Steel Notes Magazine September 2016 - Page 37 Steel Notes Magazine yourself or whether you have an attorney. In English common law, habeas corpus is known as the “great writ,” and it has the force of a court order. It cannot be overridden or ignored by a judge based on a technicality like pro per. To see Bugliosi standing there telling us a judge ruled against habeas corpus based on pro per is beyond corrupt. In any other trial, it would be the most extraordinary sign of corruption one could imagine, but in the Manson trial, it was just one of many. At the end of the trial, Manson was allowed to make a statement, but the jury was removed from the courtroom. The reason given was to prevent Manson from implicating his co-defendants, and they cited People v. Aranda to justify this. But this was nonsense of the first order, since Manson’s co-defendants had been implicating him for weeks. His entire conviction was based on testimony by his co-defendants. The trial was a mockery of justice from the first day. Bugliosi was allowed not only to railroad Manson and the other defendants, but also to concoct the story for the press. His book Helter Skelter has defined the story ever since, although it is nothing but fiction. We may assume he was fed the entire story by the CIA. No trial in history was so monumentally compromised from the first day as were the original Manson trials. Literally thousands of points of appeal were available to the defense, and everyone who followed the trials expected the appellate court to either overturn the convictions or return them to the lower court for a retrial. To confirm the proceedings of the lower court would be to admit on paper that the US legal system was finished. I think even Bugliosi expected that from the appellate court, and he no doubt looked forward to grandstanding for another year. But that isn’t what happened. I suppose the government decided it had gotten all the mileage it was going to get out of the story. http://law.justia. com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/61/102. html The entire appellate decision is at, and I recommend you study it if you have any interest in the law. That decision may be even more corrupt than the original decision, since it is a decision not by a jury, but by judges who are supposed to know the law. The appellate court admits that chief prosecutor Bugliosi met in private with Manson several times, without the consent of Manson’s counsel Kanarek. The appellate court admits this is a “grave” violation of Manson’s Miranda rights. It admits that it is a violation by Bugliosi of the Rules of Professional Conduct, even citing the relevant clause: Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6076. But the appellate court chooses— completely mysteriously and without explanation— to do nothing about either. It neither overturns the conviction, nor sends it back to the lower court, nor brings Bugliosi up for disciplinary action. An interesting side note as to the term we have used Steel Notes Magazine 37