PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

Mr. Osterman: Listen
Mr. Haeg: ... the ineffectiveness
Mr. Osterman: But well – not - bear with me for a second. Perhaps ...
Mr. Haeg: Or – or is that attacking the attorney too much
Mr. Osterman: Well first of all bear with me for a second. How's the Attorney General in
response to your motion on appeal going to claim that Cole's process was not ineffective He's
goanna have to go to the Strickland test and say, "Strickland doesn't apply". Ok
Mr. Haeg:
Why's that
Mr. Osterman: Well bear with me for a second. Strickland is the only measure of Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel. The Strickland test coming out of the Strickland vs. US case. Ok If
Strick – if the Strickland criteria is there – the State can go spit in the wind. Once you've
established that criteria. If I go into the ad homonym attack. Well he did this, knowing that, and
he did this knowing that, I give them fuel to say this is all bullshit judge and you ought to - you
ought to just not even consider it. Because see all the emotional baggage in there
causes damage to the claim. We want to – we want to face the claim in cold steel eyes
and say here it is. In fact slightly understated makes the Court of Appeals
understand the nature of the claim.
Mr. Haeg: Yep.
Mr. Osterman: Which is goanna lead us off into the bushes and we're not goanna go this, we're
just goanna disregard the claim. But if the claim is on all fours, focusing on Strickland, which is
why I sent you that case very early on. That case is on all fours. That case says "failing to
204