Peru - Stephany Flores, 21, murdered in Lima hotel room, 30 May 2010 #21

[21merc7]

The U.S. attorney Joe Taco Pina will defend Joran van der Sloot. He is part of a three-man team of criminal lawyers who will work for acquittal of the murder suspect.

The team will replace the current attorney Altez Maximo, who indicated earlier withdrew from the case to withdraw.

http://translate.google.com/transla...rtman/publish/artikel_74799.php&sl=auto&tl=en

:waitasec: It's getting crazier and crazier!

Not crazy. Maximo wants out. Mom sent money, and media. Maximo will be out of it. Whomever steps in, eh, just paperwork and phone calls for them, a few Court appearances. I still don't think world humanitarian groups will help. nor mom's money. We will see.

 

[marikesh]

Personal feelings may have to be set aside. But mounting a vigorous defense of one's client is the primary principle governing defense attorneys.

I know quite a few of the latter and I promise you the last thing they think they are doing is "letting go" of their principles.

(ETA: As I have since read, Cottages said exactly this--and said it much better--a page or two ago.)

That's just it. They think they are not. Joe Tacopina is a fine example.

 

[nervous_nellie]

What about freedom of speech? I don't know whether Peru uses the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but whatever we may think of JVDS, he hasn't yet been convicted of a crime.

What if he were a political prisoner being held by a totalitarian regime? Would we still want him prevented from speaking with the press? (To be clear, I don't see JVDS as a victim of any government, the press nor the Holloways. I'm just pointing out some of the problems with banning speech by criminal defendants.)

as you can see that the conversation up thread was in regard to profiting from crimes and that peru is like the u.s. in that the convicted are not allowed to profit from crimes committed ie books & interviews etc. which is why i said that i dont think he should have access to media for million dollar interviews right now before his trial. sorry if i wasnt clear on that.

 

[MHamby]

as you can see that the conversation up thread was in regard to profiting from crimes and that peru is like the u.s. in that the convicted are not allowed to profit from crimes committed ie books & interviews etc. which is why i said that i dont think he should have access to media for million dollar interviews right now before his trial. sorry if i wasnt clear on that.

But how can one profit from a crime when it hasn't been proven that he has committed it?

I understand that there is a lot of evidence, and that there is an extremely high likelihood that he did. However, as far as my thought process is concerned, he has not been convicted of a crime and therefore, is just alleged.

JMO

 

[panthera]

The U.S. attorney Joe Taco Pina will defend Joran van der Sloot. He is part of a three-man team of criminal lawyers who will work for acquittal of the murder suspect.

The team will replace the current attorney Altez Maximo, who indicated earlier withdrew from the case to withdraw.

http://translate.google.com/transla...rtman/publish/artikel_74799.php&sl=auto&tl=en

:waitasec: It's getting crazier and crazier!

And from what I understand, Tacopina will be accompanied by two other attorneys who are not Peruvian. So my question is can just any attorney, from anywhere, practice law in Peru? :waitasec:

 

[nervous_nellie]

But how can one profit from a crime when it hasn't been proven that he has committed it?

I understand that there is a lot of evidence, and that there is an extremely high likelihood that he did. However, as far as my thought process is concerned, he has not been convicted of a crime and therefore, is just alleged.

JMO

im talking about him giving interviews about th nh case to generate money... i seriously doubt that he is going to get on camera and claim that he killed sf(at least not while he is sitting in castro castro)...these are just my opinions. he has done nothing but create a circus and his latest extortion of bh and then turned right around and had the nerve to once again say that the info that he provided was a bunch of crap, all just to get his hands on a bunch of money... its ok if no one agrees with me.. this is just my opinion

 

[Cottages]

Well I'm hoping Holloways lawyer wrote up a little default judgement clause if his agreement with VDS is in writing was not the truth. I also wonder what types of leins could be attached to JDS's accounts and and all if he defaulted on such an agreement.

I'm aware of a foreign lein but I think it deals within the US and Canada on real property.

Any legal mind care to adventure?

There's no such thing as putting a default judgment in a contract. Our court (namely the Supremes) don't allow anyone but themselves to adjudicate or to to dictate what the law is (i.e., interpretation of the laws), or if a law is Constitutionally valid (see the infamous Marbury vs. Madison).

Parties may stipulate liquidated damages in a contract, provided they actually reflect a good faith estimate of future damages. Then, if a court grants a default judgment on a subsequent claim, which a court will do only if the other party fails to make an answer or make an appearance, there is something for the court to go by without the claimant having to prove what the damages are.

As far as liening property in another country, that's surely a very high hurdle. People in a foreign country (nor their agents, i.e., their attorney) cannot simply attach someone else's property (especially federally owned or insured property like bank accounts). As here in the U.S., you need a court order to take someone else's property, and that court order must come from that country....or we wouldn't ever have to go to war. We could just get our courts to grant the U.S. govt (or people thereof) all of Iraq's property, go file the attachments in their appropriate records venue & move in (and all be rich from the oil .

Of course if you own personal property and sell it on credit, you can hold title until it's paid (& go get it, if you can do so peacefully, because it is still yours). And of course, there are the power of sale clauses in deeds of trust, but those have to be perfected by filing in the local county before the deed is ever filed....

Anyway, at the end of the day, property (real property & currency) in a country belongs to that country. That country grants the right to have title to property and establishes currency for that county. For example, if you died with no heirs, then the state gets [back, since the original grant came from them] that property.

This is all to say that, while I am NO international property expert by any stretch, just in going by what our laws would permit (and we're quite liberal property-wise) and a peripheral knowledge of old common law, the process for a foreigner to claim assets in another country would require a successful lawsuit (which would likely take a minimum of 6 months just to move the paper around) *in that country.*

 

[Cottages]

Personal feelings may have to be set aside. But mounting a vigorous defense of one's client is the primary principle governing defense attorneys. I know quite a few of the latter and I promise you the last thing they think they are doing is "letting go" of their principles.

That's just it. They think they are not. Joe Tacopina is a fine example.

I don't believe Joe is letting go of his principles. I don't think he had any to begin with. He is not an attorney zealously representing his client (required). He's an attorney running around *seeking out* high profile cases solely to line his pockets. He seems especially interested if the crime is heinous, which of course leads to more publicity for him. This hardly qualifies as someone "just doing their job," "doing their job well" or even defending injustices around the globe.

And for these reasons, I couldn't be happier that Joe is getting involved in this case. He will not get JVS off, or even get him a light sentence, which should harm, not help, his reputation.

 

[faw720]

Help guys,
can someone pls help me.What's the mark under her chin?TIA

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/06/21/slootcrimescene_03_062110.jpg

Could it possibly be a cigarette burn? I wouldn't put it past Joran to torture her.

 

[Whome?]

GP is just sitting back taking dibs on JVDS's butt......waiting patiently :dance:

Tacapino had been on NG's show when this first broke....and he naturally did
his spin on how this guy could be innocent....(naturally he's a defender) and
said he was NOT defending him when he was asked.......ummmmm
no but his firm is not doing just that.

Wherever VDS is getting his flow of cash......I'm wondering how many from
around the world are mailing it in for his defense.
We all know how many people come out of the woodwork IN DEFENSE of those like Joran.
They feel sorry for the 'DOWN TRODDEN'.....:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Did you all forget that his mother just
did an exclusive interview for the TV's


Prior to this interview Joran's atty stated
that he would not be reping for Joran,after
the interview and the money,he's back on
the case. So IMHO Anita is financing this
first round of assaults on the Peru legal
system.The need to continue this assault
is why he is requesting the 1 million dollar
interview. Which I hope no one buys into
and/or that Peru will not allow to happen
in their jails JMHO :twocents:

 

[suzihawk]

Well, here's what I find, umm... interesting?... about Joe Tacopina that tells me just exactly what kind of lawyer he is.

On the home page for his law firm, it's mentioned no less than 3 times that he's 'the hottest young lawyer' according to GQ magazine. WTH?? How does that factor into possessing the qualities of a good lawyer?

http://www.tacopinalaw.com/index.html

Oh, and please, PLEASE read the actual GQ article that he's so proud of. Apparently he's too dense to see that they're not so subtly ridiculing his pretentious arrogance. At least that's they way I read it.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/new...ina-natalee-holoway-criminal-defense-attorney

:sick:

 

[nervous_nellie]

Well, here's what I find, umm... interesting?... about Joe Tacopina that tells me just exactly what kind of lawyer he is.

On the home page for his law firm, it's mentioned no less than 3 times that he's 'the hottest young lawyer' according to GQ magazine. WTH?? How does that factor into possessing the qualities of a good lawyer?

http://www.tacopinalaw.com/index.html

Oh, and please, PLEASE read the actual GQ article that he's so proud of. Apparently he's too dense to see that they're not so subtly ridiculing his pretentious arrogance. At least that's they way I read it.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/new...ina-natalee-holoway-criminal-defense-attorney

:sick:

good find - yes i agree, cheezy cheezy.....

 

[Whome?]

The U.S. attorney Joe Taco Pina will defend Joran van der Sloot. He is part of a three-man team of criminal lawyers who will work for acquittal of the murder suspect.

The team will replace the current attorney Altez Maximo, who indicated earlier withdrew from the case to withdraw.

http://translate.google.com/transla...rtman/publish/artikel_74799.php&sl=auto&tl=en

:waitasec: It's getting crazier and crazier!

If Joe Tacopina gets JVS off,I
would hope that Joran buys a house
across the street from JT and lives
there and visits JT and his family. Let's
see how happy JT would be to have this
"NUT" IMHO living near him in the future.:banghead::banghead:

 

[MCDRAW]

But how can one profit from a crime when it hasn't been proven that he has committed it?

I understand that there is a lot of evidence, and that there is an extremely high likelihood that he did. However, as far as my thought process is concerned, he has not been convicted of a crime and therefore, is just alleged.

JMO

Then he should have to wait to until after the trial, if not found guilty then he could profit.JMO

 

[MCDRAW]

And from what I understand, Tacopina will be accompanied by two other attorneys who are not Peruvian. So my question is can just any attorney, from anywhere, practice law in Peru? :waitasec:

I don't know but I think that is a huge mistake to not have one lawyer that knows peru's laws.

 

[FLNY]

The U.S. attorney Joe Taco Pina will defend Joran van der Sloot. He is part of a three-man team of criminal lawyers who will work for acquittal of the murder suspect.

The team will replace the current attorney Altez Maximo, who indicated earlier withdrew from the case to withdraw.

http://translate.google.com/transla...rtman/publish/artikel_74799.php&sl=auto&tl=en

:waitasec: It's getting crazier and crazier!

I agree, Suzihawk!!

But I wonder if your link to the report by Amigoe.com is correct. It states that this was reported by the newspaper Peru21....but I don't see anything to this affect on the Peru21 website. They only have the original report of 'three attorneys', with 2 being foreigners, but nothing about Altez being replaced. :waitasec:

Guess we'll just have to wait and see!! :banghead: :banghead:

Also, I haven't seen any web reports by any of the major US media about Tacopina getting involved!! That's kind of weird. Are they all still in 'holiday weekend' mode??!!??

This case is certainly keeping us on our toes!!

 

[panthera]

If Joe Tacopina gets JVS off,I
would hope that Joran buys a house
across the street from JT and lives
there and visits JT and his family. Let's
see how happy JT would be to have this
"NUT" IMHO living near him in the future.:banghead::banghead:

Makes me wonder just how many defense attorneys would actually like this scenario with their clients.....:waitasec: MOO

 

[Cottages]

But how can one profit from a crime when it hasn't been proven that he has committed it?

I understand that there is a lot of evidence, and that there is an extremely high likelihood that he did. However, as far as my thought process is concerned, he has not been convicted of a crime and therefore, is just alleged.

JMO

Know that "alleged" arose from our *concept* of innocent until proven guilty. And that concept arose to stave off lynching mobs so that *truly innocent* people (or questionably guilty people) had a chance to prove themselves innocent before being killed (forever foreclosing any benefit to being proven innocent!)

But concept and reality are not one in the same. Nor was "innocent until proven guilty" meant to be used *against* "innocent society." To wit: JVS, and all others like him, are behind bars at this very moment just like people that have already *been proven guilty* in spite of the fact that they are currently "innocent" under the law, are they not? How is that happening if the rule of law is that they are innocent?

Hint: Because there are other "rules of law" in society, and in most Constitutions. In fact these other rules reign so supreme in comparison, they are not only in the main body of our Constitution (as opposed to the amendments where "innocent until proven guilty" is located), they are in the very first sentence of our Constitution!

JVS is guilty of murder, and decent society has a superior RIGHT not to be harmed by the likes of him. JVS has not been proven *in a court of law*, but that does not mean that he has not been proven guilty by the amount of evidence (he has!), which is why he is in prison. Being proven guilty in a court of law is a legal formality, and has *nothing* to do with whether or not he *IS* guilty.

O.J. was not any less "guilty" of murder because the prosecution could not prove to *that jury* under the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard that he killed two people (although another jury DID find him guilty of murder under the lesser standard of preponderance, although, that jury could do math and probably would have found him guilty under the BARD standard).

Does that help see the other side? I hope so because I have to get back to work (big grin). I'm going to be up to 2 a.m. as it is.

 

[Cottages]

The U.S. attorney Joe Taco Pina will defend...

I'm certain that this is the correct spelling of Joe's last name Suzihawk (thank you for pointing it out), and I move that we all use this correct spelling in all future posts (big grin).

 

[nervous_nellie]

Know that "alleged" arose from our *concept* of innocent until proven guilty. And that concept arose to stave off lynching mobs so that *truly innocent* people (or questionably guilty people) had a chance to prove themselves innocent before being killed (forever foreclosing any benefit to being proven innocent!)

But concept and reality are not one in the same. Nor was "innocent until proven guilty" meant to be used *against* "innocent society." To wit: JVS, and all others like him, are behind bars at this very moment just like people that have already *been proven guilty* in spite of the fact that they are currently "innocent" under the law, are they not? How is that happening if the rule of law is that they are innocent?

Hint: Because there are other "rules of law" in society, and in most Constitutions. In fact these other rules reign so supreme in comparison, they are not only in the main body of our Constitution (as opposed to the amendments where "innocent until proven guilty" is located), they are in the very first sentence of our Constitution!

JVS is guilty of murder, and decent society has a superior RIGHT not to be harmed by the likes of him. JVS has not been proven *in a court of law*, but that does not mean that he has not been proven guilty by the amount of evidence (he has!), which is why he is in prison. Being proven guilty in a court of law is a legal formality, and has *nothing* to do with whether or not he *IS* guilty.

O.J. was not any less "guilty" of murder because the prosecution could not prove to *that jury* under the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard that he killed two people (although another jury DID find him guilty of murder under the lesser standard of preponderance, although, that jury could do math and probably would have found him guilty under the BARD standard).

Does that help see the other side? I hope so because I have to get back to work (big grin). I'm going to be up to 2 a.m. as it is.

not snipped a bit! ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING POST!!!! yay cottages!!!