Two elements comprise a successful ineffective-assistance claim. The claimant must first show

1. that counsel “made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment,”

2. then he must show prejudice—in other words, he must “demonstrate ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984)).

   SEE Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335

   SEE Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3

   SEE Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806

    

"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

MEET KILLERCOP'S FIRST ATTORNEY, FORCED ON HIM, AFTER FIRST BEING FORCED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE.

Greg Nicolaysen hates christians. HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.

GREG, THE COMPUTER EXPERT.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

KILLERCOP HAD TWO DISTRICT PUBLIC PRETENDERS, BUT THEY QUIT, CITING AN UNSPOKEN CONFLICT, AND TOOK THE ENTIRE DISTRICT WITH THEM WHEN THEY LEFT THE CASE.

THE TRIAL JUDGE, MATZ, NATURALLY BLAMED THAT ON KILLERCOP AT A LATTER DATE, EVEN THOUGH KILLERCOP BEGGED THE JUDGE NOT TO LET THEM QUIT.

TO MAKE AMENDS, I GUESS, THEY LEFT BEHIND A COMPUTER ILLITERATE ATTORNEY.

THAT DIDN'T WORK, NATURALLY.

HENSE, GREG, THE COMPUTER EXPERT.

KILLERCOP WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM, SO THE JUDGE IGNORED THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND FORCED GREG ON TO KILLERCOP.

LETS JUST SAY THINGS WENT DOWN HILL FROM THERE. AS IN STRAIGHT TO HELL.

NEXT UP: Attorney MICHAEL BRENNEN, ESQ

AND Attorney DAVID REED, ESQ

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

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved