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

Claim 4 Authorization:
The Court claims that Ross was not Authorized to provide legal services to Murphy prior to 8 May 2008 - the court lied.
On 7 March 2008, Ross was MRPC 6.2 appointed to serve as a criminal defense attorney to Murphy by assisting Murphy's Divorce Counsel Ms. Camus. Due to the fact that just before trial, the head lawyer of Ms. Camus' firm was found to be without a valid law license, Ms. Camus was assigned to argue the case, despite the fact she did not practice criminal law. Ms. Camus shortly thereafter resigned from that firm, and request an assistant counsel be appointed since Murphy could not find counsel on his own. 

Ms. Camus issued a MRPC 1.5(e) letter sign by Murphy authorizing Ross' services at $250 per hour. 
Ross issued the asset forfeiture report to the court for the scheduled 20 March 2008 hearing.  Murphy had no assets he could disclaim and show that they were not tainted. 
On 7 April 2008, the State filed a Motion to Compel photographic evidence of Murphy's erection
On 21 April 2008 Ross was again MRPC 6.2 Appointed to assist Camus with the entire case. Ross drafted the following pleading for Camus' signature. Ross called the Prosecutor with Camus to request an additional amount of time to file the opposition. The state had no objection given that Ross would now be assigned to the whole case.  Camus presented the motion at the hearing where Murphy and Ross were also present.   (not every page is shown) 

At the conclusion of the 28 April 2008 hearing the Prosecutor and Ross discussed the implementation of the photographic evidence by having Murphy connected to an electro ejaculation machine.

When a criminal defendant stand in court next to his criminal defense attorney and watches that attorney argue the case, the facts presume the client has authorized the criminal defense.

When a criminal defendant sends emails directing his plea bargain requests, he is presumed to have authorized that attorney to work on his behalf. 
The Second Paragraph reads:

"2. LEGAL FEES:  The Fee for legal services that have been, or will be, performed by the Firm in this matter will be computed and charged based on the time spent."

So when the court writes that Murphy had not intended to pay his outstanding legal bill, so Ross stole Murphy's money on 8 May 2008 the court has engaged in a willful false official statement to obstruct the prosecution of a child sex trafficking case under 18 USC 1591(d). 

If it was determined that Murphy had an outstanding legal bill, then the case would be sent back to a trial court for the amount of a reasonable fee to be determined. That would then cause all of Ross' papers notes pleadings etc to become part of the public record and the judges would be caught. Some as pedophiles, other as profiteers on the child trafficking. Note both Deputy Hein, who argues the case for Murphy and Judge McDonald were identified as perpetrators in the Murphy 30 August 2008 - 14 October 2008 plea bargain offer.