Jump to content

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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Rimbo

Rimbo 26106

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

1,1

at the same time.

 

office space dream GIF

 

7 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

That response was killer.

 

IE…try it Eileen and prepare to get benched slapped AGAIN on appeal.  

Or have the case sent to another judge/district

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89792

Posted
Posted
On 8/18/2023 at 4:30 PM, atomheartbevo said:

It would 100% drown out the debate and be a great "fuck you" to Fox News for hosting the debate.  It would dominate the news cycle long enough, and combined with Fox News restricting other networks from showing more than 30 seconds of the debate (or 30 second clips), that the debate would never make it into the mainstream news cycle.

In fact, it's so smart, that I don't see Trump doing it.

Well

26 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

GIF by Red Table Talk
 

It’s going to be a hilarious fuck you to Fox News.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

@TwiceHorn, my brother in Christ, you have got to stop giving Cannon the benefit of the doubt.

There's no real benefit of the doubt there.  It's just a datapoint.  Judges refuse to accept stuff under seal all the time, for various reasons.  Some just kind of have a hardon about it.  Some don;t much gaf if no one objects.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

This won't happen, but would be hilarious if it did, because he surrenders after hours I'm hoping they can't complete some part of the paperwork until morning and they make him dress out until morning.  Ordinary county employees generally could give a fuck if someone that has been arrested has to wait until morning.  Get your shit done during normal business hours asshole.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@TwiceHorn would encouraging a client to provide false testimony in order to benefit another client be grounds for disbarment or is it less serious than failure to return phone calls? 

Suborning perjury is a crime, if convicted of it, Woodward would likely be summarily disbarred.

If he is not indicted for it, but it can be proven with whatever specificity the DC Bar requires, then it would seem to be a disbarrable offense.

The conflict of interest implicated is another ethical breach.  it doesn't usually rise to a disciplinary matter, though.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Could be.  Accounts of Woodward are that he's a real, and decent lawyer, not some Trump stooge like many of them. Based on that, I'd hate to think he was doing that, but he may have been and he may get in some deep shit here.

 

This is probably another reason Trump and his PACs aren't paying for counsel for co-defendants in Georgia.  When it's a litigation scenario, and we're talking defendants and not just witnesses, the opportunities for conflicts, unethical and illegal behavior and its exposure is significantly higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32428

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, of course he did.

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/22/georgia-fake-elector-trump?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

Quote

David Shafer, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and one of the 19 defendants in the Georgia election interference case, claimed in a court filing that he and the other Republican electors who tried to falsely certify Donald Trump as the winner in Georgia were acting at the former president's behest.

Why it matters: As defendants in the sprawling case begin to turn themselves in ahead of the Friday deadline, Shafer's position signals that some may be poised to turn on the former president.

Flashback: Shafer and 15 other Republican electors met at the state capitol on Dec. 14, 2020 and signed a document falsely declaring that Trump had won Georgia.

 

 

Quote

Trump and several of his former lawyers — along with some of the Republican electors and other alleged conspirators — now face charges relating to their alleged roles in trying to overturn the results.

State of play: "Mr. Shafer and the other Republican Electors in the 2020 election acted at the direction of the incumbent President and other federal officials," Shafer's lawyers wrote in the court filing Monday.

"Attorneys for the President and Mr. Shafer specifically instructed Mr. Shafer, verbally and in writing, that the Republican electors' meeting and casting their ballots on December 14, 2020 was consistent with counsels' advice and was necessary to preserve the presidential election contest," they added.

Shafer — like co-defendants Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark —is seeking to have his state-level case moved to federal court, where his case would be presided over by a federal judge and have a potentially more sympathetic jury pool.

 

 

Quote

The big picture: Shafer presented himself as the "chairperson" of the Electoral College of Georgia and filed a fake slate of 16 pro-Trump electors in Dec. 2020, per the New York Times.

Shafer is facing eight charges in the indictment handed down by an Atlanta grand jury last week, including false statements and writings, forgery in the first degree, and impersonating a public officer.

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28798

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Suit, I thought it was Thursday.  Well, the debate gets a few hours of relevance until everybody switches back to Trump coverage.

Shit, Trump should show up to the debate just to rail against his impending arrest.  

I heard on some news program he wound up being encouraged not to hold it during the debate. I don’t know by whom. I figure he’s going to want to watch the debate to see what everyone is saying about him because he’ll be a major topic of discussion and he craves the attention. He might also still be looking for a running mate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26553

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The conflict of interest implicated is another ethical breach.  it doesn't usually rise to a disciplinary matter, though.

Jesus Christ, really? If the first duty is to the client, and the are conflicted to the level of an ethical breach in that duty, how is that not fundamental to the profession? Not asking you to defend it, it's just shocking to me that it wouldn't automatically be a disciplinary thing.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7785

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Jesus Christ, really? If the first duty is to the client, and the are conflicted to the level of an ethical breach in that duty, how is that not fundamental to the profession? Not asking you to defend it, it's just shocking to me that it wouldn't automatically be a disciplinary thing.

Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to 'ethical' standards for lawyers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

Very tidy response.  The original perjury of witness 4/Taveras, occurred in DC 90 days before the indictment.  Post-indictment, the DC grand jury subpoenaed surveillance footage that would prove the perjury and at approximately the same time, the government sent witness 4 a target letter for the perjury -- in DC -- and sought a Garcia hearing.

And the Garcia hearing prompted witness 4/Taveras to change his testimony, leading directly to the superseding indictment in Florida.

So, they were investigating a separate matter, using a grand jury impaneled long before as a result of the NARA referral.

Good shit.

Woodward apparently pretty strongly overreached with his argument to exclude Taveras' testimony to cure the conflict.

 

 

Alright, Aileen.  Ya gonna fuck this up?

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Jesus Christ, really? If the first duty is to the client, and the are conflicted to the level of an ethical breach in that duty, how is that not fundamental to the profession? Not asking you to defend it, it's just shocking to me that it wouldn't automatically be a disciplinary thing.

Well disciplinary things have to be REPORTED.  The client often has bigger fish to fry than grieving on their lawyer for a conflict, when they're facing perjury charges and maybe conviction on another crime to which the perjury related.

And when there's something like suborning perjury involved, that kind of swallows everything.  It doesn't really help to disbar someone twice.

In a civil case or transaction, the result of a conflict isn't often that severe and is basically fixed by the conflicted lawyer dropping out.  But the lawyer that was slow to recognize or that created the conflict had better spend some non-billable time getting the new lawyer up to speed.

Similarly, here, if there's no suborning perjury by Woodward, then the conflict remains potential until such time as the government calls Taveras and Woodward is called upon to cross-examine him. That's not going to get Woodward in any trouble.  But something has to be done between now and then to avoid the conflict.  The government suggests that Nauta's co-counsel could do the cross unless she has somehow been infected with the conflict (has confidential information from Taveras).

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted (edited)

Cannon's proclivities aside, if Woodward was suborning perjury from Talaveras, that would have come out in the DC proceedings, more than likely.  Or it would have been pursued there.  Boasberg, the presideng judge in DC, knows what's up and if there had been a sniff that Talaveras had been steered to perjure himself by Woodward, rather than some sense of loyalty to Trump that's his own problem, that would have come out.

Now Cannon has to do the following:

  • order, or not, a Garcia hearing to determine whether Nauta has given an informed waiver of the potential for conflict arising from Woodward's representation
  • decide if Woodward's potential cross examination of Talaveras at trial raises an actual conflict of interest and formulate some way to avoid that (dq Woodward, make his co-counsel do the cross, exclude Talaveras testimony)
  • decide if there is anything improper arising from the use of the DC grand jury

So, some potential for major fuck ups here. 

If she doesn't order a Garcia hearing, that leaves Nauta with a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel at some point down the road

If she gets to the second one, after ordering a Garcia hearing, only excluding Talaveras' testimony would be a giant fuckup

As to the last one, neither side has proposed some remedy for the improper use of a grand jury.  If she thinks it's improper, she appears to be wrong, but it might not come up until a motion to dismiss the indictment

Let's see what she does.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26553

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well disciplinary things have to be REPORTED.  The client often has bigger fish to fry than grieving on their lawyer for a conflict, when they're facing perjury charges and maybe conviction on another crime to which the perjury related.

And when there's something like suborning perjury involved, that kind of swallows everything.  It doesn't really help to disbar someone twice.

In a civil case or transaction, the result of a conflict isn't often that severe and is basically fixed by the conflicted lawyer dropping out.  But the lawyer that was slow to recognize or that created the conflict had better spend some non-billable time getting the new lawyer up to speed.

Similarly, here, if there's no suborning perjury by Woodward, then the conflict remains potential until such time as the government calls Taveras and Woodward is called upon to cross-examine him. That's not going to get Woodward in any trouble.  But something has to be done between now and then to avoid the conflict.  The government suggests that Nauta's co-counsel could do the cross unless she has somehow been infected with the conflict (has confidential information from Taveras).

helpful thank you

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cannon's proclivities aside, if Woodward was suborning perjury from Talaveras, that would have come out in the DC proceedings, more than likely.  Or it would have been pursued there.  Boasberg, the presideng judge in DC, knows what's up and if there had been a sniff that Talaveras had been steered to perjure himself by Woodward, rather than some sense of loyalty to Trump that's his own problem, that would have come out.

Now Cannon has to do the following:

  • order, or not, a Garcia hearing to determine whether Nauta has given an informed waiver of the potential for conflict arising from Woodward's representation
  • decide if Woodward's potential cross examination of Talaveras at trial raises an actual conflict of interest and formulate some way to avoid that (dq Woodward, make his co-counsel do the cross, exclude Talaveras testimony)
  • decide if there is anything improper arising from the use of the DC grand jury

So, some potential for major fuck ups here.  Let's see what she does.

Well we can give everyone two guesses, but I'm pretty sure they only need one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30313

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well we can give everyone two guesses, but I'm pretty sure they only need one.  

CANNON DECISION TREE

Good for Trump—————> Affirm

Bad for Trump—————> Overrule

Not sure what the legal issues are or what facts apply————> See above

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

helpful thank you

And, perhaps to clarify, if a lawyer stays in a conflicted lawyer client relationship in a way that disadvantages a client in a material and serious way, yes, they will likely be disciplined.  Assuming the client grieves, or someone does.

An example  boning your client in a family matter creates a conflict of interest.  Bobby Goldstein, producer of Cheaters, was disbarred in Texas for this; also allegedly taking a contingent fee in the subject matter (property settlement) in that same client's divorce.

So, it happens.

Joint representations that become ethically problematic usually arise out of a desire for convenience.  Of two parties that are ostensibly aligned at the outset just want to hire one lawyer to save money, or only one of the two has money to pay, raising a second potential issue.  As long as the two clients stay aligned, and are advised of the potential for conflict in writing, that's cool.  But as soon as those clients get to be at odds, the joint lawyer has to drop out, which is another thing that has to be warned of.

You also see third parties (parents, spouses) paying attorneys fees for someone else with fair regularity.  That can raise an issue if the lawyer stops doing what's in the best interest of the actual client in favor of the payor.  But that actually has to happen, the potential for it is not an issue by itself.

You don't usually see that as a ground of discipline.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8738

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

CANNON DECISION TREE

Good for Trump—————> Affirm

Bad for Trump—————> Overrule

Not sure what the legal issues are or what facts apply————> See above

 

You forgot: make unprompted demands on DOJ based on what you saw on Hannity —-> get embarrassed 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I feel like we're rewatching that scene in "My cousin Vinny" when the kid asks him how long he's been practicing law and Pesci goes, "Almost six weeks."

The simulation version is now, "how long you been practicing law?" 

-"Well, let's see.  What time did Hannity's show end last night?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30313

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

B0DC5515-FA12-4C20-AE1D-3872B367B6E6.jpeg.e00c1386a8e39d31a00f32da576df11b.jpeg

C852C271-AB0C-4953-A68F-C80BDF482845.jpeg.87386557afec3395a4e35a3337d00c96.jpeg

“It’s really just a fake Biden crime family plan to jack up the employment figures using more lawyers - ya know -  and give a false picture of the economy.  Don Jr. said it on a podcast.  Sounds like he has allergies.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...