Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[dcbc 14474]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, in the sense of iron sharpening iron, that would cut down on a lot of bullshit from prosecutors and law enforcement, in and of itself.  Judges as well.

In theory, I agree.  If it did, it certainly would make a large percentage of my working life easier.

Edited April 23, 2023 by dcbc

[Gatorubet 30220]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Would it be initially costly, betchur fur.  But in the long run, I bet it would save money and society would be far better off.

We should do it, even if it costs twice what they’re paying now. It’s bullshit that DAs get experts and tons of money and public defenders get shit.

We should do it because we know there are two separate systems of justice, and that is getting to be intolerable in this country. We do it because the due process clause and equal protection clause of the constitution wants everyone to have the same rights. And we do not need 11 players on one side of the field and 22 players on the other side. That is what most poor defendants face - going up against well-paid prosecutors with smaller caseloads and access to experts that poor people simply can’t afford (and public defenders’ budget will not allow).

This does not even address the problem of disparate sentences after disparate screening.  Or the fact that many more judges get elected who were former prosecutors than criminal defense counsel in large parts of the country.

Equal Protection.  

[TwiceHorn 31452]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

We should do it, even if it costs twice what they’re paying now. It’s bullshit that DAs get experts and tons of money and public defenders get shit.

We should do it because we know there are two separate systems of justice, and that is getting to be intolerable in this country. We do it because the due process clause and equal protection clause of the constitution wants everyone to have the same rights. And we do not need 11 players on one side of the field and 22 players on the other side. That is what most poor defendants face - going up against well-paid prosecutors with smaller caseloads and access to experts that poor people simply can’t afford (and public defenders’ budget will not allow).

This does not even address the problem of disparate sentences after disparate screening.  Or the fact that many more judges get elected who were former prosecutors than criminal defense counsel in large parts of the country.

Equal Protection.  

I have to believe that a lot of the disparities in criminal justice stem first from the fundamental disparity in power between the government and a poor/uneducated defendant without diligent counsel.

If a prosecutor knows they aren't going to be able to steamroller a defendant ab initio, that changes things.

Then again, the feds do a pretty "good" job against mostly well-represented defendants.  I think there's a bit less fundamental inequity in the federal system and a lot of what there is stems directly from Congress with bad and draconian laws with disparate impacts.

It may not be the cure-all that I am initially thinking, but it would go a long way to sorting some shit out.

[Satchel 6938]

The ACJ is reporting that Fani Willis has notified law enforcement to prepare for her announcement regarding criminal charges against Trump she will make sometime between July and September later this year. She reportedly has said her announcement is likely to generate a visceral response from some people.

[Red Five 40854]

Why is the announcement three to five months from now?

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The ACJ is reporting that Fani Willis has notified law enforcement to prepare for her announcement regarding criminal charges against Trump she will make sometime between July and September later this year. She reportedly has said her announcement is likely to generate a visceral response from some people.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-probe-da-urges-law-enforcement-to-prep-for-indictments-this-summer/56OGCLMNOVGPXMJ6YXDPXQOSWY/

[Pig Bellmont 8715]

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Why is the announcement three to five months from now?

Seriously, that’s ridiculous 

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Why is the announcement three to five months from now?

So Trump can get out ahead of it, control the narrative, and fundraise off of it, of course. 

[Pato del Muerto 52490]

Mole hunt to see who starts asking/snooping for info or tries to get it shut down?

[The Dog 44023]

 

8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Why is the announcement three to five months from now?

In the letter she says it's to give them time to prepare. That's my guess.

[YGIFS 19450]

Between 11 July & 1 September?  

Good, because I have something at 10:00am

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

In the letter she says it's to give them time to prepare. That's my guess.

I guess that makes sense. Can't surprise them with some shit and them call for a mistrial. Gotta cover all your bases. 

[Pig Bellmont 8715]

10 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Between 11 July & 1 September?  

Good, because I have something at 10:00am

[TwiceHorn 31452]

29 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Why is the announcement three to five months from now?

Here's an educated guess.

Remember that special purpose grand jury she had from May to January? it lacked the power to indict people.  Its purpose was to subpoena people and secure their testimony under oath, including those outside the Atlanta DA's geographic jurisdiction, e.g Ladybugs, Rudy Giuliani.  I'm not even all that sure Willis gives a damn about their recommendations, much.  But it did at least serve as a bit of a trial run before laypeople jurors, in addition to the investigative work product.

But, since that GJ can't indict, it has to be done all over again, but probably on a smaller scale and using evidence gathered by that prior GJ, for each defendant they want to indict.  And, in the meantime, we know they've been doing some investigative groundwork with the more local potential defendants, e.g. the fake electors who apparently are preparing to go completely ratfuck on each other, and probably some higher ups.

These defendants tend not to be the kind of people cops or DA investigators can just show up and brace, tools like subpoenas have to be used to get them in a position to a) speak and b) tell the truth on pain of perjury.

I'm going to guess that they're going to hand down more than 10 indictments.  Even assuming you've got all the evidence you need, indicting 10++ is going to take some time.  

Edited April 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 54215]

27 minutes ago, The Dog said:

In the letter she says it's to give them time to prepare. That's my guess.

I guess two full years was inadequate?

Edited April 24, 2023 by Beau Vine

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Seriously, that’s ridiculous 

Obviously security forces need the lead time to prepare for Insurrection - The Peach State.

[The Dog 44023]

 

[The Dog 44023]

 

(I'd guess many "fake electors" are flipping)

[atomheartbevo 89656]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

(I'd guess many "fake electors" are flipping)

I wonder if it's a matter of folks who are farther (further) away from Trump realize that he'll toss them under a bus unless they toss him first.  Seems like the people directly around him don't expect to be stabbed in the back.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

Another piece of that puzzle. alluded to in an article, is that Georgia evidently has "terms of court."

It's not abundantly clear what a court can and can't do during a "term of court," but it appears that July 11 has some significance in relation to the Fulton County Superior Court's term of court.

ETA:  Apparently, in Georgia, if a defendant files a speedy trial request, the trial must take place either in the term the request is made or by the conclusion of the next term.  So there may be some strategery as to what point during a term a criminal case is commenced.

Edited April 25, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[The Dog 44023]

yup, they're flipping. 

[YGIFS 19450]

My election fraud law knowledge isn't up to par with my knowledge of Bird Law.  But I would still think in a fraud case of any kind, if you a material witness and possible participant to the fraud itself, isn't your counsel professionally obligated to notify you of any potential immunity deal should you cooperate with the current case to avoid prosecution down the road for yourself?  

I used to think Four Seasons Landscaping was just a place they mistook online for Four Seasons Hotel.  But I think they actually get their lawyers from Four Seasons Landscaping & Law School.  Where lawns & claims are grown on contingency.

[C-Man 27218]

yup, they're flipping. 

Wow, so they maybe weren’t presented plea deals from prosecutors by their GOP-appointed/funded attorneys? That seems bad. Is that bad? @TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 32858]

I believe he's spoken to this as one of the two fastest ways to get yourself disbarred (along with commingling client funds).

[YGIFS 19450]

45 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Wow, so they maybe weren’t presented plea deals from prosecutors by their GOP-appointed/funded attorneys? That seems bad. Is that bad? @TwiceHorn

Well, they were gonna get their own individual counsel of their choosing, but still paid for by the Trump/RNC legal PAC funds.  But wouldn't ya know it?  That account is bone dry.  Rudy says it's because they're switching banks right and the transfers are held up by a software reboot, and some post-dated documents, but if you can just hang tight and not read this immunity offer...I can get you a great rate on an auto loan or a CD.  

[Foosters 17851]

56 minutes ago, The Dog said:

yup, they're flipping. 

For like the 100th time, I would seriously caution against using accounts like for info related to legal proceedings. These accounts are run by non-lawyers with zero insight into the case. Everything in that tweet is an opinion. You'd be as informed by literally walking up to people on the street and asking for their thoughts. 

The problem, of course, is that posters take tweets like the above as gospel and then throw tantrums when it doesn't come to fruition; or, use it as some sort of proof that the legal system is corrupt because "Brooklyn Dad Defiant - BLM-LGBTA+!!" said it would happen

[The Dog 44023]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

For like the 100th time, I would seriously caution against using accounts like for info related to legal proceedings. These accounts are run by non-lawyers with zero insight into the case. Everything in that tweet is an opinion. You'd be as informed by literally walking up to people on the street and asking for their thoughts. 

The problem, of course, is that posters take tweets like the above as gospel and then throw tantrums when it doesn't come to fruition; or, use it as some sort of proof that the legal system is corrupt because "Brooklyn Dad Defiant - BLM-LGBTA+!!" said it would happen

[TwiceHorn 31452]

36 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I believe he's spoken to this as one of the two fastest ways to get yourself disbarred (along with commingling client funds).

Well, it could be.  

What was outlined above in regard to immunity and joint representation is certainly grounds for disqualification or withdrawal from representation, but, as outlined falls far short of an ethical violation.

[Beau Vine 54215]

22 minutes ago, Foosters said:

For like the 100th time, I would seriously caution against using accounts like for info related to legal proceedings. These accounts are run by non-lawyers with zero insight into the case. Everything in that tweet is an opinion. You'd be as informed by literally walking up to people on the street and asking for their thoughts. 

The problem, of course, is that posters take tweets like the above as gospel and then throw tantrums when it doesn't come to fruition; or, use it as some sort of proof that the legal system is corrupt because "Brooklyn Dad Defiant - BLM-LGBTA+!!" said it would happen

Hey, at least it wasn't yet another 3 Year Letterman tweet.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

26 minutes ago, Foosters said:

For like the 100th time, I would seriously caution against using accounts like for info related to legal proceedings. These accounts are run by non-lawyers with zero insight into the case. Everything in that tweet is an opinion. You'd be as informed by literally walking up to people on the street and asking for their thoughts. 

The problem, of course, is that posters take tweets like the above as gospel and then throw tantrums when it doesn't come to fruition; or, use it as some sort of proof that the legal system is corrupt because "Brooklyn Dad Defiant - BLM-LGBTA+!!" said it would happen

The Dog doesn't overreact, and, as mentioned above, it looks like one of the products of the special grand jury is enough evidence to get people to start squirming and flipping.

I suspect this kind of thing is pretty hard to investigate in that there are a lot of people involved at various levels and you have to try to "check out their stories" and some of them only have pieces of the conspiracies.  Especially true if you're trying to nail those at the top.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Hey, at least it wasn't yet another 3 Year Letterman tweet.

3 Year Letterman is an attorney in real life.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

50 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

3 Year Letterman is an attorney in real life.

that fucking checks

[nbmishoid 949]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I believe he's spoken to this as one of the two fastest ways to get yourself disbarred (along with commingling client funds).

The only two ways, if memory serves.  

[Macanudo 12976]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

3 Year Letterman is an attorney in real life.

We can rule out Brisket.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

25 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

We can rule out Brisket.

Why, because Brisket has an actual waterbed?  That he didn't have to put on layaway?

[YGIFS 19450]

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Why, because Brisket has an actual waterbed?  That he didn't have to put on layaway?

Brisket has a waterbed?  Man, you think you know somebody.  I've hung out with him a buncha times, and he's always in like a silk robe with a wine cooler and all kinda weird balms and oils...so yeah, I guess the waterbed thing tracks.  

[tx 3 putt 76916]

Train wreck 

 

[Biff Tannen 45677]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Train wreck 

 

For which trial?

[tx 3 putt 76916]

fucking idiots ...

 

[CTC2 2796]

13 hours ago, Foosters said:

For like the 100th time, I would seriously caution against using accounts like for info related to legal proceedings. These accounts are run by non-lawyers with zero insight into the case. Everything in that tweet is an opinion. You'd be as informed by literally walking up to people on the street and asking for their thoughts. 

The problem, of course, is that posters take tweets like the above as gospel and then throw tantrums when it doesn't come to fruition; or, use it as some sort of proof that the legal system is corrupt because "Brooklyn Dad Defiant - BLM-LGBTA+!!" said it would happen

Considering she filed a motion to disqualify the lawyer that was apparently granted makes this of greater than average probability it would seem.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

6 hours ago, CTC2 said:

Considering she filed a motion to disqualify the lawyer that was apparently granted makes this of greater than average probability it would seem.

Without doing a deep dive, I'd say MuellerSheWrote seems to be pretty factually accurate most of the time, but some of her conclusions can get pretty wild.

We do seem to know from Willis' motion to disqualify, which was probably agreed to by defense counsel because that's an untenable situation--when you have clients that want to rat on each other--that the defendants want to rat on each other and are now mightily interested in immunity agreements in order to so so.

I'm not sure I'd get too excited about the prospect of the lawyer getting in trouble.  This seems to be a fairly common thing in criminal cases, and unless the lawyer didn't advise in advance or continued the representation after the conflicts became evident (and by that I mean for more than a week), there's nothing to see here.

When you jointly represent clients in any matter, even a fucking patent application or something prosaic, there is a non-negligible chance that they get adverse to each other and you have to withdraw from representation of any of them.  The lawyers can always see that and if they're doing it right warn their clients of the possibility.  The clients always blow it off--nah, never happen, it's cool.  Then they get in a fight and have to hire all new counsel.

So, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the clients were advised of potential conflicts and also the possibility of immunity agreements, but they blew it off as they tend to do, until shit started getting real.  In fact, Willis' motion acknowledges that the clients were duly warned and the judge had permitted the joint representation to occur pending development of real conflicts.

It seems to me that the likelihood of that conflict scenario is almost infinitely higher in a criminal case than in civil-type or transactional matters.  Yet, criminal lawyers do joint representations all the time and seem to be given some latitude in doing so by the criminal courts.  I suppose because of the cost/economies of criminal defense, where the parties haven't exactly voluntarily hired lawyers to pursue business or other matters voluntarily.

Edited April 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27658]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose because of the cost/economies of criminal defense, where the parties haven't exactly voluntarily hired lawyers to pursue business or other matters voluntarily.

God bless the free market judicial system.

[Hermanator 7039]

The one thing I learned here is lawyers can really fuck you over badly with zero legal repercussions. Once again the parts of society that hold the most power to do great damage and should be the most closely watched and highly regulated are always just cut loose to do whatever they want like it's the wild west out here.

Politicians, cops/law enforcement, lawyers, judges. The kid or immigrant making your jumbo Jack at Jack in the Box is more highly scrutinized than these professions. 

[Huckleberry 32858]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without doing a deep dive, I'd say MuellerSheWrote seems to be pretty factually accurate most of the time, but some of her conclusions can get pretty wild.

We do seem to know from Willis' motion to disqualify, which was probably agreed to by defense counsel because that's an untenable situation--when you have clients that want to rat on each other--that the defendants want to rat on each other and are now mightily interested in immunity agreements in order to so so.

I'm not sure I'd get too excited about the prospect of the lawyer getting in trouble.  This seems to be a fairly common thing in criminal cases, and unless the lawyer didn't advise in advance or continued the representation after the conflicts became evident (and by that I mean for more than a week), there's nothing to see here.

When you jointly represent clients in any matter, even a fucking patent application or something prosaic, there is a non-negligible chance that they get adverse to each other and you have to withdraw from representation of any of them.  The lawyers can always see that and if they're doing it right warn their clients of the possibility.  The clients always blow it off--nah, never happen, it's cool.  Then they get in a fight and have to hire all new counsel.

So, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the clients were advised of potential conflicts and also the possibility of immunity agreements, but they blew it off as they tend to do, until shit started getting real.  In fact, Willis' motion acknowledges that the clients were duly warned and the judge had permitted the joint representation to occur pending development of real conflicts.

It seems to me that the likelihood of that conflict scenario is almost infinitely higher in a criminal case than in civil-type or transactional matters.  Yet, criminal lawyers do joint representations all the time and seem to be given some latitude in doing so by the criminal courts.  I suppose because of the cost/economies of criminal defense, where the parties haven't exactly voluntarily hired lawyers to pursue business or other matters voluntarily.

Am I reading this wrong or is your argument here mostly about hypothetical situations that people should think about with joint defenses? I thought in this case there were actual immunity offers on the table and they were never communicated to the clients. That seems like a much bigger deal than not warning them that contingent immunity offers might happen. 

[Hermanator 7039]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Am I reading this wrong or is your argument here mostly about hypothetical situations that people should think about with joint defenses? I thought in this case there were actual immunity offers on the table and they were never communicated to the clients. That seems like a much bigger deal than not warning them that contingent immunity offers might happen. 

You would think so. A lawyer representing a client but paid for by a 3rd party not communicating an immunity offer in exchange for testimony against that 3rd party seems about as bad of a "malpractice" as there is. That's a lawyer acting against their client's interest to protect the subject of investigation. 

I guess his point is how do you prove they intentionally withheld the offer to protect the 3rd party. 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Am I reading this wrong or is your argument here mostly about hypothetical situations that people should think about with joint defenses? I thought in this case there were actual immunity offers on the table and they were never communicated to the clients. That seems like a much bigger deal than not warning them that contingent immunity offers might happen. 

It's the general situation, the ethical problem faced here and reason for the disqualification motion.

The motion wasn't very explicit about the immunity offers and that wasn't the basis for the dq.  What it actually said was the judge initially required counsel to discuss the potential for immunity offers with the defendants, which would be part of the potential, later-arising conflicts that are part and parcel of joint representation.

Then the motion said that some of the defendants had offered up testimony against other defendants and actual immunity offers were on the table to facilitate this.  It said some of the defendants claimed not to have been advised of them previously.

Not at all clear that the immunity offers were in fact not communicated.  It may have happened, it may not.  It wasn't critical to the motion.

tl;dr The dq motion is based on the fact the she represents multiple clients with conflicts with each other.  Whether immunity offers were communicated or not isn't the ground of the motion.  If it in fact happened, which is not clear from the motion, that's a separate problem that probably wouldn't be grounds for disqualification.  Suit by client? Yes.  Discipline? Yes.

Edited April 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Underdog 28616]

11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

fucking idiots ...

 

Barney has clearly never watched Bad Santa. 

[The Dog 44023]

 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

25 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Yeah, this is what happens when Trump goes to court.  It is, ultmately, a fact-based place. where bullshit like his doesn't fly.

Although he's been in tons of civil litigation, he's almost never been in court. Civil litigation mostly happens outside of court, so his tactics still work very well.  

And almost everything important in a criminal case happens in court.

He's in a brave new world.

[tx 3 putt 76916]