No lawyer.

I knew Joel for a while. He was pretty anti-social when I knew him but that was right after he had gotten out of prison for 8 years.

Well he should have gone to school at VNN.

Public school and daytime television is no way for a proper White boy to grow up, dammit.

But just looking at his picture you'd think he was a good guy. There's no accounting for brains. A pretty face don't make no pretty heart...

No lawyer.

Major , major mistake

Major , major mistake

in Oz, if a lawyer can't be retained(whether for financial or other reasons), then the case is adjourned sine die until such time

Rvrnd duFresne was clearly 'rail-roaded': the evidence against him was slim @ BEST!

(also: re: the "judge`s" remarks abt him being 'a sub-human racist' or what-ever: can't recall if those or similar were made during course of trial...if so: again: in Oz: then his lawyer could have made application to the trial judge to declare a mis-trial or, if that was denied, then, such 'injudicious comments' would be sufficient for a Court of Criminal Appeal to quash his 'conviction' and, possibly, order a re-trial!)

(jimbo!)

in Oz, if a lawyer can't be retained(whether for financial or other reasons), then the case is adjourned sine die until such time

Even if the defendant refuses legal council ?

In situations such as this , I wonder if some WNs have a 'failure' wish , deep inside .

( you make a couple of good points . )

He should have just gotten his court appointed lawyer. And I dunno if in the US you can have a conviction from a jury tossed because the judge gives you some lip. You could probably have the judge reprimanded, though.

We have RIGHTS, people. RIGHTS, like FREE LAWYERS for those of us too poor to hire one when the system clamps down on us (though I have my doubts if this was even political), like HAVING THE RIGHT TO STFU and NOT GIVE THE PROSECUTION MORE AMMUNITION, and the jury more grounds to convict. My god, this guys sounds dumb.

i have it all figured out (i think...):

1. the bitch is lying

2. he figured, since he is innocent, that there would be no real evidence, and that he didn't even need a lawyer.

3. he doesn't trust the injustic system, and therefore doesn't trust lawyers.

4. he should have hired or accepted a court appointed lawyer nonetheless

5. the injustice system is largely a game of lawyer vs. lawyer, with less concern for what really happened. just clever word-play back and forth; jew games.

6. how can a man rape his own wife? didn't she swear to "honor and obey"?

7. with no lawyer, and no hope, i think many of us here would be raving like a lunatic faced with this situation.

8. he's fucked.

9. he was obviously rail-roaded for his beliefs, lawyer or no lawyer.

10. i truly feel sorry and horror for the poor bastard, and i feel anger and hatred toward that bitch that got him put away for life.

This guy gets up to 75 years on the testimony of a biased witness and Kobe Bryant rapes a faultless woman and no one believes her. Case dropped. Bryant goes on to make millions of more dollars and continues to be able to rape White girls with impunity.

It doesn’t get any worse then this.

Even the horror stories told to us by the lying jew of the unjust treatment of niggers, (ex. To Kill a Mockingbird) do not come near the harsh reality faced by White men today.

Even if the defendant refuses legal council ?

In situations such as this , I wonder if some WNs have a 'failure' wish , deep inside ( you make a couple of good points )

i'm un-sure what Rvrnd duFresne's actual legal situation was vis a vis his 'counsel'. i only know wht vrs ppl who knew him hv said on the creator forum abt him being a loving and caring husband & father & being the sort of bloke who would be highly un-likely to commit such 'offences'. that, of course, is what is termed 'hearsay evidence' in most courts in common law countries and, as such, would be deemed in-admissable....un-less such ppl testified personally as 'character witnesses'!
(that notwithstanding: the actual evidence against him[from what i can determine!] was dodgy to say the least: the chief prosecution witness [his 'ex-'] apparently made contradictory statements and even changed her version of the alleged incident a n° of times....if so: a good lawyer would have been jumping all over that with size 20 hob-nailed boots!)
of course, the only way to get nearer the truth of the matter, would be to acquire the court trial transcripts and peruse them!
perhaps duFresne was 'spooked' by PM Matt Hale's experiences with his lawyer: who: apparently: totally stuffed-UP Hale's defence: so much so: that Hale has now filed a mal-practice suit against him!
the 'rule of thumb' is, of course, "the man who represents him-self has a fool for a client"
in Oz: you can represent yr-self: in fact: in many 'low-level' cases: especially what they call 'summary offences': i.e: non-indictable offences, you are basically forced to because legal aid is now not granted for such charges.
however: if you face an indictable or, 'committal', offence(i.e: one that can incur a term of imprisonment) legal aid is usually, though not always!, granted.....in such cases: if you opt to defend yr-self, then the judge or magistrate presiding would strongly caution you to retain legal counsel.....if you ignore this and still continue with yr own defence, then, special accommodations re: court procedures: are made and you are given extra concessions: re: preparing yr case & conducting cross-examination(s) &c!
the adjournments usually occur re: indictable offences: where legal aid has been refused: in such cases: the adjournment is made to allow you to find a lawyer who may be prepared to act pro bono
(such a case was the Greg Domaszewicz murder trial which i referred to in a previous thread)

And I dunno if in the US you can have a conviction from a jury tossed because the judge gives you some lip

in Oz: a judge is allowed to make comments to a jury both during the trial and during the judge's 'summing up' of both the prosecution & defence cases(usually: though: the comments are confined to the 'summing up'!)
comments made by the judge during the actual course of the trial are usually in the nature of 'off the cuff' remarks.
(a judge can, of course, him/her-self ask questions of a witness and address both the prosecution & defence lawyers if the judge deems that necessary!)
WRT: the comments made during the 'summing up'....they can even be 'strong' comments but must be confined to the evidence and as per the evidence as per 'points of law': a judge is not allowed to make personal comments about an accused person's 'character': although, of course, the judge is allowed to make comments regarding what prosecution or defence witnesses have testified as to the accused's character (if such witnesses were personally acquainted with the accused: a judge must forbid witnesses personally un-acquainted with the accused and/or witnesses acting in their official capacity: [for instance: 'the informant' or police officer preferring charges and/or any other police officers called as witnesses] from making 'personality judgements' re: the accused)]only where such comments are germane to the evidence per se and re: points of law re: the elements of the actual charge!
comments like "you, sir! are a sub-human racist" made either during the course of the trial or during the course of a judge's 'summing up' would be auto-matic grounds for an application for a mis-trial and/or for the conviction to be over-turned/quashed by a Court of Criminal Appeal as 'un-safe and un-satisfactory'!

another point perhaps worthy of note is that, in most Oz courts, an accused's prior convictions are not allowed to be dis-closed to a jury; except if such convictions involve matters closely similar in both circumstance and occurrence to the charge on which the accused is being presented. in those cases, which are, admittedly, rare(as Courts of Criminal Appeal usually over-turn convictions where prior evidence of an accused's criminal history have been admitted), this evidence is called 'propensity evidence'

OTW: an accused's prior criminal history is only admissable/relevant during the 'plea' hearing before a judge pronounces the final sentence!

of course: Oz judges and juries are almost all white: even with such safe-guards as above, i still wouldn't 'fancy my chances' fronting a jew judge directing a nigga jury!

(jimbo!)

i

5. the injustice system is largely a game of lawyer vs. lawyer, with less concern for what really happened. just clever word-play back and forth]

That is golden , absolutely golden .

I think his biggest fault was LOM ( lack of money ).

'You get as much justice as you can afford '.

.
[color="Red"]"sneaky 'GD' Jews are all alike." ......Marge Schott

" I'd rather have a trained monkey working for me than a nigger,"