SLABBED post Nowlin’s Motion to Vacate – another view of the “just-us” system of North Mississippi introduced readers to a second defendant alleging “ineffective representation” of counsel” by north Mississippi attorney Tony Farese.
The bottom line to the Government’s Response claims Nowlin’s “proposed amendment differs in both time and type from the allegations set forth in the original pleading…[and]…is, therefore, timebarred…the existing record conclusively establishes the petitioner’s guilt, no evidentiary hearing is required“.
Nooooo doubt about it – the Government doesn’t want its relationship with attorney Tony Farese before the Court in either Nowlin v USA or USA v (Zach) Scruggs. In fact, the Reply filed by Nowlin’s current attorney, SuperLawyer Cynthia Stewart, noted “…[the Government’s Response]…brings into question whether the Government has read Petitioner’s § 2255”.
Stewart took care of business in Nowlin’s Reply(in Scribd’ format below). Her emphatic page-one claim – “‘The letter Mr. Massey was referring to is what this case is all about . . .’ ¶ 9 (emphasis added)” – scored a 3rd grade reading level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale, meaning ” It should be easily understood by 8 to 9 year olds”!
Reading the Government’s Response and Nowlin’s Reply from my behaviorist perspective suggests there is an underlying problem of the Government viewing Nowlin’s situation with the thinking of a criminal as opposed to its role as a guardian of justice for all. Such biased thinking is the very essence of north Mississippi’s “just us” system. Continue reading “Nowlin’s Reply to the Government details alleged ineffective representation of attorney Tony Farese”