 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
“Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal him.” – James Allan
JUDGE MATZ SAYS: “The fact is that Killercop used not only ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE but was in a situation, was perceived to be in a situation, was none at the time of the indictment to be in a situation that there was no information suggesting Schmoe, whoever that is, was in.” ~JUDGE HOWARD MATZ, COVERING UP KILLERCOP'S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SELECTIVE PROSECUTION.
JIVE TALKING TURKEY, THAT'S JUST THE MAN'S DENIAL OF THE ANSWER OF THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION!
ONE CAN'T HAVE THE TARGET BECOME THE VICTIM. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR BU$INE$$!! SO SAY THE CORRUPTED COPORATE CEO. AND THE CROOKED JUDGE. IT'S NOT COOL! CHILDREN IN AMERICA LIKE COOL.
BUT, I BET THEY HATE LOCK DOWN PRISON DRILLS.
BUT AMERICA IS DOING THE BEST TO PREPARE THEM FOR LIFE IN AMERICA, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OF COURSE.
"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. |
JOE SCHMOE, A.K.A. JOE COOL, A.K.A TED? A.K.A. i THINK IT WAS GARY. OR MARK. Trial of Killercop: Pages 2184-2185
Closing argument by Elena Duarte A.U.S.A. on behalf of Debra Wong Yang, Trial By Matz and Appeal By Kozinski.
"And I also ask, when you consider Killercop's intent, which you will do, that you keep in mind the following: When you consider whether Killercop knew what threats were and he intended to threaten, that he has made a great deal out of the Joe Schmoe threat. You remember Joe Schmoe? I'm going to personally [SHE INTENT-IONALLY OMITTS THE WORDS "Kick your ass,]... if you don't take my information down." "He made so much of that Joe Shmoe threat, which you can see in Exhibit 76, and one of his as well, I think it is, that you heard evidence that on the seized computer from his house, he had constructed part of a website. It wasn't posted [transmitted] yet. " "Our expert Mr. Siebert talked about it. And its hard copy is Exhibit 76. And in that portion of the website that was under construction but wasn't posted [transmitted] yet, [ Ignore that fact because I'll then have no power and then have no jurisdiction!] Killercop had a whole category called "Threats of the death." Do you remember that? And the "threats portion linked to the Joe Shmoe that, "I will kick your ass," and the death portion linked back to the threat against Tracy Hall." ""Threats of the death, death threats," no reference to litigation, no reference to anything but "pure" threats, because he
knew what he was doing and he meant to do it. Thank you. I have nothing [further.
]" Transcript of 12.04.2002 Docket #71 & 73 Lists “Hillary Potashner” on behalf of the defendant, page 2. Counsel appearing factually was “Bill” Harris, Esq. Page 4, Lines 18-20 Judge Matz: “Killercop, one of Killercop’s e-mails
itself noted that the antagonism which lead to these inherently threatening exchanges was very personal."
Page 4, Lines 23-25 “The text of the letters(sic), all of those, of the
communications, all of those in Counts 1 through 4 reflect ‘inherent
[As opposed to ‘Fake,’ ‘False,’ and ‘Un-inherent’ threats, or any other such
subjective-adjective.]
Page 5, Lines 13-15
Judge Matz: “So I reject the notion that this pure speech. It is conduct. It’s inherently threatening and there is no
basis … “
Page 5, Lines 21-22 Judge Matz: >“It’s conduct, it’s clearly proscecutable and that’s the basis for my ruling.” See U.S. v. Cassel and U.S. v Brice, 926 F.2d 925, 931 (9th Cir. 1991)
Response to New Selective Prosecution Motion to Dismiss, Based on Joe Schmoe E-Mail Page 6, Lines 3-5 Judge: “[t]hat single E-Mail [Joe Schmoe] which was a response to a provocative communication previously sent is not in any meaningful respect comparable or like the series of communications that underlie and that constitute Counts 1 through 4.”
MATZ LINE OF THE DAY: Page 6, Lines 8-12 “The fact is that Killercop used not only entirely
different language but was in a situation, was perceived to be in a situation,
was none at the time of the indictment to be in a situation that there was no
information suggesting Schmoe, whoever that is, was in.”
Page 6, Lines 14-15 “The nature of the communications was different.. "
THIS IS WILLIAM HARRIS SPEAKING, NOT MATZ:
“I agree whether its true or not is relevant. But I think
you’re failing to acknowledge that the Schmoe E-mail was a response to an
E-Mail or to posting at least, not an E-Mail but a posting on the web
site.”
Page 9, Lines 14-16 Judge Matz: “But that’s not what Killercop was doing; these were messages and communications directed at specific people as well as others who chose to log on to the evilgx.com website.” Page 10, Lines 1 “But this [E-Mail from Joe Schmoe] isn’t ‘substantially similar.”
Judge Matz then proceeds to change the subject from substantially similar to, “Did the democrats control the Justice Department in the
year 2002?” Lines 21-22, Ibid.
Page 21, Lines 13-22 Judge: “It wouldn’t surprise me if the issues that Killercop chooses to emphasize at trial have to do with intent and context. [5] Well, they could be affected by contents, some of these. If for example there was some evidence that on the next message he posted he said just fooling [6] or I thought that would get a rise out of you. And … [T]hat would be relevant evidence. That would be Brady evidence, that would be exculpatory evidence.” . Response to Greenwood Count Page 14, Lines 16-17 “These are constant and recurring First Amendment concerns.” [4] BUT THAT IS ALL YOU GET FROM HIZZZ ODER REGARDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF YOUR RIGHTS. A CONCERN. AN APPEARENCE.
HE WANTS TO PLAY GOD.
TO HAVE THE POWER TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET AND KILL IT WITH THE WORDS. LIKE A BLACK HAT WIZARD.
[1] There is no such e-mail ever sent by Killercop. The only testimony was regarding Greenwoods webpage as well as in the beginning regarding McAfee and the statement ‘I have instructed Counsel … personal.” This was never transmitted via e-mail, nor was it proven accused transmitted to website. [3] There is no such provocative communication previously sent, by the defendant, ever. [4] See Transcript of 11.21.2002, Page 10, Lines 17-20 [5] Intent changed from General Intent to Specific Intent. Further, Context was addressed in Motion to Restore Website to Original Context.. Denied by the Court. [6] See judge’s comment to killercop about how he would ‘kick you in the shins and smack you upside the head,” if Killercop decided to represent himself.
(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. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
