Actually looking at it again, and reading through all of those exibits I have a few more questions and thoughts.
- OK not only am I wondering if this didn't blow away the A's attorney client privilege with MN... what does this do to it with regards to Brad Conway? I mean there are obviously private communications between BC and CA in JB's filing? There are references to and possibly false hearsay claims involving events and actions of which BC was a first person direct participant, and for which he can be called for the truth of the matter. All of the claims regarding the waiver and his being allowed to search the files and such. Since CA obviously had direct discussions with a third party JB, concerning GC's actions on their behalf, does that not now open him up to cross examination, both by Mr. Nejame, and by the SA? Or am I overreaching here?
- JB added a rather nasty and scandalous series of e-mails as an exibit, that clearly show him sending all of this to the news media. AND THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO A MOTION OF BAD FAITH!?!?!?! I mean the entirety of the motion is just mindblowing? But Exibit C is simply the worst. I don't think MN has to actually make an oral argument. He simply has to submit this entire filing as plaintiff exibit A, and say 'see! this is what I am talking about!". I mean really in this instance MN should consider paying JB for doing all of this hard work for him. :woohoo::waitasec:
- One of his exibits is a badly typed, unsigned, unnotarized statement, not under oath of any sort, from someone who is not his client, and is rather a prior client of the opposing council. Oooo! That's gonna work out well! :waitasec:
- He sends what is now a state paid investigator for the defense to investigate the supposed "book deal" of MN. Not only is this a horrible horrible act of bad faith in and of itself (imagine the stink if MN had sent investigators to look into those ABC deals with JB, on TES's dime?) But the document attached causes all sorts of issues for JB. Yeah, while Mr. Lohr's statements do indicate that MN was looking to write a book down the road. His statements also seem to reflect that said book was A. centered on TES involvement in the case, B. was going to support a charitable organization TES (so no direct profit motive for MN), and C. leaves the impression that yes, the A's were aware of any said book from the word go, and that it was likely part of their compensation deal for MN's services. Remember he did not enter into an arrangement with them Pro Bono. Further while it is incredibly illegal and unethical for a criminal defense lawyer to enter into any sort of contingency deal in Florida (gee wonder how JB got past that one?) it is perfectly legal, ethical and acceptable to do so for civil matters, such as press representation. So he is hauling another lawyers compensation deals out in public in order to argue against his bad faith actions? Oh my? Isn't that a huge huge nono among lawyers? :nono: You don't get involved in another lawyers compensation? I seem to recall there was some shock earlier when the SA had the temerity to ask about JB's dealings?
- Oh but wait. That signed affidavit from Mr. Lohr. It gets better. Read it. While it introduces a potential book deal with MN, it does huge damage to one of the core elements of the defenses case. Mr. Lohr was an on site first person witness on Suburban drive on the days that TES went to search it. He is a corroborating witness for everything that TES and the state have said about the search conditions, and TES not being able to search because of water. He tells the exact same story that is documented in the TES search reports and TM's testimony. This is a witness that the SA may not have even been aware of, and was certainly not on their witness lists. Since he was located and interviewed by the defense he is one that they would not have known about. His statement would not necessarily have been discoverable (the defense does not have to turn over evidence that proves the states case, that they discover)... UNTIL JB SUBMITTED IT IN A NONSENSE FILING!!! The only signed, sworn document in this filing, is the one that shoots down his primary defense theory in flames, and further disproves the initial arguments he makes in the filing itself. Am I missing something here? Is there some actual legal methodology or strategy behind this filing? Is there something brilliant here that I am just not seeing? or is it really this bad? :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
