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

[DDD Dad 14243]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fine, but I take issue with "higher standard."  The duty to the client is "fiduciary plus."  It's about as high a standard as the law recognizes.  The duty is express and explicit, not implied.  There are also duties of candor to the tribunal, among others, that are in direct conflict with the duty to the client.  In extreme cases, it can present quite a dilemma to the lawyer.

Thankfully, most of us don't find ourselves in extreme cases and many of us avoid representations that would place us in them.

I get that you don't like it.  I'm just providing context.

Counterpoint—You cannot suborn perjury and owe a duty of candor to the court. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Counterpoint—You cannot suborn perjury and owe a duty of candor to the court. 

Counter-counterpoint.  I mentioned that, specifically, and that it's in direct conflict with the duty to the client.  I know how I would navigate that most of the time, and you do too, but some lawyers are going to take a different tack and while we don't necessarily like it, probably wouldn't demand their disbarment, either.  It can be a close question.  Witness prep can get pretty sweaty sometimes.

[DDD Dad 14243]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Counter-counterpoint.  I mentioned that, specifically, and that it's in direct conflict with the duty to the client.  I know how I would navigate that most of the time, and you do too, but some lawyers are going to take a different tack and while we don't necessarily like it, probably wouldn't demand their disbarment, either.  It can be a close question.  Witness prep can get pretty sweaty sometimes.

I guess I don’t see it as close a question as you’ve suggested. This reminds me of when the 11th circuit judge I clerked for swore me in to the bar (twice), he read me the oath, he repeated the part about candor two or three times. 
 

(He was a hell of a guy)

[Goredho 17341]

Trump is the ultimate sovereign-none-of-your-rules-apply-to-me-citizen.

I'm buying a round for the room if we get to see him tazed during a courtroom outburst.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I guess I don’t see it as close a question as you’ve suggested. This reminds me of when the 11th circuit judge I clerked for swore me in to the bar (twice), he read me the oath, he repeated the part about candor two or three times. 
 

(He was a hell of a guy)

Yeah most of the time it's not a big issue.  Certainly not on appeal where the facts are mostly established.

In the hypothetical of the damaging fact, I think most of us would make a token effort not to reveal it but basically say "we have to eat this" and come up with a strategy to somehow minimize it.  Some lawyers might make more than a token effort, and we might call them "unethical," but that's like our opinion, man.

But when you consider that virtually every fact in a lawsuit is subject to proof and it's usually the other side's burden to disprove your "facts," that can get a little tricky.  If you think maybe "all conditions precedent" to a breach of contract have not been met, but maybe it's subject to proof, is it a lie to plead that "all conditions precedent have been met"?

That's a fairly innocuous example, but you can spiral downward from there.

On close questions, I think this is not one:  Your client tells you where a body is buried.  You can't tell anyone, most likely, even if a court asks you directly.  You know there are dozens of little dilemmas like that in a legal ethics class.

Edited January 26 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27405]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fine, but I take issue with "higher standard."  The duty to the client is "fiduciary plus."  It's about as high a standard as the law recognizes.  The duty is express and explicit, not implied. 

Nothing like hiding behind """fiduciary duty""" to excuse wildly unethical behavior 

[4th&Five 41457]

Such a baby. 

 

[Underdog 28443]

Performance art.  Apparently, Judge threatened Alina with lock up and told her to sit down. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2785]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, thank you, I am aware of all that. But that’s hard to accept outside the legal realm for many because most of us are required to adhere to a higher standard.

I don't think there is any higher standard than zealously representing your client within the bounds of the law.  

Unless the higher standard is "double secret zelousness".

I actually think it's pretty easy to be moral as a lawyer just because the game you play does have lots of rules and guiding principles. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

[Gatorubet 30083]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Counterpoint—You cannot suborn perjury and owe a duty of candor to the court. 

this is absolutely true. But it raises the issue of the lawyer as factfinder. The judge and the jury are the finders of fact, and they are the same parties who determine credibility. The main thing people don’t understand is that it is not the attorneys job to judge the credibility of their client, other than knowing about potential problems in the litigation and how to best avoid it. 

I had a Jones Act client who broke up with his girlfriend, and the girlfriend immediately indicated she was going to call defense counsel and tell them a bunch of things potentially true (and likely mad gf untrue) to wreck his case.  It does not fulfill my duty to my client by me withdrawing just because someone says something about my client that he denies. However, it was a significant enough threat that I changed my litigation strategy, and got the other side to agree to stipulate to liability in exchange for a range of damages that was capped.  That way the trial would only be on damages about his injuries - and the liability (and his credibility as to how the accident happened and gf stuff) would not come up.   IOW,  the client could never get the home-run verdict he wanted, but we might get a second base verdict at trial. While the client was limited in the ultimate recovery, there was zero chance that the client would get nothing because of losing liability when his ex gf unloaded on him at trial.   The federal judge, who was trying the case referred to the damage only trial to the magistrate, who just looked at the medicals.  My client was so severely injured that the magistrate put a lot of pressure to settle for a large amount - and we did.  Some non-lawyers who think I should’ve told the court, “I think he’s lying about stuff because his girlfriend had a lot of bad things to say“ just don’t get how things work.

My point is, I do not have a duty to tell the court “I’ve heard some bad stuff about my client, and I think he might be lying about some things”. It is not my job to have a trial within the trial and render judgment on who is telling the truth.   

On occasion I have had a client flat want me to help him or her lie in their litigation effort. A few of those clients got my severe talking to, and retracted their request to have me put on false evidence so I’d stay their lawyer.  A few disagreed, and I filed a motion to withdraw. Now, even if the client might want to lie, I can’t tell the court I want to withdraw because my client may lie.   What you do is motion to withdraw saying that you have a conflict with the client so egregious that you can’t resolve it.   The court knows <wink, wink nudge nudge > I got a big problem with this client and I’m notifying you judge.  The court will often let you out. Clients without lawyers very seldom win or settle. And a new lawyer is on the case will usually call the old lawyer on the case and say, “ Should I take this?”  If you have a good damage & liability case, you have no reason to withdraw so that usually raises issues. So, without saying your client is probably gonna lie, you can just repeat the language in your motion to the other lawyer.  He or she will probably get it.  

That client will probably not have a recovery or not a decent recovery, but that will be because of the client and not because of the lawyer helping them lie to the court

Regarding the incident I spoke of - with defense counsel and divorce court - I had absolutely no proof that they were behind the child custody shenanigans. If everyone doesn’t know, all lawyers  want to talk to ex-girlfriend/boyfriend and spouses - because they are the ones with the most dirt.  Put another way, Bristol wanting to know what dirt her ex was going to say about her was absolutely something standard that counsel does in important litigation  - see if they can find dirt on the other side. It wasn’t the fact that they were there that troubled me, it was the fact that no custody matter had been raised until she became a plaintiff.  I have no doubt that they were behind it, but I also had no evidence. As to the proof, we mentioned what happened to the judge, obviously, and she asked defense counsel why they were there. They replied that they monitored the civil dockets in the courts in our area to look for litigation involving our bellwether plaintiff.  Now, with that response you enter the realm of privileged communications with the client and the work product privilege. The other side and the court don’t get to see what you talk about with your client - because that is between you and the client.  If somehow I had could have subpoenaed their internal litigation strategy records and their trust account stuff I could’ve tracked down who paid for their lawyer.  But a multi-billion company isn’t so stupid to just issue a check from their attorneys general account to cover that kind of act. So I have no solid grounds to subpoena records - and the records are probably privileged due to client or work product privilege exclusion. 

The long post is to say that everyone who gets angry about the simple problem, doesn’t understand that they aren’t simple problems, and they are often competing ethical duties, like the duty to protect client, client confidence and the duty not to surrender work product that control your interactions with the court.

I wish life was as simple as many here think it is 

TL: DR.   people don’t get that there are a large number of very nuanced and sophisticated duties owed to a number of people - duties that often directly conflict. 

That is why lawyers have drug and alcohol and divorce problems greater than the average Joe

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The lawyer's first duty is to their client.  That duty mostly, but not completely, excludes other considerations, including duty to abstract notions like "the system," "democracy,"  and even the truth.  This is why the lawyer discipline system is geared toward sanctioning misdeeds directed at clients much more so than non-client-related misdeeds.

 

 

There's the problem right there. 

 

[tx 3 putt 76296]

L O L

[Gatorubet 30083]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

There's the problem right there. 

 

OK, give me your rules to fix it.   If you’re not an attorney, you likely are not even aware of the duties involved, or why the bettervway you want it could be actually horribly worse for the entire system.

if you make a rule that you can kill people who enter your property, then people who enter by mistake, apologize and are leaving can be shot in the back and killed with no liability. But… But… But… That is a nice simple rule for when a murdering maniac wants to attack my family!  Yeah, that’s true, but that’s only a good solution if its a murdering maniac. If it’s a new neighbor in a neighborhood where all the houses look alike, shooting that person who’s leaving in the back is murder. But it is only murder because you’ve got another law that says you can only use force in certain ways. 

I don’t mean this in a negative way, but anybody can say “the system sucks. That’s the problem.”.  It is always true that most people who say that have exactly zero idea how the system works, but more importantly, have zero idea why the system works that way.     to understand ‘why’ you have to go to law school and practice law.   That is not me being condescending. Any gearhead on Surly is going to laugh at my complete ignorance about all things combustion engines.  Any of my suggestions about how to do things based upon my unfamiliarity with engine repair does not mean I’m stupid, it just means I don’t work in that field.    

[BamaATL 16592]

1 hour ago, 4th&amp;Five said:

Such a baby. 

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say pouting and throwing a tantrum in front of the jury prior to their decision isn't going to help him.  Prepare your anus Donnie.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Prepare your anus Donnie.  

we've been saying this for nearly a decade. when the fuck is this orange pustule finally going to face some consequences?

[Js1 85085]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Such a baby. 

 

Edited January 26 by Js1

[BamaATL 16592]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

we've been saying this for nearly a decade. when the fuck is this orange pustule finally going to face some consequences?

This afternoon or Monday, because the jury is coming back quick, with massive damages on this one.  The next week we will also get his civil penalties.  It's happening.  

[dcbc 14398]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, thank you. That is well put and I’m aware. But that’s hard to accept outside the legal realm for many because most of us are required to adhere to a higher standard. For example, if you work for a major corporation in America, particularly in management, your first duty is (at least implicitly) to the company. However- you are also bound by written standards of business conduct that prohibit actions analogous to what @Gatorubet describes. And while we can all think of spectacularly bad behavior by employees and officers of major corporations, the reason why we can do that was that it was newsworthy, they broke their own rules, and they were fired when it got out.

What you call duty is scandalous for the rest of us, and I’m glad it is.

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

[BamaATL 16592]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

Ted Bundy?

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This afternoon or Monday, because the jury is coming back quick, with massive damages on this one.  The next week we will also get his civil penalties.  It's happening.  

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

36 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

There's the problem right there. 

 

Until you are the client.

[dcbc 14398]

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Ted Bundy?

Did not complete his law degree.  But well played.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society? 

Lawyer on the bench issuing horrific rulings (Citizens United, etc.)?

Probably not what you were angling for.

[Red Five 40627]

Lisa Rubin was saying that she expects this to be in the $100 million range. Followed by panel commentary that Dotard is acting like a fool on purpose because he wants the number to be as large as possible. So he can say "See! Look at what they're doing to me." Not sure I buy that logic. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Nothing like hiding behind """fiduciary duty""" to excuse wildly unethical behavior 

It certainly can be, that's a fact.

But, it is also an "analytical tool" that explains some things without necessarily excusing them.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

19 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

Trump posted a $5M appeal bond, so, if she prevails on the appeal, it's hers.

The appeals will be exhausted after the Second Circuit, because the Supremes are not going to grant cert in a case like this.

However, as mentioned previously, the appeal raises some interesting points about excluding evidence and this is, objectively, a weird-ass case not only in terms of the lack of Trump evidence, but the sparing evidence supporting Carroll.  Can't say how that's going to go.

 

Edited January 26 by TwiceHorn

[BamaATL 16592]

18 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

I'm not sure where a judgment falls in terms of lien order on things, but the fact that he is facing liquidation by the state on his other assets probably means she can be tied to all that, somewhere in the liens.  First would be taxes and penalties to the government, second creditors tied to assets, third would be everything else.  If there is anything left over, I would presume she falls in the 3rd category (I may well be wrong).  So if there is anything left over after the first two (a big if in my mind), she'll get it.  

[dcbc 14398]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Lawyer on the bench issuing horrific rulings (Citizens United, etc.)?

Probably not what you were angling for.

 

No, I think that's fair.  And it definitely was based on predictably-incorrect assumptions that led to a lot of unethical shit that affects this country and, in turn, the world.  So we agree that the ruling is horrific.  And I'm asking because I don't know.  Did it stem from unethical conduct.  Or is it just a bad ruling.  I never saw Kennedy as a hard-liner, certainly not by today's standards (how far we've fallen).

 

That is all to say that sometimes, well-meaning appellate justices get it horribly wrong, but not necessarily for unscrupulous reasons. 

 

As for what I was angling for, it was discussion.  Because if we can agree that there are plenty of shady lawyers out there, we also need to agree that there is a larger problem of "greedy fucks," the Venn diagram for which, only partially is made up of shady lawyers.

 

Edited to add that ideologues' being appointed to the high court is a problem with the system as a whole.  And an ideologue in that position can do a tremendous amount of damage when precedent is ignored or the guide for that person's interpretation of the law skews from established, judicial norms.  That said, writing judicial opinions at that level is a monumental task and requires a talent most lawyers do not possess.  So when a justice and those who sign onto the opinion are talking out of their respective asses, it's usually pretty obvious inasmuch as they are required to explain their reasoning, even if that explanation displays a lack thereof.   

Edited January 26 by dcbc

[Foosters 17725]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

There's the problem right there. 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

32 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

@Wulaw Horn has a law degree and he damaged that bridge and rv pretty good. 

[DDD Dad 14243]

3 hours ago, Goredho said:

Trump is the ultimate sovereign-none-of-your-rules-apply-to-me-citizen.

I'm buying a round for the room if we get to see him tazed during a courtroom outburst.

Negronis are currently my favorite cocktail.

[DDD Dad 14243]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

My point is, I do not have a duty to tell the court “I’ve heard some bad stuff about my client, and I think he might be lying about some things”. It is not my job to have a trial within the trial and render judgment on who is telling the truth.   

TL: DR.   people don’t get that there are a large number of very nuanced and sophisticated duties owed to a number of people - duties that often directly conflict. 

That is why lawyers have drug and alcohol and divorce problems greater than the average Joe

Agree 100 percent with this.

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

@Wulaw Horn has a law degree and he damaged that bridge and rv pretty good. 

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

[dcbc 14398]

12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

It was an ugly bridge and/or it was low and was asking for it (to keep with the perpetual defendant's defensive theory du jour in this case).  When you're famous, they let you get away with ramming bridges.  Something, something, sex tent.

Edited January 26 by dcbc

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

The damage was mostly structural (mental/emotional for the metaphor).  Some scars you cannot see, sir.

 

[gernblansten 3184]

17 minutes ago, Foosters said:

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

[Rimbo 25766]

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Until you are the client.

 

lofuckingl. 

You miss the point. Nobody gets the same considerations that trump had gotten. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. 

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

41 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

 

 

A "cool, hook'em" would've been better. 

 

[Foosters 17725]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

ok cool, i'll pass along

[C-Man 27029]

42 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Negronis are currently my favorite cocktail.

Same. Can't remember if you've made it by Via Triozzi yet. By far the best Negroni I've ever had. In fact, in the last five minutes I just ordered a 2-liter white oak barrel for the house so I can try and age a Negroni like they supposedly do. It brings the "tartness" down.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

 

 

[shakahorn 1625]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump posted a $5M appeal bond, so, if she prevails on the appeal, it's hers.

The appeals will be exhausted after the Second Circuit, because the Supremes are not going to grant cert in a case like this.

However, as mentioned previously, the appeal raises some interesting points about excluding evidence and this is, objectively, a weird-ass case not only in terms of the lack of Trump evidence, but the sparing evidence supporting Carroll.  Can't say how that's going to go.

 

Where TF did he get $5m from?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

Just now, shakahorn said:

Where TF did he get $5m from?

srsly? his PACS, supporters ,China, the Saudis, Russia - the list goes on. you know where he didn't get it from?: his paycheck.

[Js1 85085]

2 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

Where TF did he get $5m from?

Whoever paid off Kavanaugh’s CC debt 

[DDD Dad 14243]

22 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Same. Can't remember if you've made it by Via Triozzi yet. By far the best Negroni I've ever had. In fact, in the last five minutes I just ordered a 2-liter white oak barrel for the house so I can try and age a Negroni like they supposedly do. It brings the "tartness" down.

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Edited January 26 by DDD Dad

[Gatorubet 30083]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

Somebody posted a chart of how much Trump has been paying people for last year or so to defend him. It was a shit ton of money. It costs a ton of money to keep fighting your creditors all around your far-flung, so-called Empire. I definitely want her to get paid, but I have the consolation that it is costing that cheap narcissistic fuck a ton of money to attempt to overturn the judgment on appeal  - And to keep her from filing collections, actions in many states once her adjustment is final. 

When he flees to Russia or dies she may get some. 

Edited January 26 by Gatorubet