Hawaii News — Court-Appointed Attorney For Roger Christie Wants Out

Alexander Silvert, the court-appointed attorney representing Roger Christie, who faces 14 federal charges related to growing, selling, and possessing marijuana, has asked to be dismissed from the case.
“Due to various events between counsel and the defendant,
counsel is of the opinion that there is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that is detrimentally effecting counsel’s ability to continue to represent Mr. Christie,” Silvert wrote. “After discussing counsel’s concerns with Mr. Christie, he agrees and seeks the appointment of new counsel.”

51 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Mokibra
    Mokibra says:

    I have read these comments with fascination, wonder. Rev. Shields speaks from not merely the hypothetical but from a library of experience.

    I will be a short piece, hopefully short, in reference to Roger Christie, tomorrow on KGU at 5:00 PM. (May 2, 2013). The thrust of my commentary will be to debunk that Roger Christie has suffered violations of Constitutional guarantees. It is difficult to wade through the hysteria surrounding this case, emotions run high, pun intended. There would be no more welcome supporter than I to jump on board the Christie train if facts, evidence, and court documents supported the contention that he has been “denied the right to bail”. Or that he has been “denied a right to Speedy Trial.”

    And though the prosecutions, or persecutions for drug offenses is in and of it’s self offensive, and contrary to the evolving standards of a civilized society: And I ascribe to all means of redress of State/Federal authorities including civil disobedience: In the matter at hand it is clear that the behaviors of the defendant, the behaviors of his attorney’s, coupled with the great latitude of discretion available to the court seem dubious on their face; but upon scrutiny the denial of bail, and the protracted nature of this case as it moves to trial this July, can be rightfully owned by Mr. Christie, his behaviors post first raid in 2010, and the delays as well can be rested at the feet of his various attorney’s who failed to object to “continuances” instituted by other defendants:

    So though I don’t want to digress into the larger debate here, with regard the legitimacy of views expressed: It is clear, that all expressions, even those false on their face serve function in that they provide a means and a stimulus for critical thinking. And through this process derive a closer apprehension of the multivariate dynamics, and there are many, that constitute this debate: More importantly mine is the hope that a constructive plan, approach, and design will emerge that will enable each of us, to play our part in embracing liberty. Of allowing each and the other the right to conduct themselves within the context of their own conscience when to do so does not demonstrate “actual harm”. Not pretend harm, or maybe harm, or could be harm, but actual harm: for only in that instance does there exist compelling interest for governments to intercede………….ke me aloha………

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *