My mistake in believing Keegan William Kangas
(Michigan Inmate #937832)
Part 11

       Kangas's time wasting (of others) PartI I
    The second example of Kangas wasting the time of myself and others, was when he stated in an email received 13 February 2017, that he believed he was running out of time to lodge an 6.500 appeal. I was surprised at this as he had already advised me in a message received on 22 September 2016 that 'in the next few months', he intended lodging the 6.500 appeal. However, in the email received on 13 February 2017, Kangas stated "Apparently there is a timeline for the habeas corpus and 6.500 appeal...[it] must be done within one calender year from the state decision. The state decision was either march or april or may. I don't remember which and can't find my copy of the decision. If it is not filed it is considered 'untimely'. This seriously damages most prisoners."
    So, naturally being very worried about this, I attempted to help him by ascertaining the date of the Supreme Court's decision. After spending half a day making trans-Atlantic telephone calls and speaking to several staff members in different courts, and searching the internet, I was able to determine it was on 24 May 2016 and I advised Kangas of this and the fact that he had over three months to prepare the 6.500 appeal. A while later, when I asked him about the progress he was making in the matter, he said that he had not done anything as it was 'too complicated' (which he must have already known when he sent his 13 February 2017 email regarding the time issue, and furthermore, this was despite me also offering to obtain and send him an extensive, detailed guide about preparing the motion.) So, once again, Kangas wasted my time, and as noted in section (8), I was not the only one.
    Yet another example of Kangas wasting the time of others was when an attorney responded to an email sent in the first cycle of emailings that I undertook. He then read my subsequent (and lengthy) email to him about the case and he also consulted court documents. He kindly replied, with a helpful letter, making a number of suggestions for Kangas to pursue in order to get relief, and I gave Kangas a copy of this letter. Kangas did nothing, so once again, a complete waste of my (and an attorney's) time.
    A fourth example is how the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO) showed interest in his case after many requests by myself. SADO usually only accepts cases referred to it by a judge, so the possibility they might assist Kangas with his 6.500 appeal was very welcome news. I told him about this but to my surprise he said that he wanted to deal with the 6.500 motion (that can only be lodged on one occasion) after his release. He advised me that he wanted to lodge the motion himself and manage his own defence and he wanted both the Judge (Lambros) and prosecutor (Robinson), who were involved in the trial that found him guilty, to also be in the court: he said that he would ensure all his 'friends' from his Facebook page were there too. So, once again, my time, and achievement, in getting SADO interested were wasted. But this instance showed that Kangas embraces fantasy, i.e., he had already said (see above) he did not know how to process the 6.500 appeal, he surely lacks the skill to defend himself in a trial, (I now realize) there is too much evidence against him, and as far as Facebook 'friends' are concerned, he had no more than 35 of these visiting at any one one time and apart from two who donated just $10, none of these 'friends' even donated one single dollar to his campaign fund: nor did they email him more than just a few times, despite numerous pleas. So it's highly unllkely that any of them would be willing to make a journey to any court.
    What became clear to me from the second, third and fourth examples is that Kangas is not only willing to waste people's time and money, but he clearly does not wish to actually pursue his case himself, which makes me believe that he knows there is no possibility of success. Indeed, what would he possibly say in an appeal? (He has already, unsuccessfully, lodged an appeal against the jury issues raised after the trial.) He knows this, although he sees nothing wrong with encouraging well-meaning people from wasting their time on pointless and costly exercises that conclude as a dead end. Kangas likes to say that he is innocent, and he also wishes to pursue his claim of innocence, when the above examples indicate this is not so. When I first wrote to him, he made the pitiful statement that he had no one to support him to fight his case, but I later discovered (although it took nearly a year) that he has had support in the past but this was abandoned when it appeared his claims were false or suspect. So, there is the ridiculous cycle of people being taken in by his claims, spending time and/or money in examining his case, and then realizing his claim is false or at least doubtful, and this is then repeated by the next person who Kangas convinces, and so on...

  Main Menu