Okay. I haven't read the transcript, but I can tell you that the motion lacks merit.





HERE WE GO AGAIN, EITHER WAY, WITHOUT READING A THING! A.K.A. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. A.K.A. GRAND JURY MISCONDUCT. "So they had it from several sources that that "was" the requirement." "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.		"Okay. I haven't read the transcript, but I can tell you that the motion lacks merit." It's Frivolus! -judge Matz to Killercop THE COURT: Grand jury misconduct? KILLERCOP: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: What's your theory? KILLERCOP: Grand jury misconduct and/or outrageous Government misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, however you want to phrase it, Government misconduct. THE COURT: What's your theory for that? KILLERCOP: My theory, Your Honor, is that the first year I was incarcerated, everybody was proceeding under a general intent crime. The Government finally superseded the indictment when the defense raised up that this was not a general* intent crime, this was a specific intent crime.* The Government, on that theory, then, went back to the grand jury and was supposed to apprise them that this was no longer a general intent , but a specific intent crime. I have read the transcript of the hearing of the superseding indictment, and *it failed to note any mention of anyone informing the grand jury that this was all of a sudden a specific* intent crime. Therefore -- I believe that the Fifth Amendment requires that defendant be convicted only on a charge considered by the grand jury. And I would cite U.S. versus Dubo -- that's spelled D-u-b-o -- 186 F. 3d, 1177, 1179, which is a Ninth Circuit case in 1999 holding that indictments failure to specify mens rea require dismissal, the requirement insuring that defendant is prosecuted, quote, "on the basis of the facts presented to the grand jury." And I would cite U.S. versus Rosi, R-o-s-i, 27 F. 3d, 409, at page 414, which is, again, a Ninth Circuit. I don't believe the grand jury was ever told that this was a specific intent crime. At least I didn't see it in the transcript. THE COURT: Okay. I haven't read the transcript, but I can tell you that the motion lacks merit. The superseding indictment contains, as part of its language, the necessary allegation -- whether it can be proven or not, we'll see -- of mens rea, which addresses that case you talked about. Do you want to be heard about the rest of what Killercop said? ELENA DUARTE: We oppose the motion, Your Honor. As to the rest of what he said -- I'm sorry. Regarding? THE COURT: His theory that you had a duty to specifically say something about -- MS. DUARTE: I don't have the transcript in front of me, but I don't recognize and am not aware of the legal duty he's talking about. Generally** I read the statute and the elements to the grand jury. I then present the indictment. So they had it from several sources that that was the requirement. THE COURT: I have considered and I reject that motion, as well, both motions, Killercop. LOOKS LIKE I AM THE ONLY ONE READING THE LAW, AGAIN, FOLKS! WELL THEN, SINCE NONE OF THE PLAYA'S ARE READING THE TRANSCRIPTS, OR THE LAW, OR FOLLOWING IT, LET'S SKIP 1. AND JUMP RIGHT TO THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE. 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.