This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Muzzammil S. Hassan

This story was interesting. Muzzammil S. Hassan murdered his wife.

This criminal defense lawyer blog post was interesting. Is he angry "This scumbag murdered his wife!"? No. Muzzammil S. Hassan committed a far greater crime. He decided to represent himself pro se.

He admits that he murdered his wife. His lawyers wanted to use a "temporary insanity" defense, which would have led to some jail time even if it worked. He insisted on using a "battered spouse defense". His lawyers refused. He fired his lawyers and decided to represent himself.

Of course, I reject the "battered spouse defense" and "temporary insanity defense". He deserved to get convicted, because he's a murderer, and not because he chose to represent himself. (Unfortunately, the way the current legal system works, imprisoning someone is the only solution. The correct answer is that he should be forced to work and pay compensation to her relatives. Muzzammil S. Hassan probably isn't at risk for being a repeat offender, so imprisoning him is wasteful.)

Divorce laws in the USA are biased against men. His wife filed for divorce just before he murdered her. There was a history of him abusing her. "Unfair divorce laws" are a reason to choose your wife carefully. That doesn't justify murder.

Even if his wife were evil, it was his fault for making the mistake of marrying her. No reasonable jury would be convinced by "I murdered my wife because she deserved it."

His wife had filed for divorce just before he murdered her. That's a strong argument in favor of conviction. Muzzammil S. Hassan probably would have been convicted anyway, even if he chose to use a lawyer.

Muzzammil S. Hassan had reasonably a successful career. He could have afforded an expensive lawyer. He chose to represent himself.

The mainstream media covered the story. The spin is "HAHAHA!! Look at that idiot pro se defendant! Woe to all who disrespect the State lawyer cartel!"

I was offended by the lawyers rooting for a conviction. They weren't saying "He deserves to be convicted because he's a murderer." They were saying "He deserves to be convicted because he's a pro se defendant."

Lawyers say "Hooray! If you represent yourself in court, you're guaranteed to lose!" Lawyers like the fact that the legal system ruins pro se defendants. I view this as a negative feature. If you represent yourself, then you don't get a fair trial. That's a severe argument *AGAINST* the State legal system.

When a crazy obviously-guilty criminal decides to go pro se, the State media heavily promotes the trial. The fnord is "All pro se defendants are guilty. All pro se defendants are fools. All pro se defendants are insane."

The State media cartel does *NOT* discuss pro se defendants like Julian Heicklen. Every pro se defendant is obviously guilty. The State media doesn't lie about how Julian Heicklen is a scumbag. They merely don't discuss it at all.

Some crazy murderers are pro se defendants. Some people with a history of abuse by the State choose to be pro se defendants; they know that their lawyer is really working for the State and prosecutor. Some political prisoners choose to go pro se. For example, Nelson Mandela chose to be a pro se defendant, when he was prosecuted for organizing the anti-apartheid movement.

Due to the crashing economy, many defendants are choosing to go pro se. They literally can't afford a lawyer. Of course, prosecutors still have a virtually unlimited budget.

If I'm successful at promoting agorism and as a working agorist, State terrorists will try to kidnap and torture me. Once State thugs decide to terrorize you, you've already lost. Via "asset forfeiture", State thugs can seize your property without a trial. Even if acquitted, you aren't reimbursed for the time and expense and stress of a trial.

The State "justice" system is biased against defendants, whether you're pro se or use a lawyer. If I were victim in a politically-motivated trial, I'd prefer to go pro se. However, it's a tough decision. The State "justice" system mistreats pro se defendants. I probably would be a good speaker, and might succeed pro se. However, the judge and prosecutor would try to pack the jury with pro-State trolls.

I was offended by State lawyers discussing this trial. There were not saying "This guy is a scumbag because he murdered his wife." They were saying "This guy is a scumbag because he's a pro se defendant." I found that attitude very offensive.

In a politically-motivated trial, a State lawyer may be useless, because he's barred from mentioning jury nullification or questioning the legitimacy of the law. However, even a pro se defendant can be found in "contempt of court" for making a "jury nullification" argument to a jury. The judge has a lot of discretion. However, if a judge interrupts a pro se defendant, that might give the jury the impression that the judge is biased against the defendant. If a judge interrupts a lawyer, the jury will presume it's OK. The lawyer can't be too persistent, because he risks losing his law license. If you're a pro se defendant, you can make arguments that a lawyer cannot.

There's another amusing trivia bit. A defendant can be ruled "mentally competent for trial" but not "mentally competent to represent himself". That seems like a legal trick, to prevent people from representing themselves. Given that I've been unfairly hospitalized, a judge might rule "FSK is not competent to represent himself."

The State media promotes crazy pro se defendants. This helps promote the lie that *ALL* pro se defendants are guilty.


DC said...

FSK wrote: "Unfair divorce laws" are a reason to choose your wife carefully.

I submit to you that unfair divorce laws are a reason to never enter into a state sanctioned marriage. Getting married is entering into a contract with the state. A man should not enter into a contract which is so heavily biased against him.
Even the most carefully chosen wife will be tempted to use divorce law against you in a breakup. Current divorce law encourages bad behavior by women.

Anonymous said...

In the UK if you have children with a woman you are not married to, vague case law/stuff in lawyers' heads means she still has a claim on your house.

This is nothing to do with child maintenance . Even if you provide adequate child maintenance the mother has a claim on your house.

My problem with this is that this unwritten law has never been passed by Parliament. It has never been debated in Parliament.

It is just because some judge thinks a mother should get the house of the father, even if they were never married and even if child maintenance is paid.

I have noticed that in one case, the judge avoided saying what the law is in cases like this, by saying she was too busy and the lawyers can sort it out themselves. Why didn't this judge just say whether the mother had a claim in law or not? Why keep everything hidden?

Anonymous said...

It is one thing to claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it seems this is one stage further. The law isn't written down anywhere. It is just stuff up in a judge's head that is never spoken aloud!

FSK said...

I'm pretty sure "You can't murder someone!" is written down as a law somewhere.

"Battered spouse defense" and "insanity defense" are nonsense.

Anonymous said...

In my second Anonymous post, when I said the law should be written down, I was specifically referring to the "law" whereby an unmarried mother has a claim on the house of the father.

Normally a wife has a claim on her husband's property (even property owned before the marriage) when divorcing.

However even if a woman never marries a man, she still has a claim on his house if they have children.

This claim somehow still exists even when the unmarried mother gets child maintenance and is already living in property.

This "law" has never been passed by Parliament in the UK.

This "law" doesn't seem to be written down anywhere.

This "law" only exists in lawyers' heads.

Yet lawyers will tell their clients this is the way things work.

Now this "law" may be morally right (or maybe not), but my point is that it really should be passed by Parliament and debated there, not just existing in lawyers' heads.

I find it very stupid to have "laws" that only exist in lawyers' heads. Can't someone in the whole United Kingdom write this stuff down and publish it?

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at