 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
A "person" and "a person of another...," is there a difference? There used to be, but that was when words mattered. But not anymore.
NOW YOU CAN BE ARRESTED FOR THE CRIME OF THE RISK. SO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL. AND LISTEN VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. AND THINK VERY CAFEFULLY, BUT FIRST A QUESTION. IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH TRANSMITTING, "A THREAT TO INJURE THE PERSON OF ANOTHER," WHICH PERSON ABOVE ARE WE DISCUSSING? A.K.A. The “Lindbergh 'Baby' Law” A.K.A. For The Children of America. "We must be mindful of the "precise" language Congress used to describe the illegal conduct." ~Ninth Circuit District Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw
Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. "A "true" threat, in fact, is a Legal term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police.” ~KILLERCOP "Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought." - Graham Greene, British novelist
("The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. To this end, the government, even with the purest of motives, may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners[.]") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted);
"The only intervention to date was with the creator of KillerCop.com, which offered a reward for the most creative way to kill a policeman. It soon disappeared after the LAPD began to talk about charges to incite murder."
IT DISAPPEARED??? WHAT DISAPPEARED??? YOU MEAN THIS SITE? OR ME? DO YOU MEAN DISAPPEARED LIKE "DR. WHO" AND THE CERTIFICATE? OR DISAPPEARED AS IN YOUR RIGHTS? 10.14.2008 "This lovely image graced the home page of the Sacramento County Republican Party. As Andrew Sullivan describes it: "Not a lone protestor or crowd member. Not a fringe nut on Free Republic" on the official Republican website in the state capitol of the most populous state in the Union. His name is Hector BarajaS, and he actually picked up his phone and I spoke to him. I told him that this bit was far from the only over-the-top material on the site. Surprisingly, he agreed that there was other objectionable material on the site, and said that it was being reviewed right now and would be taken down in about thirty minutes. " 10.14.2008 FEDERAL SPEECH AND FEDERAL THOUGHT CRIMES
The reference to a “reasonable person” makes clear that we were describing a negligence standard, with no requirement of actual intent to threaten. We subsequently reaffirmed Roy’s holding in United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), and stated clearly that “Roy’s ‘reasonable speaker’ standard does not violate the First Amendment.” Id. at 1084. In United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990), we upheld the defendant’s conviction for threatening a federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). We were not primarily concerned with constitutional questions> , but we observed that “[a] ‘true’ threat, where a reasonable person would foresee that the listener will believe he will be subjected to physical violence upon his person, is unprotected by the first amendment.” Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d at 1266. Again, our reference to a “reasonable person” seems to suggest that the First Amendment permits punishing a threat made with only negligence as to the statement’s threatening character. A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge. Assuming arguendo that a statute might not be sustained if applied to any threat toward any one of 200 million Americans(1), the statute here in question [871] must be judged by different standards(2), limited as it is to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and his constitutional successors. 1 Such as the one’s charged in the instant case. 2 This is the core-issue why 875(c) is unconstitutional, it provides no "intelligible” or “clear " standard to guide citizens, officers, prosecutors or judges as to how to define the statute as to a threat. Furthermore, the statue makes no mention of a “false” threat or “true” threat. This turns it into an “I’ll know it when I see it” subjective standard. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene". The same goes for the definition of a “true” threat. Only it goes back much further in time...
Judge A. Howard Matz never once examined whether the First Amendment prohibited the prosecution of an individual for the charged acts, given that pure speech was involved. Instead he assisted the prosecutor to create conduct.
"And I think that what the prosecutor said in her brief is unquestionably the case: The "standard" is whether or not a reasonable person would have the basis to conclude that what the speaker said would be "perceived" by the listener, or the recipient, or the person as to whom it's directed as a threat." ~Judge A. Howard Matz WRONG: THAT'S A "REASONABLE LISTENER STANDARD." IT IS ALSO A LOT OF DRIBBLE. BUT GO ON SINCE YOU INSIST. "And threats are not inherently protected under the Constitution. If "coupled with violence" and the other elements, they can be proscribed, and they definitely can be the basis for a criminal prosecution."
WRONG: DID YOU NOTICE THE "SECRET" ELEMENTS KNOWN ONLY TO HIM? BESIDES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE "COUPLED" IN MY CASE.
"So I want the lawyers to understand that without reciting everything that's already clearly Ninth Circuit precedent that's at page 1075, I am applying the Ninth Circuit's test and, in a nutshell, the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly communicate the threat once it's been defined to be a threat."
WRONG: WHAT IS A THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT IS A FACT! AND THE TEST HE APPLIED IS WRONG, TOO. IBID. HIS MIND WAS MADE UP.
"A statement that "I will kill you," a statement to "keep your dogs at bay now I'm armed," a statement that "I'm coming to collect from you personally" when coupled with pictures of the recipients, of their children, information about their homes and addresses, is a direct threat that a reasonable person would perceive to be likely to be perceived by the recipient -- and these were specific recipients as well as the public generally -- to provide a risk of violence and a risk of injury."
A RISK??? TO A "SPECIFIC" PERSON, OR THE PERSON OF ANOTHER "SPECIFIC" PERSON? LIKELY?? YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING?? HE SOUNDS LIKE THE PROSECUTOR. SHE HAS DOUBTS. BUT REASONABLE ONES. NOTICE ABOVE HOW HE REVERTS BACK, TO THE LISTENER [RECIPIENT] TEST.
"These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot." ~From a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police.
PRETRIAL OF KILLERCOP: INITIAL ARRAIGNMENT IN N.H.
"Crime of violence" means any of the following offenses under
federal, state, or local law: murder, manslaughter, kidnapping,
aggravated assault, forcible sex offenses (including where consent
to the conduct is not given or is not legally valid, such as
where consent to the conduct is involuntary, incompetenT, or coerced), statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery, arson,
extortion, extortionate extension of credit, burglary of a dwelling,
or any other offense under federal, state, or local law that has as
an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person of another. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The definition of "crime of violence" in § 4B1.2 on career offenders
reads "any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year, that . . . (1) has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of
another, or (2) . . . involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk
"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 |
"A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge." CONSIDER IT CHALLENGED!!
KILLERCOP CHARGED WITH FEDERAL THOUGHT CRIMES 875(c) AND 1028(a) "True" threats that included such plangent cris du coeur as 'I will personally send you back to the hell from where you came". "The Police commissioner said the other speaker should be 'slapped around a little bit.'" "As in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with 'the language of the statute.' And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well." Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999) 875(c) Interstate Threats (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication*** containing any ... threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. *** Speech or Press
Maybe some legally blonde lawyer can explain the difference between "a[nother] person" and "the person of another." I can't find one yet. Just attorneys.
Is there one legally blonde lawyer left in America? Or are you all Esquires and Barristers now?
I ask 'cause last time I looked, I had not been charged with "transmitting" a threat to injure "another person." Which I am sure is not the same as the person of another [person.] But the facts remain the same.
875(c) is unconstitutional, since it allows "false" threats. Not to mention selective threats. Or that it is used as a political tool to attack pure speech when used out of it's context. It was meant to protect babies and children from retards kidnapping them and calling another person and threatening to kill the child/baby. If anyone in America wishes to argue the point, beyond my experience, I would say then that your arguement falls on its on weight, in that it is, again, unconstitutionally Vague.
And that you're guessing, too. "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog." ~Mel Gibson on Frank Rich, NY Times writer.
"I am going to come and burn the f**king house down... but you will blow me first. You look like a f***ing pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault." ~Mel Gibson to his wife, Oksana, July 01, 2010
“I think we have to blow up the [Senate].”~ Retiring Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), on the Senate's inability to get anything done. -December 7, 2010 by David Pardo “If it is true that Mel threatened to burn her house down, that could be considered a criminal terrorist threat. A terrorist threat can be anything designed to induce harm or kill another individual, it doesn’t have to come from Al-Qaeda to be classified as terrorism,” explained Santa Monica-based Criminal Defense Attorney, Steve Cron. “There is a real possibility that the police department or a prosecuting agency could take action.”
"Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression," Clint Eastwood was quoted as telling the National Board of Review awards dinner in New York Tuesday night. With a cold glare Eastwood took notice of Moore sitting in the audience and said bluntly and without a smile: "But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you." "I mean it," Eastwood said again. "Don't get in my face about it and you better not throw anything on me or my family or I'll stomp a mudhole in your Ass and walk it dry." ~ O'Brien | 12.10.06 - 2:17 am | # "Duke, it's quite apparent from your few words that you really suck as a human being. I'd love to have the opportunity to pay you back in spades on behalf of those you've bullied and focked up their lives. And you still don't find anything wrong with it! What a brain stem. Here's hoping you get your payback soon, beotch!" ~examabc 2010 "Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?" ~Johah Goldberg, National Review Online www.nationalreviewonline.com "I tell people don’t kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."~ Rush Limbaugh
Many disgruntled ex-employees dream of revenge against their former bosses, but Steven Sutcliffe, who lost his job at Global Crossing in September 2001, didn't just dream about revenge -- he actually did something about it. And now he's been convicted of identity theft and making threats to harm Global Crossing executives, for which he faces a long stretch up river. Sutcliffe set up a Website dedicated to making threats against his former employers, such as former chairman and fat cat Gary Winnick (see Winnick Walks). But the FBI recently put the kibosh on Sutcliffe's site, where he allegedly posted messages threatening to injure [his former colleagues --] threats that included such plangent cris du coeur as 'I will personally send you back to the hell from where you came.' The FBI is accusing Sutcliffe of being instrumental in one Global Crossing employee's identity theft as he allegedly posted social security numbers, dates of birth, and other personal details, about Global Crossing brass.
The FBI also says Sutcliffe had another site dedicated to threatening Los Angeles Police Officers. News reports say the site offered rewards for the killing of law enforcement officers. Sutcliffe faces up to 30 years behind bars -- probably just long enough to see the investment community get excited "— Ray Le Maistre, International Editor, Boardwatch
UPDATE: Evilgx.com was never "dedicated to making threats against "the person of another." It was originally set up as a message board to post grievances with the Global Crossing's affairs. Also known in America as a Global Duuble Crossing. More propaganda from the so-called free-press. I deny to date ever being the one who transmitted the pages I was charged with transmitting. Moreover, around here I don't call it "Global Crossing brass," I call it; thanks to Elena's lies, "Global Crossing Gold."
MORE BS BY THE NY TIMES IN THE NEWS Beginning in February, a San Francisco man made at least 48 threatening, obscene and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her support for a healthcare reform bill, according to federal court records unsealed Thursday. Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, was charged in federal court Thursday in San Francisco with making harassing phone calls to a government official. He appeared before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman in a gray T-shirt and khakis, looking disheveled, according to the Associated Press. Zimmerman said Giusti "may" have a bipolar disorder and "should be treated."An amended criminal complaint, along with a supporting affidavit by an FBI agent, allege that Giusti made many of the calls to Pelosi's homes in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. He is charged with using a VOIP, or voice over Internet provider service, to make calls using a non-San Francisco area code, the records show. Nine calls made to Pelosi's Washington residence were recorded, according to the court records, which contain excerpts of some of the messages that warned the congresswoman not to act on the bill. "If you pass this freaking healthcare plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live," Giusti said on March 25, according to the court records. Zimmerman told the U.S. attorney's office to interview Giusti to determine if he was mentally competent enough to be released to a halfway house or if he should continue to be detained, the Associated Press reported. A detention hearing was scheduled for Monday. "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes..." SOURCE: FOUND HERE
[T]his Court has long recognized the“basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 350 (1964). There is a serious argument that §1346 is nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct. But "the notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today," Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 476 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and for good reason. It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail. “How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Rybicki, supra, at 160 (Jacobs, J., dissenting).
UPDATE ON THE POLICE COVER UP OF THE SELECTIVE PROSECUTION OF HATE CRIMES.
"IT WAS A MISTAKE." ~F.B.I. Agent Jeff Cugno LET'S ASK THE PRESENTENCE PERSONS WTF THEY WERE THINKING?
AND SPECIAL KEN!
"If Mr. Assange is arrested on the recently announced Interpol warrant, I hope [he] receives a fair trial and due process of law." ~Tom Flanagan Flanagan said U.S. President Barack Obama "should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something." Tom Flanagan says he 'wouldn't be unhappy' if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'disappeared.' (CBC) "I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," Flanagan said with a laugh, and when asked to expand upon his answer, added that he "wouldn't be unhappy" if Assange "disappeared." When the CBC's Solomon commented that his position was "'pretty 'harsh' stuff," Flanagan, who is known for his off-the-cuff sense of humour and often brings props to panel interviews, replied: "I'm feeling very manly today, Evan." Congress was always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. "This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place." Congress had no existence, and therefore had no authority, outside of the U.S. Constitution. "... two national governments, one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result ... We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism ... It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence." ~Justice John Marshall Harlan
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. SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
