15.01.2015 Views

PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

we could have something we could live with – 5 hours – 5 business hours before we were<br />

supposed to get this deal Prosecutor Scot Leaders changed the charges in violation <strong>of</strong> what I had<br />

bought and paid for and because I had already given him all <strong>of</strong> my defenses and all <strong>of</strong> my<br />

weapons he then sent me into the ring to do battle with the gladiators. And there's a U.S.<br />

Supreme Court case it's Cronic I believe where the Supreme Court judges quote Judge Wyzanski<br />

and he said "While a criminal trial is not a ba – a – a contest between equally armed adversaries<br />

neither is it the sacrifice <strong>of</strong> unarmed prisoners to gladiators." Now what happened to me is the<br />

<strong>State</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> used deception – lies to get me to give them all <strong>of</strong> their armor – or give – yeah<br />

give them all <strong>of</strong> my armor, all <strong>of</strong> my weapons so that I did not have to go do battle with the<br />

gladiators. Then after they had my weapons and all my armor they threw me into the arena with<br />

the gladiators with no weapons no armors and with my hands tied behind my back to do battle at<br />

trial. Which we were – most <strong>of</strong> us was there and that was such a gross perversion <strong>of</strong> the system<br />

that it's almost incomprehensible - virtually incomprehensible. At least according to the U.S.<br />

Supreme Court's definition <strong>of</strong> what happens when you make a deal and you rely on it to your<br />

detriment. They said giving the prosecution information is greatly to your detriment. I think a 5<br />

hour confession put me at a significant disadvantage at trial. In fact my statements are in every<br />

information that was filed – all 3 <strong>of</strong> them. It says "in an interview with Mr. Haeg he said thisthis-this<br />

and this" in all 3 <strong>of</strong> them. That violates due process, that violates the Constitution, that<br />

violates evidence rule 410, that violates the attorneys – the prosecutors duty to look out for me to<br />

have a fair trial because even though he's my adversary it is his duty according to U.S. Supreme<br />

Court to look out for my interest. And he was just hacking on them and using my own attorney's<br />

conflict <strong>of</strong> interest. I asked him "how can they use my statements against me"<br />

MAGISTRATE WOODMANCY: Let me...<br />

MR. HAEG: You know ok – and ...<br />

MAGISTRATE WOODMANCY: we're not trying this whole thing...<br />

MR. HAEG: Ok.<br />

MAGISTRATE WOODMANCY: How does this relate to Osterman<br />

MR. HAEG: Osterman did not...<br />

MAGISTRATE WOODMANCY: Wrap this up.<br />

256

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!