CONTACT KILLERCOP

"This is primarily an issue, at the 'very least,' a mixed issue of fact and law, 'probably' a legal issue."-judge A. Howard Matz during his 'secret" hearing.

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; A time to kill." - Ecclesiastes 3:1

Killings of federal judges are rare. The last to be murdered in office was Judge Robert Vance, who was killed by a mail bomb at his home in Mountain Brook, Ala., in 1989.

Judge Kozinski speculated — “If it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us.”

A.K.A. An unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

THE CASE OF NOT JUST A NEGLECT, BUT A GROSS NEGLECT.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy.

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

JUDGE MATZ DIDN'T READ THE LAW, FIRST?

DON'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE DONE THAT PROMPTLY? NOW IT IS BECOMING PRETTY CLEAR IT'S ALL PART OF THE DUE PROCESS!

"I haven't had to be a prisoner [YET] but I know what it's like one step removed and it's awful. You want to get out of that situation." ~Judge Matz to Killercop, pretrial.

'I choose that a story should be founded on probability, and not always resemble a dream.

I desire to find nothing in it trivial or extravagant; and I desire above all, that under the appearance of fable there may appear some latent truth, obvious to the discerning eye, though it escape the observation of the vulgar.' ~Voltaire

"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

2023 HIT LIST

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

(c)1997-2023

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

NO PRESENCE FOR YOU!

This case is a textbook example of a judge’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and basic, fundamental human rights.

MATZ: “Okay. I arranged this status conference because I had some questions about the joint proposed amended order that was lodged last week under Rule 43.

Killercop's presence is not necessary, given that he’s currently represented by Mr. Nicolaysen [WHO I FORCED ON HIM!]

This is primarily an issue, at the 'very least,' a mixed issue of fact and law, probably a legal issue.”

Probably?

YOU PROBABLY SHOULD READ THE LAW BEFORE YOU APPLY IT, NO?

LOOK AT THE FACTS AND THE LAW, BELOW.

Martin v. Settle, 192 F.Supp. 156, 159 (W.D. Mo. 1961) (competency hearing may not be conducted in absence of the defendant and doing so deprives the defendant of due process of law).

"A finding of competency is one of a fact, not law. United States -v- Shepard, 538 F.2d 107 at 110; United States -v- Fratus -- F-r-a-t-u-s -- 530 F.2d 644 at page 647; U.S. -v- Winn, 577 F.2d 86 at note 14 on page 88; Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, annotations at paragraph 8 on page 2083. Rule 43, which you used to explain my absence obviously does not apply. And since a finding of incompetence is one of clearly a fact, not law -- And under the right of due process afforded to an accused in a court, the court could not abridge that right by that rule.

Pursuant to Title 18, section 2072 (b), 'no rule shall abridge, modify or enlarge a substantive right. 'Rights trump rules. Further, this court never found me incompetent at the March 14th hearing, so the hearing on April 7th should have been conducted pursuant to the protections afforded to an accused under the Fifth Amendment, due process, and the Sixth Amendment..." ~REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, Los Angeles, California Monday, August 27, 2003

THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. AND ALL 3 OF THEM CONSPIRED TO BREAK IT.

Rule 43(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant must be present at every trial stage, including the jury impanelment and the return of the verdict and sentencing, unless otherwise provided by the rules.

Rule 43(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a defendant need not be present where the “proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.”

SOURCE: A Manual on Jury Trial Procedures
Prepared by the Jury Instructions Committee
of the Ninth Circuit

Members:
Judge George H. King, Chair
Judge Roger L. Hunt
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton
Judge A. Howard Matz
Judge Jeffrey T. Miller
Judge Marsha J. Pechman
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

"A conference or hearing 'only' on a question of law." Okay, the word 'only' appears "clearly defined" to me. Kinda like the word no. And the word all. And the word fact.

LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS:

A QUESTION OF INCOMPETENCE IS A QUESTION OF LAW ONLY?

NOT!!!

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.

NY TIMES HIT PIECE

FOX NEWS HIT PIECE

NBC NEWS HIT PIECE

MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE.

LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT.

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

All Rights Reserved.