The People Who Have To Look And Listen...

CONTACT KILLERCOP

The Case Of "Killercop Held A Gun To Their Head..., They Had To Look And Listen.

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common apart from A LACK OF COMMON SENSE. Instead of altering their views and opinions to fit the facts, they try to alter the facts to fit their views."

THE EVIL GOBLINS OF THE WORLD USE "SUGGESTIONS." OR PLAIN OL' DISINFORMATION.

THEY ONLY FOOL THEMSELVES.

LIKE A COURT JESTER.

THIS SPEECH HERE WAS THE SUGGESTION AND EXCUSE USED BY ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, ELENA DUARTE, SPEAKING NO DOUBT FOR HER BOSS, DEBRA WONG YANG, TO EXPLAIN HOW MUCH OF A DANGER I AM TO "THE PEOPLE WHO "HAVE TO" LOOK AND LISTEN."

WELL THEN HOW COME I CAN'T LOOK AND LISTEN? WHY DID THEY GET TO LOOK AND LISTEN AND I CAN'T?

JUST WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE, WHO "HAVE TO" LOOK AND "HAVE TO" LISTEN?

"And we have very real fear here on the part of the people, who HAVE TO look at themselves and their houses,
[and Kilercop's threat,] and listen to sound wave files." ~ELENA DUARTE, ASS-ISTANT TO DEBRA YANG, U.S., ATTORNEY GENERAL, BAIL DETENTION HEARING, BEFORE JUDGE HOWARD MATZ.

IF THEY WERE REALLY MY CAPTIVES, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE JUST KILLED THEM, THEN ELENA DUARTE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO BE SUCH A BITCH, AND LIE TO THE PEOPLE, AND MISAPPLY THE LAWS, TORTURE ME, MORE THEN ONCE, WHILE THEY LOOK AT THEMSELVES AND THEIR HOUSES.

I CAN JUST CLAIM I "HAD TO."

OR CAN I JUST SAY IT WAS A MISTAKE?

OR THAT I AGONIZED OVER IT?

FEELING HARRASED?

HAVING A NIGHTMARE?

GIT OVER IT! NOBODY IS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE HERE, AND YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE ANYTIME! UNLIKE I WAS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

UNLESS YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND AND SEE WHO IS GOING GIT HUNG FIRST. THIS HERE IS THE WILD, WILD WEST.

"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?"

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

The Case Of: A "Captive" audience is a wonderful thing!!

Captive audience— The [state] government has the ability to limit speech that would otherwise be protected if that speech is being imposed on a captive audience, which occurs when it would be impractical for the listener to be able to escape that speech." This is often used in cases of minors and infants and F.B.I. accountant agents See cases.

See Children.

See also the word, No.

Captive Adult Audiences See:

	Breard v. City of Alexandria (1951)
	Cohen v. California (1971)
	Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
	Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
	Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica (1978)
	Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979)
	Hess v. Indiana (1973)
	Kunz v. New York (1951)
	Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974)
	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (1978)
	Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak (1952)
	Rowan v. United States Post Office (1970)

Since you are now an admitted Captive of mine, I am going to play a game with you called, "I am going to take you out."

In this game I can do anything I want to you, short of death, just 'cause you are now my captive. In other words you have "no" jurisdiction. So you can't ever challenge me. Just 'cause I say so! No other authority is needed. Woot!

But don't forget, I reserved the right to kill you when the game began. So don't worry about when it will happen, or where. Just be sure it will be soon, and sudden. Within 70 days. But the way I am going to kill you shall be slow, and painful. And I shall torture you first. Trust me when I say I will laugh while I do it.

You will probably beg for me to finish the wasted, pathetic, little life God gave you.

Afterwards, if I survive another false arrest by these cops and U.S. Attorneys, or Marshals, I shall claim incompetence, and Goblins. Mostly accrued from your turn at the game of, "I am going to take you out."

"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e. g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, e. g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often `captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." Id., at 738.

The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections."