It was the wrong thread

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I have gone commando for years, but I wonder if should retroactively bill my former clients for the silk lining in all of my trousers???

nice tease in an otherwise typical example of bad journalism. where are the details?!?!!?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

nice tease in an otherwise typical example of bad journalism. where are the details?!?!!?

It's the ABA Journal...crap by definition, no?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

It's the ABA Journal...crap by definition, no?

Crap stolen from the crap LA Times

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Crap stolen from the crap LA Times

When I moved to LA back in the early 90s, the LAT was what inspired me to give up my daily print newspaper read. Its toilet paper. But triple ply compared to what has been and still gets put out in most other American cities (excepting NY and DC).

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jus...-gloves,19987/

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jus...-gloves,19987/

This reminds me of a funny scalia photoshoppe i have in my files.....lol

[LessinSF]

Cormac Carney, weak-ass Federal Judge here in CA, finds that the DOJ (attorney David Hardy in particular) lied to him and defended itself under the theory that it can deceive the Court in the interest of national security, and DOES NOTHING. http://www.mainjustice.com/files/201...rney-Order.pdf

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Cormac Carney, weak-ass Federal Judge here in CA, finds that the DOJ (attorney David Hardy in particular) lied to him and defended itself under the theory that it can deceive the Court in the interest of national security, and DOES NOTHING. http://www.mainjustice.com/files/201...rney-Order.pdf

One would think that at least referral for bar discipline would be in order. Perhaps the ACLU will take care of that.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Cormac Carney, weak-ass Federal Judge here in CA, finds that the DOJ (attorney David Hardy in particular) lied to him and defended itself under the theory that it can deceive the Court in the interest of national security, and DOES NOTHING. http://www.mainjustice.com/files/201...rney-Order.pdf

Where does it say David M. Hardy is a lawyer? Clients lie, and when the judge says "the Government" misled the court, he doesn't necessarily mean the AUSA -- he means the DOJ.

Also, I've seen the mischief that can be caused when a judge determines on the limited record presented in a trial that an attorney committed misconduct. Trial court judges are sometimes wrong about what happened in the world because we keep them in the dark and feed them shit for the purpose of growing mushrooms.

DOJ might have done serious wrong here but the plausible non-shitty alternatives haven't been ruled out. Maybe that's why no Rule 11.

ETA: "The notion that Congress would implicitly authorize an agency to mislead one branch of government and, at the same time, expressly prohibit withholding information from another co-equal branch is illogical." All I can say is LOL.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Where does it say David M. Hardy is a lawyer? Clients lie, and when the judge says "the Government" misled the court, he doesn't necessarily mean the AUSA -- he means the DOJ.

Also, I've seen the mischief that can be caused when a judge determines on the limited record presented in a trial that an attorney committed misconduct. Trial court judges are sometimes wrong about what happened in the world because we keep them in the dark and feed them shit for the purpose of growing mushrooms.

DOJ might have done serious wrong here but the plausible non-shitty alternatives haven't been ruled out. Maybe that's why no Rule 11.

ETA: "The notion that Congress would implicitly authorize an agency to mislead one branch of government and, at the same time, expressly prohibit withholding information from another co-equal branch is illogical." All I can say is LOL.

You are right - "David M. Hardy, Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division at the FBI" was the perjurer (putting aside any DOJ attorneys who were in on it.)

ETA: I have been in courts that interpret Rule 11 (Fed and following State courts like WA and NV) to mean that the attorney herself by signing a pleading is representing that they have done an adequate independent investigation of the facts alleged by their clients/declarants such that they are not merely signing off on a fraud on the court. I have seen relatively severe sanctions imposed on attorneys who "just took their client's word" at face value as to making an allegation, subject to be proved or disproved, and the language of the rule supports the position, to wit: that "to the best of the [attorney's] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" ...

i.e. you have a duty to try, reasonably, to figure out if your client is lying before you put it in a pleading and have them sign a dec. Here, I suspect Mr. Hardy would have told the DOJ (had they asked) that he was a lying sack of shit ( I also believe they knew it when they drafted his Dec.) Ergo, Rule 11 sanctions, if not bar discilpine, by any judge with a set of balls or sense of ethics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

You are right - "David M. Hardy, Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division at the FBI" was the perjurer (putting aside any DOJ attorneys who were in on it.)

ETA: I have been in courts that interpret Rule 11 (Fed and following State courts like WA and NV) to mean that the attorney herself by signing a pleading is representing that they have done an adequate independent investigation of the facts alleged by their clients/declarants such that they are not merely signing off on a fraud on the court. I have seen relatively severe sanctions imposed on attorneys who "just took their client's word" at face value as to making an allegation, subject to be proved or disproved, and the language of the rule supports the position, to wit: that "to the best of the [attorney's] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" ...

i.e. you have a duty to try, reasonably, to figure out if your client is lying before you put it in a pleading and have them sign a dec. Here, I suspect Mr. Hardy would have told the DOJ (had they asked) that he was a lying sack of shit ( I also believe they knew it when they drafted his Dec.) Ergo, Rule 11 sanctions, if not bar discilpine, by any judge with a set of balls or sense of ethics.

The Obama White House operates Gitmo prison in the Face of contrary orders from Article 3 Courts. Why do you think it would give a shit if some Judge sanctioned DOJ? the offender would probably be promoted.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Obama White House operates Gitmo prison in the Face of contrary orders from Article 3 Courts.

Cite?

[Adder]

Anyone have a local counsel recommendation for a litigator in Baltimore?

Please assume Maurice Levy is conflicted out.

[Fugee]

Maybe it's a Cheesehead thing, but I've never heard the phrase this judge used.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/judge...ng-jock-strap/

I'm not even sure what it means.

[Hank Chinaski]

and you know some associate who has to sit quietly at the counsel table had to draft this, and he knew he was threatening to ruin the only thing that made his time there bearable.