While an "Eye for an Eye" would leave America blind, a good poke is sometimes needed.

"I don't avoid confrontation, people should know that." ~Killercop.

"You have free will, use it and go look at yourselves and your houses. I will do the same." ~Killercop

The Architect is just one of a series of works which examine the confrontation of innocence and experience, illustrating the complex ethics of power that exist between reader and writer, critic and artist, the human and the divine.
~John Scott

SPONSORED BY THE LAW OFFICES OF R. SAMUEL PAZ
Buckingham Heights 5701 W. Slauson Avenue Suite 202 Culver City CA 90230 Telephone (310) 410-2981 Facsimile (310) 410-2957 Kenneth N. Flaxman KENNETH N. FLAXMAN P.C. 200 S. Michigan Avenue Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 427-3200
NATIONAL POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT.

"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

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

The Case Of The Left Hook.

A.K.A. Gary has no rights to avoid me.

The constitutional right to cross-examine is
"[s]ubject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation," but that limitation cannot preclude a defendant from asking, not only "whether [the witness] was biased" but also "to make a record from which to argue why [the witness] might have been biased." 396 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 318) (footnotes omitted) (alterations in original).

We consider three factors "in determining whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause right to cross-examine is violated:

(1) [whether] the excluded evidence was relevant;

(2)
[whether] there were other interests outweighing the defendant's interest in presenting the evidence; and

(3)
[whether] the exclusion of the evidence left the jury with sufficient information to assess the credibility of the witness." Id. at 1103 (alterations in original) (citing United States v. Beardslee, 197 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved