NOW OPERABLE!

MEET NORREN EVENS.

 

MAYBE WE CAN CONVINCE JUDGE MUIRHEAD TO BITCH SLAP HER?

MAYBE HE CAN TEACH HER THAT NO MEANS NO!! AS IN CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW...

MAYBE IF SHE WAS ABOUT TO BE RAPED IN THE ASS, IN THE PRISON IN WHICH THEY SENT KILLERCOP TO SERVE TIME IN, FOR HIS SPEECH AND THOUGHT CRIMES, THE WORD "NO" WOULD TAKE ON A WHOLE NEW MEANING IN HER ATTORNEY-MIND.

 

OR MAYBE HER MOMMY DIDN'T READ HER ANY BEDTIME STORIES, AS A CHILD.

 

MY FAVORITE IS: "LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS" ANOTHER IS CALLED "LETS KILL ALL THE CAPTIVES."

 

THEY ARE AFTER ALL THE ONE'S INCITING THE COPS, UNDER ALL THE RULES, THESE RULERS OF PERSONS AND PEOPLE.

 

AND DON'T START ME ON "HUMAN BEINGS," OR GOBLINS AND OTHER MONSTERS.

 

I SURE WISH THEY WOULD LEARN TO TRAVEL SAFELY.

 

SEEING AS THEY KEEP TELLING ME THAT.

Survive In Prison Or Jail - A How To Jail Guide Speeding Ticket Secrets! Insider Tips, Tricks And Strategies!

Surviving Martial Law!

How To Survive The Coming Food Crisis!

Crisis By Design!

What 300 Million Americans Need To Know!

Join The Movement To Impeach Barack Obama!

Easy Naturalization: Easy And Fast Way To Become A US Citizen!

How To Win Child Custody!

Divorce Strategies And Tactics!

Focused Interviewing System Of Interview And Interrogation!

Legal Forms, Contracts And Agreements!

Dealing With False Restraining Orders.

THE CASE OF KILLERCOP AND THE KONFLIKT OF INTERE$T

CONFLICT?

NAAAAAAA!

ME NO SEE CONFLICT.

Actual conflict, is not just a possibility of conflict, ‘through a factual showing on the record.’ ” Moore, 159 F.3d at 1157 (citing Morris v. California, 966 F.2d 448, 455 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also United States v. Shwayder, 312 F.3d 1109, 1117-20 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the defendant must show that “counsel was influenced in his basic strategic decisions” by the conflict of interest); United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that an “attorney has an actual, as opposed to a potential, conflict of interest when, during the course of the representation, the attorney’s and the defendant’s interests diverge with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

That's a fact!

"IN FACT, IN THE MIDST OF THESE CONVERSATIONS OR COMMENTS THAT WERE BEING PUT ON THE COMPUTER, MR. SUTCLIFFE HIMSELF GOT SCARED, GOT SCARED OF GLOBAL [CROSSING] COMPANY. AND HE REMOVED FROM LOS ANGELES AND TOOK HIMSELF ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO NEW HAMPSHIRE TO GET AWAY FROM THEM.

THIS IS WHAT HIS CONDUCT WAS. HIS CONDUCT WAS NOT TO GO FIND THEM. HIS CONDUCT WAS NOT TO GO THREATEN THEM PERSONALLY BUT TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE SITUATION.

I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT HE WAS MAKING THESE STATEMENTS AS HE WAS LEAVING TO GET AS FAR AWAY FROM THESE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, THAT HE IS NOT ACTUALLY POSING A REAL THREAT TO ANYONE. HE'S SIMPLY VENTING AND VOICING HIS
FEELING OF BEING UPSET.

AND THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A PHYSICAL THREAT OF VIOLENCE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE CONTEXT, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE."

BESIDE THE LAW SAYS NO MEANS NO. ASK ANY RAPE VICTIM.