bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 9,250
- Reaction score
- 68,678
Exactly! Precedent setting.This case is bigger than some may think.. this could change the way the 5th amendment is interpreted.
Exactly! Precedent setting.This case is bigger than some may think.. this could change the way the 5th amendment is interpreted.
Agree. Judge is not making this appearance easy on Laundries atty who is clearly arguing case on constitutional rights.MOO - the Judge is not dismissing this case.
I didn't realize the judge must assume that the facts claimed by the plaintiff's are true in this motion to dismiss. With that in mind I think he will allow this case go to trial. JMO.
The question by the Judge about what crime the Laundries committed that made using the 5th amendment valid. Is he saying the defendants must show they committed a criminal act?
Is there a chance case will ultimately require representation by constitutional attorneys, or is that a stretch?
Isn't the source of the statement made by the Laundries lawyer protected by attorney client privilege. Will the lawyer be forced to testify about his communication with his clients?
Does anyone know offhand the date that the statement was made by Bertolino that they keep referencing in this hearing?