Schaeffer Cox trial underway in Alaska

[Lambkin]

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_new ... b2370.html

Ex-militia leader Schaeffer Cox may be getting a new lawyer — again. Cox is requesting that his public defender, Suzanne Elliott, be taken off his case because of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

In a statement to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed on Feb. 6, Cox claimed Elliott’s efforts in his defense were ineffective and that he planned to file a complaint with the Washington State Bar Association, of which Elliott is a member.

Cox planned to file the complaint on the grounds that Elliott planned to ignore many of the avenues he wished to pursue in his appeal. He also revisited his complaint from December that Elliott had irreconcilably damaged the attorney-client relationship by claiming Cox was “delusional” in his trial testimony.

[Pottapaug1938]

Get a lawyer. Ask for delay in trial while new lawyer becomes familiar with case. Tell him/her how to try your case and what to say. Hear him/her say that this is unwise/dangerous/legally invalid/whatever. Fire lawyer. Get new lawyer. Ask for delay in trial while new lawyer becomes familiar with case. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[Dai Kiwi]

After the second or third attempt the Court gets tired of the games, appoints an amicus and goes ahead anyway. Attempting to put off the evil day only goes so far. Granted, it wastes a year or two, depending on how booked the Court's calendar is.

[akbill]

Crazy its the gift that keeps on giving

[davids]

Here is an interview his would-be attorney gave recently, which seems like an attempt to drum up legal defense funds for both an appeal and a related case. I didn't listen to the whole thing, but found the attorney didn't sound crazy at all. Significantly, he didn't characterize the prosecuting attorneys as being stupid, ignorant fools, talk sovrun, or engage in any other major stupidity (though he did entertain the thoughts of an obviously sovrun-brain-addled caller who rambled on about how there was a conflict of interest because the judge is paid by the government). He did raise all of the salient points one would expect him to raise, questioning use of informants and entrapment defense points, credibility of state witnesses, alleged unfair treatment of Cox, etc.

I totally disagree with the whole sovcit mindset, but I have to say it says something at least "decent" about Cox if he can get along with this guy, in that most sovruns would be busy saying that they want no attorney involved and spouting gibberish. The attorney in this interview didn't espouse any gibberish (at least not at the beginning), and seemed to give credit to the other professionals involved. From the brief part I listened to, he represented him before and they still are on speaking terms. Put it like this - I can't imagine hearing the same from an attorney that Dean Clifford would want to hire!

Not saying Cox is an angel, not saying I have any kind of firsthand knowledge here (unlike others) but there are some talking points that go beyond the whole "he thinks he is his own country" nonsense that we hear from these guys usually.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/201 ... -our-minds

[davids]

In Day 2 of the trial, the blogger included stick man sketches that were really entertaining.

I love the "eerily lifelike courtroom sketches" on the Second Day of coverage. But I think they make Assistant U.S. Attorney Lamoureux look a little slutty. I mean, the gown doesn't go over her shoulders and it looks like if she were to bend over the court could see her, briefs so to speak.


Thanks for the link Demo.

It almost makes one wish for real photographs!

[akbill]

I also listened to the same program, Robert John is a good attorney. He is the one that got Schaeffer off of the state charges on a technicality, the guy is very good. He is also owed a ton of money (he says he can't start his appeal till he's paid the 30,000 he's owed) and is ideologically in tune with many of MR. Cox's ideas.

Although the attorney is not bringing up the crazy Mr. Cox is. I've heard everything in the past two months to I had some kind of relationship with my FBI handler (this allegation would be funny if you knew her), I was paid 6 figures (they still owe me 30,000.00 and thats just reimbursement), I held a knife at somebody's throat (I told the guy i was going to slit his throat ye but I didn't get within 5 feet of him).

Cox will get along with anybody that acts like they support him, it strokes his narcissism. Its when the attorney won't believe all the BS he spews or won't allow Cox to destroy his own defense that he goes off and fires them. Due to Mr. Johns ideological stance he has a good chance of making it through the appeal with Mr. Cox but he like every other attorney Mr. Cox has had, he will eventually be fired for not defending Mr. Cox the way he thinks he should be defended.

[Lambkin]

A jury nullification bill supported by Schaeffer Cox has been raised again in the AK house judiciary committee.
http://www.adn.com/2014/03/26/3395689/h ... ation.html

A House bill promoting the notion that jurors can ignore Alaska's criminal code and let a lawbreaking defendant off the hook had a brief hearing Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee, then was held for later.

The bill, fostering "jury nullification," has been a bipartisan favorite of some Fairbanks-area House members, with identical versions introduced in 2002 and 2009.

In 2009, the committee held a full hearing with citizen testimony, nearly all in favor of Coghill's bill. Among the witnesses, according to committee minutes, were Fairbanks-area residents Schaeffer Cox, Lonnie and Karen Vernon, and Ken Thesing. They described nullification as a check against an over-powerful judiciary and improper laws. Thesing said nullification was in the middle of the protest continuum between "the soapbox on the street corner" and "the cartridge box."

Cox and the Vernons are now in federal prisons for their convictions in the Fairbanks militia cases last year. Thesing wasn't charged, but was a major in Cox' militia.

[Lambkin]

Long article in Pacific Standard on the Cox prosecution
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature- ... ska-77139/

The trial took place in Fairbanks, Alaska, under the fluorescent lights of the northernmost Denny’s franchise in the world. It was January, cold and dark, and outside, the neon signage of a handful of chain outlets gleamed: McDonald’s, Subway, Wendy’s. Schaeffer Cox, the charismatic young leader of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia, was charged by the State of Alaska with failing to notify a police officer that he was carrying a concealed weapon. But Cox, a member of the sovereign citizen movement, did not recognize the Alaskan court’s authority over him. And so at Denny’s, he faced a “common law” trial by a handpicked jury of his peers: his fellow militia members, friends, and sovereign citizen believers. Cox was acquitted.

[Lambkin]

Love for Schaeffer Cox. Some details of the historical record seem to be missing, but no matter.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/govern ... al-rights/

The government’s new definition of terrorism: exercising constitutional rights. While our tradition applauds those who stand up and exercise their constitutional rights, the government’s new definition of terrorism condemns such patriotic actions, as a young Alaskan from Fairbanks named Schaeffer Cox has unfortunately learned.

[notorial dissent]

Ah yes, The Western Journal, that bastion of respectability and forward thinking, almost as prestigious as Wing Nut Daily when it comes to reporting.

I guess I must have a missing page in my copy, but I don't seem to remember a constitutional right to plan and commit murder and acts of terror, or espouse the violent overthrow of the gov't. But then Western Journal has never been real big on them new fangled things called facts.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Love for Schaeffer Cox. Some details of the historical record seem to be missing, but no matter.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/govern ... al-rights/

The government’s new definition of terrorism: exercising constitutional rights. While our tradition applauds those who stand up and exercise their constitutional rights, the government’s new definition of terrorism condemns such patriotic actions, as a young Alaskan from Fairbanks named Schaeffer Cox has unfortunately learned.

The comparison I now always make is with 9/11. The hijackers didn't do anything illegal until they actually took control of the planes. Prior to that they were just expressing their rights to free speech. If another similar situation arose I would expect the Center for Western Journalism and WND to be defending them. Would that happen? I don't think so. Or only with the "Easy Rider" proviso "anybody white".

[Judge Roy Bean]

... but I don't seem to remember a constitutional right to plan and commit murder and acts of terror, or espouse the violent overthrow of the gov't. ...

Come to think of it, is there any non-violent way to overthrow a gov't?

[grixit]

Elections are supposed to do this, albeit you need political parties with significantly different practices.

[webhick]

... but I don't seem to remember a constitutional right to plan and commit murder and acts of terror, or espouse the violent overthrow of the gov't. ...

Come to think of it, is there any non-violent way to overthrow a gov't?

Shape-shifting lizards. You just slowly get them elected, which isn't all that hard, and they kind of take it from there.

[notorial dissent]

... but I don't seem to remember a constitutional right to plan and commit murder and acts of terror, or espouse the violent overthrow of the gov't. ...

Come to think of it, is there any non-violent way to overthrow a gov't?

Curiously no. Except by election.

[Jeffrey]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/02/us/al ... rs-killed/

(CNN) -- They were TV stars, in a sense, having appeared on the National Geographic Channel's reality show, "Alaska State Troopers." But more than that, Patrick "Scott" Johnson and Gabriel "Gabe" Rich were family men and men of the law.

Neither got the happy Hollywood ending they deserved, instead dying in a confrontation in a sparse, remote sliver of Alaska.

The troopers' bodies were recovered from Tanana, a village 130 miles west of Fairbanks, on Friday, a day after they were reported killed, the Alaska Department of Public Safety said.

Two men have been taken into custody since the incident near the Yukon River in the state's interior.

One of them --19-year-old Nathanial Lee Kangas of Tanana -- is under arrest in both deaths, the state public safety department said, adding that formal murder charges are being prepared. The other is Arvin Morse Kangas, 58, accused of fourth-degree assault and driving with a revoked license in a separate incident.

Any chance there's some SovCit involvement or am are my spidey senses being thrown off by the revoked license bit?

[Fmotlgroupie]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/02/us/al ... rs-killed/

Any chance there's some SovCit involvement or am are my spidey senses being thrown off by the revoked license bit?

On the face of it it looks more like just the realities of policing a remote aboriginal community. Good for them for doing a difficult but badly needed job, and condolences to their families.

[Judge Roy Bean]

More on the story:

$150 couch, sovereignty issues ignited deadly confrontation in Tanana

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_new ... b2370.html

[davids]

Although the attorney is not bringing up the crazy Mr. Cox is. I've heard everything in the past two months to I had some kind of relationship with my FBI handler (this allegation would be funny if you knew her), I was paid 6 figures (they still owe me 30,000.00 and thats just reimbursement), I held a knife at somebody's throat (I told the guy i was going to slit his throat ye but I didn't get within 5 feet of him).

I think that your threatening to slit a guy's throat, within five feet of him, you being a gun dealer, are probably some favorable facts to an entrapment defense. Not that it would succeed, but those aren't exactly facts that would hurt such a defense. Just sayin'