- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
JCPenny Lawyer lmao.
In reality I don’t want to disrespect the guy, but it’s too memeable to let slide.
In reality I don’t want to disrespect the guy, but it’s too memeable to let slide.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. That's not really a bad thing though. The best attorney in the Vic case, Sam Johnson, was one. I think people are too unkind to strip mall lawyers. These people can't all work out of ivory towers.You mean he's a strip mall lawyer?
Case dismissed because he didn't file a response to a motion to dismiss for five and a half months.Looks like he's ANOTHER family friend lawyer. On a docket with Barnes back in December last year.
does this mean it has become evidence and will now be part of the public documentation?
Would Nick be bold enough to post the bodycam footage ahead of Null? TRY THAT GRIFT?Defendant's Demand for Disclosure - for Nick. Kayla's has not been posted yet.
View attachment 6085053
View attachment 6085055
View attachment 6085056
View attachment 6085058
Yep. Called it.Nick hired a Twitter balldoguard
View attachment 6085230View attachment 6085231View attachment 6085232
You know what is paying for those law firms in palatial buildings with lawns manicured like fucking Buckingham Palace? Your fees. They're paying for that shit instead of your representation.Yes. That's not really a bad thing though. The best attorney in the Vic case, Sam Johnson, was one. I think people are too unkind to strip mall lawyers. These people can't all work out of ivory towers.
That said, unless he was already being paid at this point (or was seeking the representation), these tweets somewhat erode my esteem.Going full on with the Barnes (esque) defense.
He just made 5 posts, got 1 like and forgot about it. Here they are from oldest to most recent one:Anyone post what's on his attorney's Locals?
I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?Yep. Called it.
Going full on with the Barnes (esque) defense.
This probably ain't gonna be over any time soon. Settle in.
I will just point out that this is also the first step in the dream of Pro Hac Vice Barnes going constitutional and speaking truth to power in small town Minnesota.Looks like he's ANOTHER family friend lawyer. On a docket with Barnes back in December last year.
All that means is that the evidence the state found can be used at trial. So yes, he's fucked.I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?
That's not how it works. Invoking one defense doesn't preclude a other. The plan, I assume, is to attack the warrant on 4th Amendment grounds, and when he inevitably loses, try to win that argument in an interlocutory appeal while using some other defense for the rest of it. He's also likely going to try to attack specific items of evidence or specific witnesses to get them tossed.I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?
Thanks for the breakdown. I don't see how he's winning if the initial defense of "the evidence doesn't count" doesn't cut it since everything else was found in his house and seems to have little in the way of angles to work for defense, but I'm sure glad that's not MY problem to figure out.That's not how it works. Invoking one defense doesn't preclude a other. The plan, I assume, is to attack the warrant on 4th Amendment grounds, and when he inevitably loses, try to win that argument in an interlocutory appeal while using some other defense for the rest of it. He's also likely going to try to attack specific items of evidence or specific witnesses to get them tossed.
Basically, if he really goes to the mat on this one, he's going to attack every individual piece of evidence from every procedural angle while simultaneously offering different, and probably contradictory, defenses as to why he did get found with the stuff.
But you know why that's so cool? Because it's so rare.One of my favorite law faculty was this kind of practitioner, from some fourth-tier law school, and he had tons of war stories about how he loved handing some Harvard faggot his own ass. (And his record spoke for itself. He wasn't just boasting.)
No. You're attacking the warrant on how it came to be, not on whether it ultimately had an accurate outcome. Because bad warrant = nothing from it can be evidence so no legal case. Remember, it's not always about literal truth but about provability and probity.I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?