 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
HE KNEW, THEY ALL KNEW, YET MATZ WAS ALLOWED TO HAND DOWN SUBSTANTIAL PRISON SENTENCES, ILLEGALLY. ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING CONFUSION AND IGNORANCE.
"NOT JUST ILLEGAL, BUT SUBSTANTIAL" ILLEGAL SENTENCES! "Our substantive review of sentences may be limited after Gall, but being deferential does not mean turning a blind eye to an injustice." --United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2008), (Bybee, J., dissenting)
GOSH, IF ONLY JUDGE HOWARD MATZ HAD KNOWN! HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE READ THE LAW! 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(3). This section notes that defendants usually have the right to appeal any "sentence" in which the district court gives a greater fine, prison term, period of supervised release, or stricter condition of supervised release than is authorized by the Sentencing Guidelines. A "sentence" thus clearly includes all those different forms of punishment. Like playing stupid.
Not only does Judge A. Howard Matz not follow the law, or facts, he ignores them, or just changes the words of the Law. Or he finds facts where none exist, except in his tiny mind. It's called a hybrid style of the Law. A.K.A. a fraud on th e-court.A.K.A. A captive audience of Hizzzzoner, Lord Majestic Matz, Supreme Ruler of the Captive Audience. Part 2 "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) REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN??? BUT IT IS A SECRET! JUDGE MATZ LOVES A SECRET! EXAMPLES::::: OCT 08 2004 "Blakely issues exist with regard to the loss and restitution calculations which were based in part on facts neither found by a jury nor
admitted by the appellants. We therefore vacate the appellants' sentences and remand for reconsideration in light of United States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326, (9th Cir. July 21, 2004) (applying Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines).
See United States v. Castro, No. 03-50444 (9th Cir. Aug 27, 2004) (per curiam)." SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.
In file 2004 11 8.pdf, (Nov 8, 2004) [ONE MONTH AFTER THE ABOVE RULING]
Judge A. Howard Matz states to Killercop that he read the Castro decision very carefully. But omits knowledge of the above rule of the law, following the guidance he claims to seek. Listen in: "I've read the Castro decision carefully; and of course, that decision reflects what is the fundamental background context to this motion, which is that we're waiting...for Supreme Court guidance on the aftermath of Blakely and Ameline. How soon that guidance will be provided and what it will be, I have no desire to speculate about, but facing that confusion..."
SIDEBAR:: SO YOU CAN ROT IN PRISON UNDER CONFLICTED COUNSEL, FOISTED ON YOU BY MY BUDDY AND GOOD FRIEND CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI, WHILE HE AND I AND GARY ROAM FREE AT LIBERTY TO DENY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AT WILL, ON FACTS NOT FOUND BY THE JURY! WAIT. AND WAIT. SINCE I AM APPOINTED FOR LIFE.
NOV 17 2004 These enhancements [by Judge A. Howard Matz] violated the rule [of law] that sentence enhancements can be based only on facts, proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as announced in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967, 980 (9th Cir. 2004).
See also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent these questioned enhancements, the sentencing ranges
NOV 17 2004 "These enhancements [by Judge A. Howard Matz] violated the rule [of law] that sentence enhancements can be based only on facts, proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as announced in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967, 980 (9th Cir. 2004).
See also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent these questioned enhancements, the sentencing ranges COVERED UP : A.K.A. IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN!!!!!!
JUN 15 2005 "We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence as to either Defendant [if it had known] that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court held in Booker. In fulfilling this mandate, the district court may hold such hearings and enter such orders as it determines to be necessary, including, without limitation, modifying or vacating its previous sentence.
IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN??? HE KNEW, THEY KNEW, YET HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAND DOWN SUBSTANTIAL PRISON SENTENCES, ILLEGALLY. ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING CONFUSION AND IGNORANCE. YES, BUT BY WHO? AND HOW MANY OTHERS DID HE ILLEGALLY SENTENCE? AND WHY IS HE ALLOWED TO REMAIN? ANSWER: ASK HIS GOOD BUDDIES! MATZ WON'T TELL ME, 'CAUSE IT'S A SECRET! 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) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
