Prosecutor's Trying To Block Use Of Evidence By Umar's Standby Attorney
by Kurt Haskell | December 28, 2010
Ho-hum, just another story that supports my version of Flight 253 with Umar as a patsy:
This story just keeps getting better and better. First of all, what the heck is a standby attorney? You either have an attorney or you don't. Having an attorney allows you to have the attorney client privilege apply to all of your communications between the client and attorney. Under no circumstances can those communications be discovered by anyone or held against you in court. Does that apply to a standby attorney? Does that mean that Umar has an attorney or he doesn't? Why do I ask? A few weeks ago I went to visit Umar in prison to discuss his case. I was denied access because Umar had a "standby attorney" listed on his visitor sheet. Without that listing, I (allegedly) could have met with Umar and discussed his case.
Now to a discussion of this article. Judge Edmunds previously ordered that Umar's standby attorney, Anthony Chambers, could have access to all of the discovery materials for the case. For non-lawyers, discovery is the pre-trial process in which both sides obtain all of the evidence that might be used at trial. Logically, if an attorney is getting ready for a trial, his staff will help him with that preparation, and consequently, will have access to all of the discovery materials. The prosecutors are now attempting to block the request of Attorney Chambers to give his staff and various experts (who may testify for Umar) access to such materials. A denial of such a request would greatly damage any help Attorney Chambers may be able to provide Umar.
A question I have is, why try and block such a request if you have nothing to hide? Wasn't that the excuse the U.S. Government used when it started using illegal wiretaps? If you have nothing to hide, then don't worry about it. Again, this is just another tell to the truth that I've been repeating over the last year. I caught the U.S. Government with their hand in the cookie jar and it knows it. Now it must take every unjustified step to ensure that Umar doesn't receive a fair trial. For those of you that ask if it really matters, yes it does. A person can commit a crime and still be found not guilty. Umar could be found not guilty based on a defense of entrapment. Umar could also get off on the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense. Such a defense came into existence in the 1971 case of Greene v. United State, 454 F.2d 783. In ruling for the Defendant in that case, the court stated that "we do not believe that the Government may involve itself so directly and continuously over such a long period of time in the creation and maintenance of criminal operations, and yet prosecute its collaborators".
Hidden in this article is also this gem: Anthony Chambers needs to discuss the evidence with experts. Hmmm, I have to wonder what kind of experts? Anthony Chambers is apparently an expert in criminal law with 25 years experience. Thus, I don't see that he would have a need to consult with other attorneys to discuss the issues. The only other possibility, is that he needs to discuss evidence with experts in chemical composition, explosives and plane construction. Each being tied to the question of whether Umar's bomb was viable. As I stated in my post on 12-25-10, this question is the only question that matters. Apparently, after looking at the evidence and/or discussing the matter with Umar, Anthony Chambers questions exactly what I do about the bomb. He apparently feels the viability of the bomb is the entire case. Obviously, he must be questioning some sort of shady government evidence as to its viability. I am almost feeling sorry for the man that nearly killed me (via fire from a fake bomb). On deck for me this week will be a personal visit to the office of Attorney Anthony Chambers.