|
Having read your link... I can certainly understand why someone would be reluctant to take it on. As far as I understand the original case, you had a business running where you'd collect used printer cartridges and refund them at retailers, pocketing the refund for yourself. The retailers had a max returns-per-person policy, which you attempted to work around by... well, the details aren't clear, which means it sounds a lot like fraud (especially in the vein of https://xkcd.com/1494/). You went to trial, where (I'm assuming) the jury felt that your scheme didn't just sound like fraud, it was fraud. That was the clear part. At that point, it looks like you objected the amount of fraud, so you demanded that the government explain how it calculated that amount. And then it seems you didn't like the answer, so you demanded that the government turn over all pertinent financial details or something like that, and on the government's refusal to do that, you're asserting that your Sixth Amendment is being violated? I mean, even relying solely on your own evidence trying to paint you as in good a light as possible, this just sounds like a fraudster caught in the act, trying to squirm out of any consequences whatsoever. Even if this view is completely wrong, the fact that it comes across so readily is a strong indication that it isn't the best vehicle to challenge a point of law. |