National Center for Rights
Helsinkidog@gmail.com                                                                    Even if the children complain, who will listen?

False Claim 1: Ross fee is unreasonable


Trooper Murphy had five separately charged cases in which Ross was the MRPC 6.2 Appointed Criminal Defense Counsel. Ross objected in court to the appointment and being taken off the Federal prosecution but fulfilled the obligation as instructed by Judge Battaglia's office. 

It is undisputed that Ross received from Murphy $102,565 in fees for the services of two attorneys at Ross firm.  Case I and Case II were joined at the last moment.  

The Court distributes the Cowling article to Criminal Defendants advising them that a fee of $30,000 to $50,000 will be charged on average for each separately charged criminal case. 

Attorneys do not give discounts for pedophile cops having multiple children accuse them in separate cases when the written agreement specifies that Ross and his staff will bill Murphy $250 per hour in line with the Court's guidelines.

If the court is to claim that Ross' fee is unreasonable then it must produce direct evidence by examining the work Ross' provided and provide scientific evidence published in the public domain of similar work provided by other attorneys. It cannot just place one of the perpetrators and call him an expert. The rule is clear in Daubert and Frye. The obvious fraud is local attorney Kemp, a known Nation of Islam mouthpiece, cannot testify to the gross fees charged in the community for child sex trafficking cases, because all other legal bills are subject to attorney client privileged and and not public. 

If Kemp were meeting to discuss price with other young attorneys to purchase his "peer review" of their services to make sure that their bill meets his guidelines (while taking from 1/3 to 2/3rd. of the gross fee) then Kemp goes to jail on such evidence for price fixing and kickback schemes. If you don't pay Kemp, Kemp's partners Hein, Battaglia, and McDonald will prosecute. 

But most importantly, Kemp has to site his "expert" opinion to public published scientific data on community billing for gross fees. There is no such publication and Kemp has published no article. He is not an expert but a conspirator. 

The issue on the limits that an expert witness can testify is addressed in the tabs left. 
Thus when the court attempts to pretend that Ross' Gross Fee for two years of services as the MRPC Court Appointed Criminal Defense Attorney for Murphy should be less than $10,000, the obviousness of the sham is express. The requirement to prove that scientifically to justify Kemp's testimony is established clearly in the rules. 
The five cases are:
CASE 1: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FILED ON 12 FEBRUARY 2008 - THIS IS A DENOVO/MISTRIAL CASE WHERE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAD TO BE RETRIED AND EXPERTS HAD TO TESTIFY AGAIN. ROSS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS IN 2007.
CASE II: CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING - ABDUCTION TRANSPORT AND HARBORING OF A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD TO MANUFACTURE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY - 

Resolved with Case I

Ross charged Murphy $14,250 for Cases I and II. The hours marked for 4 June 2008 are for case III.

CASE III:
Within the hour of the above agreement Murphy was standing as the Criminal Defendant in the appeal of his arraignment for Child Sex Trafficking with regard to the 12 Year Old Child having just settled the issue on the five year old child listed above as the minor known as A.P. and events arising on or about January 13, 2007.
The problem was that Murphy changed his story of his whereabouts with regard to the children having previously admitted being alone with the children. Instead, Murphy invented a new story with his wife being the alibi who claims she was alone with the children.  So Murphy's Senior Counsel Ms. Camus was ordered to resign rather than suborn the perjury of Murphy. While Ross, not being present in the case prior to February 2008, was ordered to present the new alibi story in court not having personally heard Murphy's admission offered in 2007. Ross was instructed he could not rely upon the hearsay of Ms. Camus as to Murphy's prior admissions. 
So the Case was postponed to 29 July 2008 and Ross was instructed to re-prepare the case with the new alibi story

Ross charged Murphy $37,500 for two attorneys to prepare the 29 July 2008 hearing. One can see Ross charged Murphy $10,500 for the perjury case and Ross also gave Murphy a $8,250 discount. 
CASE IV - CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING - NEW ISSUES OF ABDUCTION TRANSPORT AND HARBORING OF CHILDREN TO MANUFACTURE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY:

Murphy initiates the litigation by using Judge Wilkerson's Order. Murphy somehow is assured prior to the hearing that Wilkerson will rule in his favor and presents the following pre-written documents to instruct Ross to challenge the Case I and Case II Plea Bargain.  The State Counters with new charges.

Case IV Results in the same judge who refused to jail Murphy for Possession of child pornography modifying Murphy's Sentence and Probation terms allowing Murphy unrestricted access to the internet and giving Murphy access to children. 
CASE V: More New Issues of Abduction, Procurement Transport and Harboring of child to manufacture child pornography. A denovo hearing with witnesses and experts. 
Click to Replace