PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

Law Office of Mark Osterman
215 Fidalgo Drive, Suite #106
Kenai, AK 99611
Mark,
I've got a few things that I would like in my appeal if they are
appropriate.
The main one which I feel has to be in the appeal is that Brent
Cole and Chuck Robinson had actual conflicts of interests. Brent
in preserving and enhancing his deal making ability with the
State of Alaska (the proof of which is everywhere in all the lies
we have documentation of not the least of which is in his lying
to me that we couldn't even try to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement
even though we had such great Detrimental Reliance on it), and
his and Chucks conspiring together to keep Brent Cole from
testifying at my sentencing to the fact that we had indeed paid
so much for a Rule 11 Agreement that everyone told us could be
broken by the State with no possibility of making them honor it.
Chuck's actual conflict of interest is documented throughout all
the tape recordings I have of him telling me no matter how bad
Brent Cole was, how much he had lied to me, and how much damage
he had done to me there was absolutely nothing we could do about
it. Then when I found all the law about Detrimental Reliance and
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims Chuck Robinson told me
on tape in front of multiple witnesses that he had no obligation
whatsoever to utilize any of this for my defense. I require
these defenses to be put into my appeal. I want it very
obviously stated that there was actual conflicts of interests
from these two lawyers in their representation of me and that all
of the other things that happened where just symptoms of this
single problem.
If we prove there was an actual conflict of interest we don’t
even have to prove that there was prejudice. By the Supreme
Courts definition the likelihood of prejudice is so great that
case-by-case inquiry is not worth the cost.
“One type of actual ineffectiveness claim warrants a similar,
though more limited, presumption of prejudice. In Cuyler v.
Sullivan, the Court held that prejudice is presumed when counsel
is burdened by an actual conflict of interest. In those
circumstances, counsel breaches the duty of loyalty, perhaps the
most basic of counsel's duties. Moreover, it is difficult to
measure the precise effect on the defense of representation
corrupted by conflicting interests. Given the obligation of
counsel to avoid conflicts of interest and the ability of trial
218