 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CONTACT EMAIL KILLERCOP @ KILLERCOP.COM |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
GET A LOAD OF THIS FABLE AND FICTION COMING OUT OF JUDGE JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI'S MOUTH.
"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 |
Monday, October 15, 2007 On appeal he raises numerous issues. the most interesting is the trial court's "implicit finding" that he waived counsel. Judge Kozinski, however, claims he went through five appointed lawyers, suing them or attacking them or blatantly disregarding their advice. The court, exasperated, held that his actions were akin to his wanting self-representation, and the court so ordered, with an appointment of stand-by counsel. Kozinski of the 9th Circuit affirmed. Kozinski of the 9th Circuit held that the defendant's actions toward and relationship with appointed counsel made "it" "clear" that the district court did not err in finding self-representation. This finding was carried over to the defendant's argument that he should have had appointed counsel for sentencing. Kozinski held that ]stand by] counsel acted in the defendant's interests. This issue differs from trial representation, and once a conviction occurred, it could be argued that counsel was needed, especially with guidelines. Kozinski however, affirmed. Lastly, there was no Ameline error, because the Kozinski held that the [admitted illegal] sentence would have been the same. (This strikes one as being annoyed with appellant.) 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 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
