FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

“Computers are like Old Testament God; lots of rules and no mercy.”

A GUMP STATEMENT

"There's a pathology that society has to deal with. There are people who want to display their prowess in Internet technology -- but they screw up big time." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz

QUESTION: Would it be unjust to appoint a computer illiterate attorney to effectively represent an indigent prisoner in a federal, complex criminal computer case?

ANSWER: FUCK YA!!

Appointing a computer-illiterate attorney to represent an indigent prisoner in a complex federal computer case would raise significant concerns about whether the attorney could effectively provide adequate legal representation. In legal ethics, the standard of effective assistance of counsel is one of the cornerstones of a defendant's constitutional rights, especially under the Sixth Amendment.

In complex cases, such as those involving advanced computer crimes (e.g., hacking, cybercrime, data breaches, etc.), the following points should be considered:

1. Competence of Counsel

  • Attorneys have a professional responsibility to understand the legal issues, the facts of the case, and the relevant law. If the case requires specialized knowledge of technology, cybersecurity, or computer systems, an attorney lacking expertise in those areas might struggle to adequately assess evidence, cross-examine technical experts, or present a defense.

  • It’s not enough for an attorney to merely have general legal knowledge; they must also possess or acquire the necessary knowledge to competently handle the nuances of the case, or have the resources (like expert witnesses or consultants) to make up for any gaps.

2. Precedent: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

3. Right to Counsel vs. Quality of Counsel

  • While an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel, the court is also obligated to ensure that the appointed attorney can provide meaningful representation. If the attorney is severely lacking in skills for such a specialized case, it could undermine the fairness of the trial.

  • The court may appoint a special master or technical consultant in certain complex cases to assist the attorney if they lack the necessary technical expertise. However, this is not always guaranteed and would likely depend on the complexity of the case.

4. Alternative Solutions

  • In a case where the defendant is indigent, and the attorney lacks the necessary expertise, the court might consider appointing an attorney who specializes in complex federal computer cases or grant access to expert resources that would allow the attorney to better understand the evidence and strategies involved.

  • Some federal defender offices may have attorneys with the requisite experience in specialized areas like cybercrime, but this may vary depending on the jurisdiction and resources available.

5. Ethical Considerations

  • It could be seen as ethically problematic for an attorney who is not competent in handling a complex area of law to take on such a case without appropriate resources or assistance. Attorneys must be honest about their limitations and either refuse the case or seek additional support to ensure their client’s rights are protected.

Conclusion:

In general, it would not be just to appoint a computer-illiterate attorney for such a complex case, as it could violate the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel. The appointed attorney must have or be able to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to represent the client competently. If the appointed attorney lacks that knowledge, it would likely be in the best interest of the defendant to request either a more qualified attorney or external resources (like consultants or experts in the field) to assist in the case.

"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)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

JUDGE MATZ, THE COMPUTER GOD.

Transcript of 12.04.2002 Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM, Page 18, Lines 13-25

Judge Matz: “I don't think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Killercop that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case.

I don't think that's what the trial is likely to focus on at all.

So I think you could have somebody who has never seen a computer but is a fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a perfectly competent, maybe absolutely bank-up job for this defendant. That's my view.”

WELL THAT'S JUST DANDY!! SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS ENTITLES KILLERCOP TO YOUR "VIEW," AS A LEGAL DEFENSE, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE,

LETS ASK SOME OF HIS FRIENDS IF THEY FEEL, IN THEIR VIEW, IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT, AS DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS UNLIMITED EXPERTS.

SEE ALSO THE FALSE CONFESSION ON APPEAL

<MY THOUGHTS>

BY THE WAY, A. HOWARD MATZ, NEVER DID FIND THAT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH, IN HERE.

ARE YA'LL STACKING THE DECK, OR YA JUST DON'T PLAIN CARE WHO KNOWS ANYMORE?

EVEN A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT OF HARVARD KNOWS YOU WOULD BE STUPID TO COVERUP A CRIME. AND THAT IS A FACT.

SO IS THIS!

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)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

Buy Killercop a Coffee

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved