Arlo Looking Cloud shows conflict of interest by Rapid City Attorney & Supreme Court Judge of South Dakota, Charles Abourezk

U.S. and who?  submits motion to dismiss Amended Section 2255
 
ALC and lawyer, response
 
-summary of 1st paragraph:
1) -doctrine of equitable tolling should be applied
 why?  -because Defendent’s Amended Sec. 2255 is timely
 
2) -Defendent submits there are ample facts to support
     claims made by D. in the Amendment   
 
—————————————————————————————-
 
Summary of Position taken in all Affidavits by ALC:
 
QUOTE
 
1.   As will be demonstrated below, Defendent expects that the 3 depositions that he seeks to
take, and to which the U.S. has no opposition, will shed further light on his arguments as
to why this matter should not be dismissed
 
2.  If this Court dismisses the Amended Section 2255 motion, which Defendent submits that it
should not do, Defendent requests that the Court provide him and his counsel adequate time
to file a motion with this Court to recommend an appropriate placement for Defendant in light
of his current circumstances.
 
—————————————————————————————–
 
Arguments for;  “This court should apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to hold that the 
                        amended claims are timely”
          
  A)  Defendent has pursued his rights diligently 
              (my words, now I understand… here is Sec. 2255 that was initially filed)
 
       -initial section 2255 was filed after discovering his lawyer (attorney Teri Gilbert) was
        close friends and legal counsel to Vernon Bellecourt  (ALC had to kick the bum out – was
        this the guy who represented him at his trial?)
 
       -new attorney Michael Butler retained, but dismissed because the guy never talked to
        him or got back to him (sound familiar?)
 
       -Feb. 2008, Barry Bachrach appointed, ALC expressed interest in co-operating with
        government, something previous attorneys had advised him against!
 
       -Aug. 2008 – ALC talks to Attorney Marty Jackley for the U.S. (prosecuting attorney)
        provides substantial assistance
 
        -2008 to June 2011 – Defendant’s attorneys, Monica Colbath and B. Bachrach, work with          
         defendant “providing substantial assistance to authorities in connection with the murder
         of Ms. Anna Mae Aquash”
 
 July 14, 2011, U.S. Rule 35 Motion was applied due to D’s “Substantial Co-operation”, and his
        sentence was reduced to 20 years from life…
 
———————————————————————————————-
 
Arguments for;  “Extraordinairy Circumstances Prevented Defendant from Raising The Claims
                       Asserted in the Amended Petition”
 
   “The crux of Def.’s Amended Section 2255 motion is that Attorney Rensch, individually and
in concert with others, provided ineffective assistance of counsel by protecting the interests of
others over the interests of Defendant.  Defendant sets forth several circumstances where this
manifested itself.
 
1.  Attorney Rensch refused to interview Attorney Bruce Ellison or call him as a witness,
     despite Attorney Ellison’s attorney (oi vay – an attorney for an attorney!?), Jim Leach,
     encouraging Rensch to do so (exhibit b)
 
2.  Vernon Bellecourt, sought and apparently had control over who would represent the
     Defendant, and had an impact on who did (exhibit c)
 
3.  according to Defendant, he fired attorney Terri Gilbert upon learning of his close relation-
     ship with Vernon Bellecourt;  a relationship that Defendant was unaware of when he
     initially retained Gilbert (exhibit d)
 
4.  Defendant just recently discovered evidence that, unknown to him, Attorney Charles
     Abourezk acted as what Abourezk described as “an ex parte trial counsel to Att. Rensch”
     despite the fact that Abourezk admittedly represented “3 of the witnesses in this matter”
     (exhibit e)
 
5.  Defendant testified that Attorney Abourezk was not only present at Bill Means’ residence on
     Rosebud Reservation when John Graham, Theda Nelson Clark, and Defendant stopped
     there shortly before Ms. Aquash was murdered, but also that Charles Abourezk let
    Defendant into the house to use the restroom.  As such, Attorney Abourezk should not  
    have represented Defendant in any capacity because he represented 3 other trial witnesses
    and was also placed at an important scene along the route to Ms. Aquash’ murder.
 
6.  Attorney Rensch submitted Defendant to a so called “psycho-drama”, the purpose of which
     Defendant has never understood. 
 
     In doing so, Attorney Rensch had Attorney Charles Abourezk and another member of the
     Abourezk Law Firm, Robin Zephier, participate in the psycho-drama. 
 
     The Abourezk Law Firm was representing “3 witnesses at the time”
 
     According to Defendant, they had him retell what occurred, but for what purpose he did
     not know
 
    —————————————————————————————————————–
 
Talk about techniques of control!
 
   ——————————————————————————————————————-
 
-Bachrach summarizes:
 
  – Putting aside the allegedly nefarious purpose of the so-called “psycho-drama” in light of Attorney
Abourezk’s representing 3 witnesses (my words – I’d like to know who the 3 witnesses were –
Richard 2 Elk was probably one of them, but I don’t know yet.)
 
  – And Charles Abourzeks presence at a key spot along the trail to Ms. Aquash’ murder, Defendant never knew that
Attorney Abourezk was representing him or had any involvement in his defense, (exhibits e – f)
 
 -This was only discovered and brought to Defendant’s (Looking Cloud) attention after the Amendment was filed
while his current counsel continued preparing for the hearing on his Section 2255 motion
 
-Attorney Charles Abourezk’s involvement in Defendant’s case is particularly troubling because Att. Rensch
 neither told Defendant nor sought his permission to have Att. Charles Abourezk represent him as an
 “ex parte trial attorney”  (my words, I think that means he was working as a consultant, not
 immediately apparent to ALC, but there with legal advice and control none the less)
 
–Defendant would have objected to any such representation given the obvious conflicts of interest
of Charles Abourzeks in representing Arlo Looking Cloud. 
—————————————————————————————————–
 
Bachrach continues:
 
-based on current info., it is unclear if Att.s Abourezk and Zephier were also representing Defendant
 during the psycho-drama, or what role they played
 
-the Defendant’s file contains no documents referencing the “psycho-drama”
 
-yet according to Defendant, the “psycho-drama” was one of the few times that Attorney Rensch substantively
 interacted with him. 
 
-more importantly, he did so while in the presence of Att.s Abourezk and Zephier, as well as his associate
and secretary…
 
—————————————————————————————————————————
 
This is incredible…
 
—————————————————————————————————————————-
 
Defendant, since he can’t determine their role or why they did
what they did in this psycho-drama, and since there are no Docs.
on the incident, the Defendant requests through depositions from
Att’s Abourezk and Zephier, their role and purposes in this process
that occurred
 
-it is essential that the court permit the Defendant to learn the role Attorney Abourezk
had in his defense
 
-The United States must not object to the Defendant conducting these depositions either
 (my words…… you go guys, you go!)