Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3,151
How do you delete a post?Duh. That should've been obvious. I'm going to delete my post now.
How do you delete a post?Duh. That should've been obvious. I'm going to delete my post now.
Peter @ the "Lawyer You Know" is an approved source now at WS.
Use the edit function to delete desired text then save.How do you delete a post?
Use the edit function to delete desired text then save.
As you can see, the copy above is deleted but not what I copied from you. Seems you can’t delete everythingUse the edit function to delete desired text then save.
I plan to listen to LYK but I thought there is no statute of limitation on murder. Period.Peter @ the "Lawyer You Know" is an approved source now at WS.
He just made a video on the motion to dismiss a few hours ago.
LIVE! Adelson Says 9 Year Delay Fundamentally Unfair & Her Case Should Be Dismissed. Is She
You're correct.I plan to listen to LYK but I thought there is no statute of limitation on murder. Period.
Sounds like something DA cooked up with all her time to sit around and strategize. Or why didn’t Rash try to play the “nine years later is unfair” card for Charlie?
Oh well, the defense has to file paperwork for every possible loophole they can for a wealthy client. (In a perfect world everyone should have vigorous representation regardless of financial status.) However, claiming delays? Many things were "delayed" for as long as 3 years or more because of Covid. Justice delayed is still justice, of a sort. The hardship it causes the victim's survivors is the real injustice.I plan to listen to LYK but I thought there is no statute of limitation on murder. Period.
Sounds like something DA cooked up with all her time to sit around and strategize. Or why didn’t Rash try to play the “nine years later is unfair” card for Charlie?
If you are planning to appeal, you have to raise every possible issue or it is waived.Oh well, the defense has to file paperwork for every possible loophoe they can for a wealthy client. (In a perfect world everyone should have vigorous representation regardless of financial status.) However, claiming delays? Many things were "delayed" for as long as 3 years or more because of Covid. Justice delayed is still justice, of a sort. The hardship it causes the victim's survivors is the real injustice.
(Just another DA issue/complaint from from facing feigned suicide to whether or not she can keep a spoon/spork.) I've never heard of someone avoiding a murder trial because of long delays in an arrest. If this is the best the defense can do for DA, then the evidence her must be very strong.
I disagree with Tragos.Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)
I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.
I agree. That evidence is important and is very incriminating.I disagree with Tragos.
In my opinion without that exchange, the case against Donna is much weaker, and that is why they are moving to exclude it. There still are the checks and the wiretaps, though, but she could possibly try to explain those away as her doing what her son told her, and then being fearful of a second extortion attempt.
snipped by me for focusI disagree with Tragos.
In my opinion without that exchange, the case against Donna is much weaker, and that is why they are moving to exclude it.
Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)
I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.
We have to remember that YouTube is a business. And taking that position, gets people talking about him, and brings more views.snipped by me for focus
Exactly
I don't think the Def motion is just for the record and for appeal and it's why I added the post above - to raise this issue and why I was hoping Tragos is dead wrong on exclusion being reasonable. ( I didn't want to expand on my thoughts on Tragos' opinions over the years I've followed him and limited it to a ' ! ')
Anyway fingers crossed on that. ( If ' that' is the Defense's main motive via this motion)
I genuinely don't think he's saying that in bad faith or he's motivated by monetisation in that particular opinion. ( Have been a subs there since 2021) I just think, like all lawyers, he has his own individual opinion and often they are at variance to each other. ( Also Tragos is always clear in all his cases that it's his opinion not a prediction and when he gets it wrong he's the first to admit)We have to remember that YouTube is a business. And taking that position, gets people talking about him, and brings more views.
Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)
I can see how my comment was making suggestions. I need to be more careful. And keep things to myself.I genuinely don't think he's saying that in bad faith or he's motivated by monetisation in that particular opinion. ( Have been a subs there since 2021) I just think, like all lawyers, he has his own individual opinion and often they are at variance to each other. ( Also Tragos is always clear in all his cases that it's his opinion not a prediction and when he gets it wrong he's the first to admit)
Anyway, I hope this doesn't happen and the State prevails. Hopefully another Florida-based lawyer will provide commentary
I haven't followed the DM case since 2016 but I if DA does succeed in that specific matter I can imagine those that have - such as those on Thread 1 on WS 2016 - would legitimately feel Pee'd Off.
Again just tbc the specific matter is not about getting whole case dismissed because ' stale', it is as previously posted:
The truth is, strong opinions may be sincere, but they also draw eyeballs, and they’re most definitely not facts. Nobody really knows what a judge is going to decide until he or she decides. And in my experience it is impossible to judge the sufficiency of a motion until you have read and analyzed it thoroughly, including all cases it cites to. Lawyers can offer opinions, but that’s all they are. Even the lawyers involved in the actual case, in my experience, cannot predict what the judge will do, although they probably have some opinion as to the strength of their arguments and the likelihood of success. Judges don’t like to be reversed in appeal, in my opinion, and so with their rulings they generally try to adhere to established law and precedent, as well as to take into account general considerations of fairness to the parties, relevance, and prejudice or likelihood of harm.I can see how my comment was making suggestions. I need to be more careful. And keep things to myself.
I can’t judge anyone else’s intentions.
I have seen with this case, in comments, people saying “so and so” said this or that, and everyone rush to hear firsthand what that attorney said.
A whole group was blocked from a popular channel bc of that. Everyone going on and disagreeing.
But it does happen. I have never gotten through one of his videos so I know nothing about him.
But yes, people are not investing time on a channel to not profit from it.
Of course, the irony is that Rashbaum and Donna are thanking their lucky stars that the Sun Pass and AT&T data is no longer available because it would further sink the defense. While I understand why Rashbaum is making the argument, it’s utter disingenuousness will be plain for the Court to see.The truth is, nobody really knows what a judge is going to decide until he or she decides. And in my experience it is impossible to judge the sufficiency of a motion until you have read and analyzed it thoroughly, including all cases it cites to. Lawyers can offer opinions, but that’s all they are. Even the lawyers involved in the actual case, in my experience, cannot predict what the judge will do, although they probably have some opinion as to the strength of their arguments and the likelihood of success. Judges don’t like to be reversed in appeal, in my opinion, and so with their rulings they generally try to adhere to established law and precedent, as well as to take into account general considerations of fairness to the parties, relevance, and prejudice or likelihood of harm.