Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
That's trial lawyers. Hell, it was probably a lawyer that noticed. If they think it'll gain them notoriety, they'll try it.
Subpoena Obama, his speechwriters, and anyone who talked to the White House about the case.
If it's the difference between his client being found guilty of murder and murder of a federal official, they're obligated to provide the best defense possible.
And which precedent makes you think your legal gambit of subpoenaing the President of the United States to testify in a case with which he has nothing at all to do, counselor?
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Well that was, unsurprisingly, much ado about nothing --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Federal Statement of Probable Cause; U.S. v. Loughner
On or about January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords hosted a pre-announced event entitled "Congress On Your Corner," at a Safeway store at 7170 Oracle Road. Congresswoman Giffords represents the Eighth Congressional District in Southern Arizona. The office of Congresswoman Giffords has publicized the event in advance, including by e-mail and telephonic announcements. Your affiant states that Congresswoman Giffords' staff at the event included Gabriel Zimmerman, Rob Barber, and Pamela Simon, who are employees of the United States, all of whom attended to assist Congresswoman Giffords in her official duties. On January 9, 2011, your affiant spoke with U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, who stated that the Honorable John M. Roll, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, had worked with Congresswoman Giffords within the last several months to resolve issues related to the volume of cases filed in the District of Arizona. Judge Roll was notified about Congresswoman Giffords' event telephonically on or about January 7, 2011. having spoken to Pia Carusone, the Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Giffords in Washington D.C., U.S. Marshal Gonzales reports that Ron Barber, a staff person for Congresswoman Giffords who was present at the event, stated that Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues related to the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support that Congresswoman Giffords had given. Your affiant reviewed a digital surveillance video depicting the events at the Safeway; in the video, Judge Roll is seen speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber.
It's probably best to stick with the developed facts in sworn affidavits rather than the shorthand used in a public eulogy.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FromWayDowntown
Well that was, unsurprisingly, much ado about nothing --
It's probably best to stick with the developed facts in sworn affidavits rather than the shorthand used in a public eulogy.
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I heard Obama say he was just there to visit...
am I going to get a subpoena too?
that would ruin my day.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blake
I heard Obama say he was just there to visit...
am I going to get a subpoena too?
that would ruin my day.
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Your missives aren't informed by a staff who assembles the items they will put into your speeches by calling other people, asking for information, fact-checking, and then including those statements your speeches.
What you say isn't a product of the efforts of a staff.
What you say is pretty stupid.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blake
FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further.
I know, hence, my "you win" statement. You're the one that continued the conversation.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
I know, hence, my "you win" statement. You're the one that continued the conversation.
When I realized it, I ended it. Hence my "FWD has already pretty clearly laid it out. Really no need to discuss this further" statement.
I do, however, like this conversation about how the conversation has ended.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
To be fair, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree that there are some lawyers who would press this issue (albeit without any real substantive basis for doing so). Given the identity of his counsel and her apparent unwillingness to use a criminal defense as a means to aggrandize herself, I don't think this is a particularly likely result in this case. She has managed to defend high-profile defendants without making a spectacle of herself.
But your concern isn't completely unfounded -- at least in some cases.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpDumper
Irrelevance comes to mind first.
That is usually my first reaction to Yoni's threads.
Re: Well, this would be a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
Look, I'm not going to go Nbadan on you. I read the statement a couple of days ago and am familiar with how the U. S. Marshall established Judge Roll was on official business.
But, honestly, would you put it past a criminal defense lawyer (think a Johnny Cochran or an F. Lee Bailey or, possibly, a John "I-Channel-Dead-Kids" Edwards) to subpoena everyone just mentioned in that "establishment of fact," in an attempt to find a discrepancy, discredit the fact, and open a whole can of worms, during trial, on trying to determine if, in fact, Judge Roll was on official business?
I'm growing increasing dubious the premise I presented in the opening post is ever going to come about -- in part, due to things you and others have said in here -- but, some lawyers (and all he has to do is end up with the right one) will do just about anything to 1) become nationally famous and 2) win.
I'm done pushing this wagon, you win.
Not if the attorney risks getting sanctioned for making the argument. And from the looks of it, there seems to be no basis in fact for the claim that the judge wasn't on official business.
