Apparently what this latest round of legal efforts by Arlo boils down to is Charles Abourezek’s involvement in his case with then attorney Rensch as an “ex parte trial consultant”-a clear case of conflict of interest due the following court document excerpts irregardless of how the court ruled.
“The thrust of Looking Cloud’s amended habeas petition is that conflicts of interest permeated his entire defense. The most significant conflict of interest involved Abourezk’s participation in his defense as an “ex parte trial consultant.” 1 This Reply Brief will primarily address the conflict created by Abourezk’s involvement, and Looking Cloud will, for the most part, rely on what he stated in his initial brief on the other conflicts which infiltrated his defense.
Put simply, while Abourezk was serving as Looking Cloud’s “ex parte trial consultant,” he was also representing three other key persons involved in the murder of Anna Mae Aquash. These people owned two of the houses to which Anna Mae Aquash was brought just prior to her murder. More importantly, Looking Cloud placed Abourezk himself at the house of Bill Means.”
1) On April 23, 2003, just two days after Rensch was appointed as Looking Cloud’s
attorney, Abourezk phoned Rensch, urging him to get Attorney Jerry Spence involved in
representing Looking Cloud. (Ex. 5 to Rensch Aff.; Rensch at T. 11-12.) 2
2) Looking Cloud never knew that Abourezk acted as his legal consultant. (Ex. 4 to Rensch
Deposition; Looking Cloud Aff. ¶¶ 11- 12.)
3) With respect to his role, Abourezk stated: “Only for that specific purpose of that [sic]
consulting with him [Rensch], and then just generally the background; anything that he
talked to me about relating to his representation of Mr. Looking Cloud I felt was covered
by the privilege.” (Abourezk at T. 20.)
4) Rensch testified that Abourezk gave him “[a]ccess to Dick Marshall, I think access to Bill
Means but I have an image in my mind of talking to Bill Means, but I think that I did.
There might have been others and maybe not even just getting me access, but making the
introductions so they would talk to my investigator. I know for sure Dick Marshall and I
believe Bill Means.” (Rensch at T. 53.) Rensch testified that he met with these witnesses
at Abourezk’s office with Abourezk, although Abourezk denies meeting with Rensch and
witnesses at any time, let alone at his office. (Rensch at T. 53-55; Abourezk at T. 19.)
5) Rensch does not recall what Abourezk reviewed specifically, but he testified that
Abourezk reviewed the files at his office on two separate occasions. (Abourezk at T. 50.)
6) At a minimum, Abourezk admittedly reviewed Looking Cloud’s statements and received
information from Rensch about his (Abourezk’s) own clients relating to the Aquash
murder, Bill Means, Dolly Means, and Dick Marshall. (Abourezk at T. 48-49.)
7) On November 23, 2004, Rensch’s records reveal: “Review telephone message from
Attorney Charlie Abourezk; travel to and from Mr. Abourezk’s office; conference with
Attorney Abourezk re: potential witnesses” (Ex. 5 to Rensch Dep.)
8) On November 25, 2003, Abourezk faxed correspondence to Rensch whereby Abourezk
agreed to be “ex parte trial consultant,” and informed Rensch that the three witnesses he
represented relating to the same incident, the Aquash murder, did not believe any conflict
existed. (Ex. 4 to Rensch Dep.)
9) On December 1, 2003, Rensch’s records reveal: “conference with Attorney Abourezk.”
(Ex. 5 to Rensch Dep.)
Attorneys Rensch Abourezk gave conflicting testimony about when they first discussed the
case. Abourezk stated it was the fall of 2003 (Abourezk at T 9), which is inconsistent with
Rensch’s time records and testimony. This is just one of many material inconsistencies in
their testimony that will be highlighted herein. Attorney Abourezk also did not recall trying
to arrange to have Jerry Spence represent Looking Cloud. (Abourezk at T 9.) By the summer
of 2003, Attorney Spence indicated he would not get involved in Looking Cloud’s case.
As was noted in another blog the legal definition ex parte is to be for the benefit of one person-since it obviously wasn’t a benefit to Arlo the question is who was it meant to benefit?
I will be posting pdfs, several in fact, representing various related documents, in them we see the all too familiar cast of characters, that six degrees of separation, Abourzek, Vernon Bellecourt, even Bruce Ellison. In addition we will see that Abourzek was not only at Bill Means house when Annie was taken there as a hostage awaiting execution when the call came to murder her, but that two of the houses where Annie was taken were owned by individuals Abourzek represented as the above illustrates.
This all has the familiar stench of AIM about it as does everything else they and their cronies have been involved in-intrigue abounds what with AIM, attorneys, and the politicians- and I say it adds further credibility to my belief that within the AIM hierarchy and their cronies an immunity exists.
The pdfs will be listed in chronological order and though it may take some time to read them all it serves best to do so in the order in which they are listed.
Now something else that is of interest to me is James Abourzek, father of Charles Abourzek, and one time Congressional Representative from South Dakota during the years 1971 to 1973, and Senator from South Dakota til 1979 is the same individual who was at the CST conference, called people liars in defense of his son, and then posed for that bromance moment photo with Russell, Banks, and Clyde.
No declaration is made in any of the proceedings that Arlo Looking Cloud is innocent, by his own admission he is not. And that is the glaring difference between his efforts and those of Peltier who claims both judicial error and innocence at the same time.
If Peltier could demonstrate this same type of conflict of interest, an involvement by the same cast of characters he might have a leg to stand on-but he cannot and instead relies on a decades long bag of lies and tricks that have been repeatedly exposed for what they are.