 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
The Sixth Amendment also is implicated when a court appoints a defendant’s attorney from the FPD Office where the appointing office is known to have conflicting interest after it RECUSED THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. <SNIP> “There are disturbing indications that a non-trivial number of prosecutors—and sometimes entire prosecutorial offices—engage in misconduct that seriously undermines the fairness of criminal trials.” -Judge Alex Kozinski, Preface: Criminal Law 2.0, 44 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. iii, xxii (2015) FOR THE RECORD, SEE McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 417 (2018).
"I DON'T ADMIT TRANSMITTING." " NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL." NOR WOULD I PLEAD GUILTY, EVEN IF I WANTED TO PLEAD GUILTY, WHICH I DON'T. I FIND THAT A PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION. KEEP YOUR DOGS AT BAY! I AM NOW ARMED, AGAIN. Noted defense attorney Gerry Spence told the Montana Trial Lawyers The law gets hung with the victims.
"If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because my role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of the truth." "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 DIRTY SECRETS AND MENTAL TORTURE TREATMENTS TO RESTORE YOUR MIND. (c) 1995-2026 |
Sam Bowden: Max Cady:
From: steven.sutcliffe Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:35 PM To: Sung B. Park Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: jurisdiction SHOW ME WHERE YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT PROVED I TRANSMITTED ANY PAGE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A NETWORK LOG FILE. IN ALL THE CASES CITED THE ACCUSED ADMITTED TRANSMITTING. THE GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER PUT TO THE CRUCIBLE OF PROVING IT. BUT SUNG SURE DID FALSELY ADMIT GUILT AGAINST ME AT APPEAL!! THIS VIOLATED McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 417 (2018). WHY? BECAUSE HE WAS CONFLICTED, BEING FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, OF CALIFORNIA. AND A LIAR BY TRADE. HIS OFFICE RECUSED THEIR ENTIRE DISTRICT FROM REPRESENTING KILLERCOP IN THIS CASE... HE WAS SPECIFICALLY FORCED ON THE CASE, TOO. WOULD THE SKIPPER REALLY BREAK THE LAW TO COVER UP HIS LITTLE BUDDY'S CRIMES, ERRORS AND MISTAKES? A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation. United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 1998). Not every conflict between a defendant and counsel, however, implicates the Sixth Amendment. See Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir. 2000). As the Supreme Court has explained, the right to counsel does not guarantee "a right to counsel with whom the accused has a `meaningful attorney-client relationship.'" Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 3-4, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 75 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1983). Nevertheless, where a court "compel [s] one charged with [a] grievous crime to undergo a trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in [an] irreconcilable conflict [it] deprive [s] him of the effective assistance of any counsel whatsoever." Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1970). Thus, a reviewing court must assess the nature and extent of the conflict and whether that conflict deprived the defendant of representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Schell, 218 F.3d at 1027. 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™ EMAIL SALES @ KILLERCOP.COM (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
