Per C. Olson violated attorney/client confidentiality when he submitted privileged documents to the District Court in defense of my claims that his representation fell below the minimum standard considered acceptable for a lawyer and I was prejudiced as a result. This was in a proceeding that I filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255, habeas corpus for federal prisoners seeking immediate release due to denial of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, Mr. Olson submitted a confidential settlement letter without seeking permission from the District Court or I. Typically lawyers are only supposed to disclose documents from settlement negotiations if order to do so by the court or if their client says that it is ok. The document he submitted was used against me in support of claims by the government that he had in fact explained the nature of the charge. I continue to insist that I was not fully aware of the nature of the charge and am still fighting my 2255 in the Ninth Circuit.
Despite his disclosures, he still never claims to have realized that the charging instrument in my case was in fact fatally defective. That is because it omitted an essential element necessary to charge a violation of the statute and that element was not in the statute either. A charging instrument must include all elements in the document itself or by reference. If an element is missing then it may be dismissed before the plea is finalized and at the time of my plea Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34 required that judgment be arrested if the charging instrument failed to state an offense. This should have allowed me to plea guilty and get the plea thrown out within 14 days, with jeopardy attached, had I had competent counsel. Instead I served nearly four years in prisons, picked up an additional charge, and am still fighting the case today.
In addition, Mr. Olson spoke in favor of the prosecution at one point during my sentencing hearing in direct defiance of my directives. The uploaded document from my 2255 discusses this. Specifically, after promising to defend my business and right to use computers (if the issue came up at sentencing), he did the opposite by saying "I don' t want to take the position that Mr. SuIlivan should just be able to do whatever he wants on the internet, with computer". That is not adversarial representation.