Discussion in 'Crimes in the News' started by 0101ABA, Jan 17, 2017.
Best Lat article yet! He's gone from "Lat Ice" to "Latty Light." Bravo, Lat! :loveyou:
Sorry I missed it, but what are you reading as at least a partial admission that the As are paying for KMs attorneys?
Because the lawyer basically sounds they want to hide that information.
So why not just say we are working pro-bono or something.
They could have said that months ago.
telling the Court pro bono would be a clear, outright lie which would be quickly and easily discovered and severely punished. they know this. so instead they've chosen other deceptive tactics - obfuscate, distract, distort, obscure, etc. "this is just lawyers being lawyers" (the bar is set so pitifully low) (no wonder the public distrusts and despises them). hey i get it - their job is to be a fierce advocate for their client - but my question is - WHO IS THEIR REAL CLIENT? and is this a mockery of our justice system?
Actually, they have said that KM's immediate family is paying for her defense by dipping into their savings and retirement accounts. So why not just provide documents which prove their claim and put an end to the speculation? All that their stonewalling achieves is to fuel that speculation.
IMO, the lawyers' response to the state's motion should be the same whether they are worried about their fee arrangement or whether everything is 100% on the up and up. Why would they want to set a precedent that they just fold and gladly provide the requested information if they otherwise believe it's confidential and the state hasn't made the requisite showing of proof to warrant the Court inquiring further? I wouldn't read too much into it as having any bearing on whether there is really something amiss or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So how long does the judge have to make the ruling?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
meanwhile their "client" rots in jail.
IMO, the State attorneys are making “good progress” toward prosecution the alleged masterminds, whoever they are. I view some of David Lat’s articles as insincere.
However, he last post dated March 28, and updated thereafter is informative.
David Lat has direct private channel to KM lawyers and asked them in February about the potential of conflict of interests. The answer was “KM's immediate family is paying for her defense by dipping into their savings and retirement accounts”. Is such statement recorded in court? I doubt that. The “KM immediate family statement” is for the MSM and their readers. To the court, they write something to the effect of “it is not the business of the State Attorneys to fish for what they do not know because one cannot formulate about requesting to know what is unknown from the first place!” Mathematically, this makes sense. In fact, it is borderline obstruction. IMO, the judge is aware. If I were the judge, I would feel disparaged by such Aristotle type of logic to hide the truth.
Perhaps, KM lawyers were told “KM's immediate family is paying for her defense by dipping into their savings and retirement accounts” at that time! Who signs on their paychecks and their expenditure coverage billings, anyway? Who hired these lawyers to represent KM? Was it KM herself? I doubt that. Could David Lat ask such questions directly? I assume the checks could come from any other law firm such as Oscar’s firm.
Then, David Lat updated yesterday -- UPDATE (9:07 p.m.): Here is what DeCoste just told me: “We’re not trying to keep [the funding arrangements] confidential. The point of our motion is the government shouldn’t be able to operate based on mere speculation.” –
Boom! No more mention of “rich KM relatives paying them.” The judge is going to say SOON “if it not such a big deal, show it for the sake of justice. In doing so, you display good behavior as a by-product!”
Under just about any scenario, KM would still be in jail right now. Even if she cops a plea it's not going to a get out of jail free card. The time she is serving now will count towards whatever sentence she eventually gets. The fact that they haven't yet negotiated a deal doesn't really mean much in terms of whether there is an actual conflict of interest.
The problem here is that even if the attorneys are doing everything above board, they should have known that the appearance of a conflict, especially in a case like this, is something to stay far away from.
Strictly hypothetical here but it would be interesting to hear her attorneys' response to an immunity deal from the state.
I agree with what GordonX said early on in this thread.
They said that this is a conspiracy case. Where KM can possibly have grounds for an appeal if its found out later that the main conspiracy people were paying her lawyers while her lawyers suggested for her not to take a plea deal to give up the others.
And I agree with that 100%
Because I don't want to hear that KM now wants a retrial or turn states evidence against the Adelsons once she realizes that she is about to be sentenced to life.
Meanwhile. The Adelsons are living life lovely during the next 5 years of trials and appeals on behalf of KMs case.
So imo. The judge needs to privately view the payee documents.
And then make their decision which will be viewed under the sunshine law later on. Jmo.
that's actually a pretty good idea.
Agree. Because a judge needs information to judge a case.
Now the judge decides what's allowed and what's not allowed.
Plus the judge needs to know this information to avoid a possible appeal down the road.
So the judge should tell KM lawyers to show them the payee information privately.
And then they will decide if there is any foreseeable conflict of interest before allowing the state to know anything.
I believe SG goes to court on Monday. Why he isn't working on a plea deal is beyond me.....
I've wondered that too. He just may not be capable of making decisions
where money isn't dangled as a prize. I can't help but think his brain is beyond (and maybe never has been) rational thinking. Too much toilet juice, too much hubris and too much of everything else. He has changed attorneys a number of times. I suspect he can't and won't accept anything they advise him to do.
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
1. well we don't really know if SG is or isn't working on a deal but i don't think he is YET because he's still caught up in the Latino "machismo" of not wanting to rat out his baby mama. i think during the alleged "toilet wine/pruno" conversation he stated that. but that may change as he gets closer to trial and he starts thinking about the possible life and death sentences.
2. SG is being declared indigent so it appears that nobody is paying his legal fees so the conflict of interest issue is a non-issue for him.
I think her sleeping around w CA would have had an effect on his baby mama soft spot.... who knows man
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk