Posted on 09/12/2008 6:00:19 AM PDT by kellynla
Complain to Chris Antcliff, he was the lawyer. The transcripts show that he was not present prior to Feb 17, 2006, transcript number 4. You brought up the incompetent defense. I cited what the law was concerning shooting fleeing suspects.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, anything else we need to take 18 up? I just have one other matter. But is there anything 19 anybody needs from the Court, then, regarding this whole issue? 20 MR. ANTCLIFF: For the record, Judge, I am Chris 21 Antcliff, and I entered my appearance on behalf of Mr. Compean, 22 along with Ms. Ramirez, this morning. 23 THE COURT: All right. So you will be co-counsel in 24 the case? 25 MR. ANTCLIFF: I will. David A. Perez, CSR, RPR 5 1 THE COURT: Who is going to be lead? Are you, 2 Ms. Ramirez, going to be lead counsel? 3 MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, Judge.
You expect me to complain to a defense lawyer that s/he made an ineffective defense? You expect a foot massage with that?
I expect you to complain to the appropriate person. You brought up incompetent lawyers.
Most Border Patrol Unions provide insurance that covers attornery’s fees for court cases in which the government leaves agents twisting in the wind. I get my coverage through PORAC. I get competent attorneys with at least a million dollars in coverage. The union Ramos and Compean belonged to apparently decided not to get any kind of protection to keep union dues to a minimum. Needles to say that isn’t the case anymore.
Just curious.
From what this case shows me, I would suggest that you leave your gun, asp, pepper spray, and anything else that can be construed as a weapon at home when you go to work. That way someone fleeing you and getting away cannot come back and successfully accuse you of assaulting them(aggravated anyway). Plus without a weapon, 10 years will not be tacked on to the sentence if you are found guilty.
You are always “just curious”. Well, felix, I did respond to your incompetent lawyer question with the factoid that one of Compean’s lawyers had only four days to prepare, but your complaint was of incompetent defense not 4 day preparation. Four days is a fact. Incompetent is an opinion, yours concerning this subject.
I don't see why you brought it up . . . they didn't.
That's no joke. Remember, Mark Stelmach told the Fifth Circuit that even if a LEO was (simply) carrying a firearm, he could still be prosecuted under 924(c) law.
In other words, even if the officer never takes the gun out of the holster, he can still receive the ten year mandatory because he was in "possession" or "carrying" a gun when he tried to apprehend the suspect.
The fact that it's his official sidearm that he is specifically required to carry as part of his job is irrelevant.
Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.
With that, my answer to you on this subject will be the same.
Right. And your #859 did not raise the issue of competency. And the Earth is flat.
Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.
Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.
So let’s just state for the record here, genius. You think the defense was competent, yes?
Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.
That’s what I thought, you have nothing.
Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.
I'll provide them if you wish, but I'm done with this thread otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.