GUILTY Fl - Dan Markel, 41, Fsu Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #5 *arrests*

[GordonX]

Here is the Motion of Conflict of Interest Inquiry: http://www.filedropper.com/2016cf003036mofo38763428

A few new things I noticed 1) Garcia allegedly told Rivera on the first trip in June that "Wendi" hired Katie to have her ex-husband killed and 2) Charlie wanted to surrender in Tallahassee rather than being arrested.

thanks for getting this!

 

[TacoChip]

Here is the Motion of Conflict of Interest Inquiry: http://www.filedropper.com/2016cf003036mofo38763428

A few new things I noticed 1) Garcia allegedly told Rivera on the first trip in June that "Wendi" hired Katie to have her ex-husband killed and 2) Charlie wanted to surrender in Tallahassee rather than being arrested.

Thank You reallybusy. Nice work. I appreciate this.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I mean sure, I'd certainly see that as problematic. Keep in mind we are also talking about two different levels of ethical issues - (1) CA paying for KM's attorneys, and (2) CA paying for KM's attorneys for the specific purpose that they effectively act in his interests and not hers, via instructions from his own attorney DOM (middle initial included to distinguish from the victim).

The latter scenario just seems really, really implausible to me given how absolutely, egregiously unethical that would be for all lawyers involved. It becomes especially implausible to me considering the particular lawyers involved, notably DOM who has a downright impeccable reputation.

The first scenario, CA paying for KM's attorneys but with no further implication re influence on the representation, certainly also presents issues. But you also have to assume there is zero chance that any such payments were made in such a direct way. As long as KM's lawyers are receiving payments that, upon due diligence, appear to legitimately be coming from her or her family, they are fine.

I think the first scenario is slightly more plausible than the second, and I also think that if it did occur, it was something the conspirators worked out among themselves and the lawyers are in the clear.

Imo. The Adelsons take care of the Adelsons. So if the Adelsons are paying for KM lawyers that are friendly with the Adelsons lawyer;

Then it's only probable that there is some serious coded intent behind what's going on.

Because if the Adelsons or even her own family are paying her fees?

Than why not pay a Tallahassee lawyer that doesn't have to spend 5 hours on a drive just to see KM?

Jmo. But I respect yours as well.

 

[86Violet]

I think it's normal for a family to liquidate their assets to pay for representation for a family member who is facing life in prison. Also, I think it's possible that KM's attorneys agreed to handle this for a lesser retainer for the exposure. Many emerging criminal defense lawyers see handling a high-profile media case for less than the usual amount of money as an investment. Also, it's possible that at some point down the road, KM will file an application to declare civil indigent status and say she can no longer afford to pay her attorneys (family funds exhausted). At that point, the lawyers could ask to stay on the case because of all the work they've done already and be paid by the state (how Rivera's attorney is being paid).

 

[Razz]

I have forgotten but who is representing DA?

And wouldn't KM's best interests be served, thus the entire A clan's, if she pleads not quilty and gets off? In other words, get
her the best attorney money can buy?

Could be they are splitting her attorney's fees 3 ways. 😉

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[kooshx]

Here is the Motion of Conflict of Interest Inquiry: http://www.filedropper.com/2016cf003036mofo38763428

A few new things I noticed 1) Garcia allegedly told Rivera on the first trip in June that "Wendi" hired Katie to have her ex-husband killed and 2) Charlie wanted to surrender in Tallahassee rather than being arrested.

Thanks, reallybusy!

I was initially in the no-collaboration camp - feeling that this view bordered on conspiracy theory territory. It would seem to be an extreme breach of ethical standards for attorneys and could jeopardize the offending attorney(s) license(s).

This motion clearly indicates that the SA is taking this theory seriously. I imagine it's for one of three reasons:

1) They truly believe the collaboration is inhibiting a plea deal that would be in KM's best interest
2)They are playing hardball with the defense and trying to put them on their heels
3)The SA has hit a brick wall and is just getting desperate

 

[GordonX]

the State had no choice but to file this Motion. as i had stated long ago, if KM would get convicted she could come back and appeal the verdict and claim the conflict of interest and possibly have her conviction vacated. the last thing the State wants to do is go through a whole trial and get a conviction and then have it thrown out on a technicality. the State does not want to try this case twice! so the purpose of this Motion is twofold -

1. to get the Court and KM and her attorneys on record regarding the possible conflict of interest to eliminate the possibility of KM being able to use it to appeal a possible conviction.
2. an effort to make sure that KM has an independent defense counsel acting solely in her best interest and not advising her against/preventing her from obtaining leniency through offering testimony.

 

[kooshx]

Ah, I wasn't aware that this opened an avenue for appeal, so I guess it could just be a procedural formality. Nonetheless, it should be interesting if it happens to shake anything up on the defense's side - thanks!

the State had no choice but to file this Motion. as i had stated long ago, if KM would get convicted she could come back and appeal the verdict and claim the conflict of interest and possibly have her conviction vacated. the last thing the State wants to do is go through a whole trial and get a conviction and then have it thrown out on a technicality. the State does not want to try this case twice! so the purpose of this Motion is twofold -

1. to get the Court and KM and her attorneys on record regarding the possible conflict of interest to eliminate the possibility of KM being able to use it to appeal a possible conviction.
2. an effort to make sure that KM has an independent defense counsel acting solely in her best interest and not advising her against/preventing her from obtaining leniency through offering testimony.

 

[reallybusy]

Does this mean that KM's appeal to reverse the court's bond decision was denied? I looked at the list of abbreviations and did not find "PC" listed.

 

[Marvin Berry]

Just a guess, but PC probably means "probable cause." The ruling by the court of appeals is most likely that KM didn't show probable cause that she is being detained unlawfully as is required by the statue.

Does this mean that KM's appeal to reverse the court's bond decision was denied? I looked at the list of abbreviations and did not find "PC" listed.

 

[DexterMorgan]

the State had no choice but to file this Motion. as i had stated long ago, if KM would get convicted she could come back and appeal the verdict and claim the conflict of interest and possibly have her conviction vacated. the last thing the State wants to do is go through a whole trial and get a conviction and then have it thrown out on a technicality. the State does not want to try this case twice! so the purpose of this Motion is twofold -

1. to get the Court and KM and her attorneys on record regarding the possible conflict of interest to eliminate the possibility of KM being able to use it to appeal a possible conviction.
2. an effort to make sure that KM has an independent defense counsel acting solely in her best interest and not advising her against/preventing her from obtaining leniency through offering testimony.

Dang. You're right. She probably would try to appeal on that reason if found guilty. Good job.

Also this is a conspiracy case as well. Even though not all has been arrested as of yet.

So I think the prosecutors request is brilliant on all levels.

 

[Razz]

the State had no choice but to file this Motion. as i had stated long ago, if KM would get convicted she could come back and appeal the verdict and claim the conflict of interest and possibly have her conviction vacated. the last thing the State wants to do is go through a whole trial and get a conviction and then have it thrown out on a technicality. the State does not want to try this case twice! so the purpose of this Motion is twofold -

1. to get the Court and KM and her attorneys on record regarding the possible conflict of interest to eliminate the possibility of KM being able to use it to appeal a possible conviction.
2. an effort to make sure that KM has an independent defense counsel acting solely in her best interest and not advising her against/preventing her from obtaining leniency through offering testimony.

The fact that the prior state attorney came out and said he did not have enough evidence to arrest and subsequently try and convict CA was a HUGE blunder IMO.

CA's attorney came out publically thanking the state attorney for his wise choice.

Now, unless they have more evidence than they did then, CA's attorney is not going to worry about the SA office. Their major focus is to make sure KM does not flip.

Sculduggerous all the way around.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[GordonX]

The fact that the prior state attorney came out and said he did not have enough evidence to arrest and subsequently try and convict CA was a HUGE blunder IMO.

CA's attorney came out publically thanking the state attorney for his wise choice.

Now, unless they have more evidence than they did then, CA's attorney is not going to worry about the SA office. Their major focus is to make sure KM does not flip.

Sculduggerous all the way around.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

1. IMO - Meggs' comments won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. and his comments were before LR's testimony and before KM's arrest.
2. you say "CA's attorney is not going to worry about the SA office. Their major focus is to make sure KM does not flip." - so how do you suppose they accomplish this?

 

[DexterMorgan]

We already have proof that the Adelsons are guilty if they covered the original meeting lawyer fees for someone that supposedly helped orchestrate the murder of said family member that lived 5hrs away without being robbed for money while the killers were taking 2 trips out there to kill 1 guy that the actual killers didn't even know nor extorted during the killing.
Jmo.

So let's not act like there's no proof of a Adelson conspiracy

 

[Deleted member 173651]

Does this mean that KM's appeal to reverse the court's bond decision was denied? I looked at the list of abbreviations and did not find "PC" listed.

Isn't Kristen Alana Kawass a new attorney?

 

[Razz]

1. IMO - Meggs' comments won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. and his comments were before LR's testimony and before KM's arrest.
2. you say "CA's attorney is not going to worry about the SA office. Their major focus is to make sure KM does not flip." - so how do you suppose they accomplish this?

Well, we'll see. And so far, KM seems to be ok not saying squat.
It's delay, delay, delay.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[reallybusy]

Isn't Kristen Alana Kawass a new attorney?

I assume that's Tara Kawass, her current attorney. Perhaps she goes by Tara.

 

[Deleted member 173651]

I assume that's Tara Kawass, her current attorney. Perhaps she goes by Tara.

They are different people according to the internet.
https://visulate.com/rental/visulate_search.php?CORP_ID=P13000082435

 

[BSBC]

KM's appeal of the order denying her bail was rejected. The decision reads in its entirety: "The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits."

https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2017/0471/170471_DC02_02282017_122603_i.pdf

 

[reallybusy]

Thank you for getting this.

KM's appeal of the order denying her bail was rejected. The decision reads in its entirety: "The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits."

https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2017/0471/170471_DC02_02282017_122603_i.pdf