Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well. That is bogus. Paid for 1 month of BK, shows on PayPal, but still no access.
 
ElleElle said:
Well. That is bogus. Paid for 1 month of BK, shows on PayPal, but still no access.
Click to expand...
I'm on month to month, and it always seems more complicated than it should, but emailing support gets things solved. I accidently paid 3 times because it didn't seem to go through, but they credited my account the next day.
 
ElleElle said:
Well. That is bogus. Paid for 1 month of BK, shows on PayPal, but still no access.
Click to expand...

I had the same problem last week, but I did a support ticket and they took care of it pretty quick.

I also have the texts for each month on a different tabs somehow, and then I have Jodi's journals to compare in another tab. Makes it much easier LOL.
 
Hope4More said:
:( Are you sure? You don't get a log in page?
Click to expand...

Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4Moreand iliketobendpages as i've been dying to read more texts. :happydance:
 
ElleElle said:
Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4More as i've been dying to read more texts. :happydance:
Click to expand...

I should have added in my previous post, if you have a tablet, prepair for trouble. I can only read all the stuff if I use a laptop or regular computer. If I use my samsung tablet, forget it.
 
ElleElle said:
Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4Moreand iliketobendpages as i've been dying to read more texts. :happydance:
Click to expand...



I had the same problem and they were quick to get me going.
 
Hope4More said:
He writes mockingly about the stupidity of the ninja lie, and of speaking to her about it??

That really does seem like it crosses the line into a violation of attorney- client privilege. Minor? Batcall to AZL?

He does despise her, right? And he despises her more than he wants to dirty up JM, right? And he despises her more than he'd love to be proven a wunderlawyer by winning her a new trial because of the unprecedented publicity which deprived her of a fair trial and which is evidenced still by the vehement reaction to his book. Right?
Click to expand...

Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.
 
AZlawyer said:
Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.
Click to expand...
So why would he be so blatantly violating the rules? Are there serious consequences or just a slap on the wrist?
 
AZlawyer said:
Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.
Click to expand...


Thank you. So what is your take? Has Nurmi compromised his reputation with the defense bar? Crossed the line enough to warrant a bar complaint? Why in the world would he publish such a personalized attack on an ex-client?
 
Steve44 said:
So why would he be so blatantly violating the rules? Are there serious consequences or just a slap on the wrist?
Click to expand...

Hope4More said:
Thank you. So what is your take? Has Nurmi compromised his reputation with the defense bar? Crossed the line enough to warrant a bar complaint? Why in the world would he publish such a personalized attack on an ex-client?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if he's violating the rules or not. This is a very well-known rule, so I have to assume he got an informed waiver from his client (perhaps in exchange for a cut of the profits, perhaps not).

I haven't read the posts detailing what's in his book. If he's bashing JA, I think it will hurt his reputation among other defense lawyers, but maybe he feels that his reputation with the general public will improve.
 
I was reading somewhere, that I can't find again, that JA's blabbing things she and her attourney talked about in trial strategy to SM had, in effect, waived her rights to them staying silent.
 
AZlawyer said:
I have no idea if he's violating the rules or not. This is a very well-known rule, so I have to assume he got an informed waiver from his client (perhaps in exchange for a cut of the profits, perhaps not).

I haven't read the posts detailing what's in his book. If he's bashing JA, I think it will hurt his reputation among other defense lawyers, but maybe he feels that his reputation with the general public will improve.
Click to expand...


Another thank you. Of course we are all speculating and everything is a hypothetical, but....... what sense would it make for JA to consent to release this much disparaging info, unless it benefitted her?

Is it legal (hypothetically) for Nurmi to share with her the profits of a book about her victim's murder? And PLEASE answer this...is there any possibility whatsoever that his book and her (theoretical) approval of it has anything to do with an appeal strategy?
 
Hope4More said:
Another thank you. Of course we are all speculating and everything is a hypothetical, but....... what sense would it make for JA to consent to release this much disparaging info, unless it benefitted her?

Is it legal (hypothetically) for Nurmi to share with her the profits of a book about her victim's murder? And PLEASE answer this...is there any possibility whatsoever that his book and her (theoretical) approval of it has anything to do with an appeal strategy?
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason she would consent, unless she were sharing in the profits. It would be legal for her to share in the profits unless the book depicted the CRIME itself rather than the trial--and it sounds like it's about the trial. On the other hand, I saw on Nurmi's Twitter account that he says she's not getting a dime. In that case, I am puzzled why she would consent to his public discussion of the representation.

I don't get the appeal strategy theory, sorry.
 
AZlawyer said:
I don't see any reason she would consent, unless she were sharing in the profits. It would be legal for her to share in the profits unless the book depicted the CRIME itself rather than the trial--and it sounds like it's about the trial. On the other hand, I saw on Nurmi's Twitter account that he says she's not getting a dime. In that case, I am puzzled why she would consent to his public discussion of the representation.

I don't get the appeal strategy theory, sorry.
Click to expand...


Trying to say this as succinctly as I can, and hope to be told -- no, that's absurd.

I'm connecting the dots of Nurmi's many motions etc. about excessive publicity denying her a fair trial with her appellate attys twice suggesting that the COA be disqualified because excessive publicity led to an appellate judge discussing her case before her appeal was heard , plus her attorneys going after JM and his book , again on the basis of excessive publicity potentially denying her the right to an untainted hypothetical retrial, and right on cue comes Kieffer, the DT's mouthpiece , with an article about how social media led to "over involved" trial watchers attempting to influence her juries, and now, this.....odd, over the top book by Nurmi.

Translated, any possibility that all this is about a strategy to try to win a new trial based on some novel federal appeal about the saturation of social media coverage denying a defendant due process?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 93 more.
Total: 3,259 (members: 94, guests: 3,165)

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
3,166
Total visitors
3,260
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,619
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top