OLIVER DRANK HIMSELF TO DEATH
>>21440458
GEEZUR FART LICKIN FRENCH HOLOHOAX LARP DIANETICS
>>21440472
>Jews love homo shit …lol
AN TAHN TEHY GIT KILLED ON A SCHTICK
SNIFF HIS FARTS HOMO #$HEKEL$>>21440468
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)
and surreptitiously breaking into that office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government equipment and supplies, and replacing them in the Government files so that, in the words of defendant Budlong, these thefts would not be uncovered.
These defendants additionally ordered the theft of documents and memoranda of attorneys representing the United States Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety of lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorney's legal strategy and gain an unfair strategic advantage in the courts. In effect, they violated the attorney-client privilege of every litigant who opposed them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate by complaining in bad faith, that their own attorney-client privileges were violated. Such conduct cannot be permitted in our judicial system.
The right of this court to consider evidence of other crimes prior to imposing a sentence has long been recognized. It is well settled that "before making [a sentencing] determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come." United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, (1972). Courts have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about a convicted defendant's background, character, and conduct, criminal or otherwise, so that they can impose a sentence to fit the circumstances of the case and the individual defendant. See United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978); 18 U.S.C. sec 3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions are admissible, Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as is information about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even if the indictments for those crimes are pending, United States v. Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert denied, 411 U.S. 919 (1973); or the defendant was never tried for the other crimes, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949); or the charges were dismissed without an adjudication on the merits, United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 919 (1963); United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed in prosecutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered by the sentencing judge. United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1972).
>right of this court to consider evidence of other crimes prior
>a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope
>Courts have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about a convict
>defendant was never tried for the other crimes,
>Even facts developed in prosecutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered by the sentencing judge.
In addition, the Court can consider all the circumstances surrounding a defendant's conviction for the present crime. A court is also warranted in increasing the sentence when it believes that the defendant has undermined the judicial system through repeated perjury. United States v. Grayson , supra.