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

[Montrealaise]

Here's the problem with this taking so long, those two boys are with them and if DA is bad-mouthing their father to them, that is going to hurt them psychologically. They loved their father and know they are part of him. I hope Dan's parents and sister can become part of their life if Wendi is found innocent. They need to hear Dan's side. The Markels must be going crazy waiting on this.

As a family law practitioner, I can guess that nobody in the Adelson family is talking to the boys about their father in any way. The reason parental alienators bad-mouth the other parent is to turn the children against him so that they will eventually refuse to see him. If the parent is deceased, there`s no reason to do that. WA changed the boys' names and it wouldn't surprise me if she has been trying to completely erase their memories of him by making sure nobody mentions him to them. Remember, they were only 4 and 5 when he was killed.

 

[nancydrew71]

As a family law practitioner, I can guess that nobody in the Adelson family is talking to the boys about their father in any way. The reason parental alienators bad-mouth the other parent is to turn the children against him so that they will eventually refuse to see him. If the parent is deceased, there`s no reason to do that. WA changed the boys' names and it wouldn't surprise me if she has been trying to completely erase their memories of him by making sure nobody mentions him to them. Remember, they were only 4 and 5 when he was killed.

Yes, but eventually the boys are going to find out who killed their father. What are they going to give for a reason?

 

[Gaius]

Today 2/27/2017 was the initial jury trial’s date for Katherine Magbanua. Due to the snafu of alleged prison confession and/or espionage, KM now got a big reprieve. Judge HANKINSON ordered a PRE-TRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT in 5/1/2017, which is 14 weeks away.
According to a local, the “educated guess” is that on 2/24/2017, Judge HANKINSON’s ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE benefits KM and her lawyers. It appears that the judge orders the State to show cause because the judge needs more compelling information before deciding whether or not to issue an order requested by the State praying for inquiry into possible lawyer fees’ related CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
Since the judge ordered the PRE-TRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT of Sigfredo Garcia to be on 4/3/2017, it appears that the accused are getting a lot of “fair” treatments from the court.

 

[GordonX]

>Magbanua called her attorney, Kawass, the day she was arrested...Within 20 minutes, while investigators still sat in the parking lot where Magbanua was taken into custody, Charlie Adelson’s attorney David Markus called TPD investigators asking to be notified of a warrant to arrest his client.

>DeCoste and Markus have offices in the same Miami building.

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...rs-whos-paying-magbanuas-legal-fees/98195276/

 

[rsc42]

This has seriously zero significance re unethical behavior by attorneys. It is literally lawyers doing their job.

>Magbanua called her attorney, Kawass, the day she was arrested...Within 20 minutes, while investigators still sat in the parking lot where Magbanua was taken into custody, Charlie Adelson’s attorney David Markus called TPD investigators asking to be notified of a warrant to arrest his client.

>DeCoste and Markus have offices in the same Miami building.

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...rs-whos-paying-magbanuas-legal-fees/98195276/

 

[Razz]

This has seriously zero significance re unethical behavior by attorneys. It is literally lawyers doing their job.

I do find it interesting that shortly after or before KM is put in handcuffs, CA's attorney calls the prosecutor's office in Tallahassee
and requests he be given notice about any upcoming arrest of his client. I think CA's attorney may have been fearful that his client was next. So, unless the arrest was televised, how did he know KM had been arrested?

I have 5 siblings. They love me and would probably do what they could to help me in a situation
like KM's....but...there is no way they'd be dipping in their savings or IRAs to help pay for expensive attorneys. In fact, they would highly suggest I use the public defender.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[rsc42]

My point is that even if it is entirely true that KM's attorney tipped off CA's attorney about the arrest, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

I do find it interesting that shortly after or before KM is put in handcuffs, CA's attorney calls the prosecutor's office in Tallahassee
and requests he be given notice about any upcoming arrest of his client. I think CA's attorney may have been fearful that his client was next. So, unless the arrest was televised, how did he know KM had been arrested?

I have 5 siblings. They love me and would probably do what they could to help me in a situation
like KM's....but...there is no way they'd be dipping in their savings or IRAs to help pay for expensive attorneys. In fact, they would highly suggest I use the public defender.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[86Violet]

This has seriously zero significance re unethical behavior by attorneys. It is literally lawyers doing their job.

Agreed, totally. But it does make it seem like as soon as KM was arrested, CA knew it was only a matter of time for him too.

 

[rsc42]

Absolutely, and it's perfectly rational of him and his attorney to think that and to want to be prepared for it.

Agreed, totally. But it does make it seem like as soon as KM was arrested, CA knew it was only a matter of time for him too.

 

[GordonX]

IMO it was the puppets reporting back to their master and benefactor. all will be revealed soon!

 

[Twister]

My point is that even if it is entirely true that KM's attorney tipped off CA's attorney about the arrest, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

Maybe nothing wrong with that legally/ethically/morally, but it does show a connection between KM and CA, through their attorneys, which, while maybe not on its own evidence of their shared guilt, to me is another small thread woven into the quilt of circumstantial evidence. Like it or not.

I have to point out, CA's brother-in-law, the beloved father of his two young nephews, was brutally murdered. A woman he knows and probably dated is under suspicion for having something to do with causing that murder.

If CA were completely innocent, knew nothing about this murder plot beforehand, and learned after the fact (to his horror, if he were innocent, even if he hated Dan, because this is murder) that his friend/ex-girlfriend KM might have set up the murder and caused his family such grief? One would think he would be champing at the bit for KM to face justice for the hell she visited upon his innocent nephews, having lost their father in such a violent way.

Instead, CA has an attorney working hand-in-hand with KM, seemingly. Instead, CA was having conversations with KM, seemingly working with her to thwart law enforcement's efforts to solve this murder.

Sure seems like one more thing pointing toward his guilt, not away from his guilt.

Some might think it doesn't point toward his guilt, okay. The lawyers are just doing their jobs. But I believe it's not how an innocent CA (or the lawyer for an innocent CA) would behave, not at all.

 

[Razz]

My point is that even if it is entirely true that KM's attorney tipped off CA's attorney about the arrest, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

Yes, but to my 2nd point....immediate family paying attorney fees? Why would anyone in their right mind shell out money
and go into financial hardship, knowing they'll never get their money back only to have their children's and their financial future go to heck while KM could have a court appointed defense attorney who probably knows the ins and outs of Tallahassee judges and court procedures better than any high priced Miami attorneys that wobble in their stilettos?

I don't buy it for a second. Sorry sis, (KM) we'll take care of your kiddos but the rest?! No way, no how.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[rsc42]

Maybe nothing wrong with that legally/ethically/morally, but it does show a connection between KM and CA, through their attorneys, which, while maybe not on its own evidence of their shared guilt, to me is another small thread woven into the quilt of circumstantial evidence. Like it or not.

I have to point out, CA's brother-in-law, the beloved father of his two young nephews, was brutally murdered. A woman he knows and probably dated is under suspicion for having something to do with causing that murder.

If CA were completely innocent, knew nothing about this murder plot beforehand, and learned after the fact (to his horror, if he were innocent, even if he hated Dan, because this is murder) that his friend/ex-girlfriend KM might have set up the murder and caused his family such grief? One would think he would be champing at the bit for KM to face justice for the hell she visited upon his innocent nephews, having lost their father in such a violent way.

Instead, CA has an attorney working hand-in-hand with KM, seemingly. Instead, CA was having conversations with KM, seemingly working with her to thwart law enforcement's efforts to solve this murder.

Sure seems like one more thing pointing toward his guilt, not away from his guilt.

Some might think it doesn't point toward his guilt, okay. The lawyers are just doing their jobs. But I believe it's not how an innocent CA (or the lawyer for an innocent CA) would behave, not at all.

Respectfully, you're sort of preaching to the choir. What I said related only to the implication of the lawyers behaving unethically, not my opinion re culpability. The fact that they are in the same building, the fact that one likely referred the other, and even the fact that KM's attorneys may have tipped off CA's attorney about KM's arrest so that CA's attorney could get out ahead of things in case CA's own arrest was imminent, none of those are unethical or otherwise indicative of anything.

Otherwise, my defense attorney background notwithstanding, I am very much on the same page with most in this thread as far as my opinion of what really happened in this case. But any inference of guilt that can be derived from the way the attorneys were hired is so far from being legally relevant and admissible at trial that it is a complete non-starter of an issue. It is perfectly reasonable for us to talk about it on here and what it means from a common sense standpoint. But the prosecution would never even be allowed to even hint to a jury anything regarding the parties' lawyers and what it might mean.

 

[rsc42]

People will literally wipe out bank accounts or take out a loans against a 401k to help a loved one hire a lawyer for a DUI.

Yes, but to my 2nd point....immediate family paying attorney fees? Why would anyone in their right mind shell out money
and go into financial hardship, knowing they'll never get their money back only to have their children's and their financial future go to heck while KM could have a court appointed defense attorney who probably knows the ins and outs of Tallahassee judges and court procedures better than any high priced Miami attorneys that wobble in their stilettos?

I don't buy it for a second. Sorry sis, (KM) we'll take care of your kiddos but the rest?! No way, no how.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[GordonX]

Respectfully, you're sort of preaching to the choir. What I said related only to the implication of the lawyers behaving unethically, not my opinion re culpability. The fact that they are in the same building, the fact that one likely referred the other, and even the fact that KM's attorneys may have tipped off CA's attorney about KM's arrest so that CA's attorney could get out ahead of things in case CA's own arrest was imminent, none of those are unethical or otherwise indicative of anything.

Otherwise, my defense attorney background notwithstanding, I am very much on the same page with most in this thread as far as my opinion of what really happened in this case. But any inference of guilt that can be derived from the way the attorneys were hired is so far from being legally relevant and admissible at trial that it is a complete non-starter of an issue. It is perfectly reasonable for us to talk about it on here and what it means from a common sense standpoint. But the prosecution would never even be allowed to even hint to a jury anything regarding the parties' lawyers and what it might mean.

would you see anything wrong IF an alleged mastermind(s) was paying the legal fees of an alleged co-conspirator?

 

[rsc42]

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.

would you see anything wrong IF an alleged mastermind(s) was paying the legal fees of an alleged co-conspirator?

 

[GordonX]

IMO -

1. all attorneys involved in this case are savvy enough to make sure they have plausible deniability IF there are some ethical lines being crossed here. it's really not that hard. we are not talking about a very complicated or provable tangible conspiracy here - it's simply a very subtle communication at the referral that "we have a client for you that under no circumstances wants to plead guilty if and when she is ever arrested" - (wink and nod).
2. i don't believe that KM's attorneys did ANY real due diligence (asking for documented proof) on the origins of any fee payments from her "Immediate Family" prior to this Motion. why would they have? they had no legal obligation to do so nor did they want to know the answer. now they might actually have to show proof of the origins of those funds for the Court.
3. i can see a very possible scenario where the Mastermind(s) gave the "Immediate Family" a briefcase filled with say $100,000 cash for legal fees. walk into a hotel room in Miami with a briefcase, walk out empty handed. then small cash deposits into various accounts. Where have we seen that alleged before? (sarcasm). the Court needs to see proof of the origins of those funds.
4. i find it very interesting that DeCoste inaccurately cried "attorney-client privilege" when David Lat asked him about the origins of those funds months ago. but now he's quick to tell the media "Immediate Family" after the Motion was filed.
5. at minimum, there is at least the appearance of impropriety here.
6. i really want to read that Motion. and i really want to read KM's attorneys' response. until then, it's all just speculation.

 

[rsc42]

Simple. He has no obligation to disclose any information to a journalist, let alone information that might be confidential or privileged, and in fact he is ethically obligated not to respond to those inquiries. In court its a different matter altogether. Once a motion gets filed, disclosure of what might otherwise be confidential information is permitted to the extent that it is necessary for the representation. They're accused of a conflict of interest, they respond with why it's not.

IMO -
4. i find it very interesting that DeCoste inaccurately cried "attorney-client privilege" when David Lat asked him about the origins of those funds months ago. but now he's quick to tell the media "Immediate Family" after the Motion was filed.

 

[GordonX]

Simple. He has no obligation to disclose any information to a journalist, let alone information that might be confidential or privileged, and in fact he is ethically obligated not to respond to those inquiries. In court its a different matter altogether. Once a motion gets filed, disclosure of what might otherwise be confidential information is permitted to the extent that it is necessary for the representation. They're accused of a conflict of interest, they respond with why it's not.

both instances were the media, not the Court.

 

[reallybusy]

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.