE LAW?

Yes. Yes he did. And it is not his first time!!

The Case Of "Does Elmer Fudd Have Trouble With The Letter R?"

Waz up wit, God?

They both counted on their buddies to make cover stories in the obstruction. They all knew "In and of itself the fact that Killercop didn't transmit them, ..." But another was bought off, by Matz' good buddies and almost got away after his false confession.

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 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).

The court will "construe" the response to be a plea of not guilty. The plea is applicable to each of nine counts of the First Superseding Indictment.

So Killercop will be deemed to have plead not guilty to the charges in the First Superseding Indictment. That concludes the arraignment on the charges.”

There seems to be much confusion surrounding the terms ATTORNEY and LAWYER. So be careful...

Not just careful, but "real" careful.

SAY WHAT?

11.08.2004 (Pgs 8-9)

MATZ: "I think you need to be real careful in how you use some of these terms."

A FLAPDOODLE

FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT

TWITTER

(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.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.