More Dog Walker Briefs

[The Observer]

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his writ of mandamus based upon the lack of jurisdiction argument advanced by DW, Joe Haas partly based on the Larry Becraft brief.

Where does the court get off denying the omnipotent writ of mandamus? Don't those BAR guys know that when they receive a writ, they have to give up?

[grixit]

A new filing from Daniel Riley, "not sui juris repeat not sui juris".

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley249.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley249-1.pdf

So now just knowing about a case is a conflict of interest. Also, he complains about being assigned a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor. Is that bad? What about those tp organizations that brag about having ex prosecutors and ex IRS people on their staff?

[grixit]

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his writ of mandamus based upon the lack of jurisdiction argument advanced by DW, Joe Haas partly based on the Larry Becraft brief.

Where does the court get off denying the omnipotent writ of mandamus? Don't those BAR guys know that when they receive a writ, they have to give up?

Ah, but it wasn't accompanied by an Affidavit of Truth.

[Demosthenes]

So now just knowing about a case is a conflict of interest. Also, he complains about being assigned a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor. Is that bad? What about those tp organizations that brag about having ex prosecutors and ex IRS people on their staff?

Danny was very lucky in his original attorney appointment. Too bad he blew it.

Someone who used to be a prosecutor is a good thing; he knows how the government lawyers think and act. Someone who knows the actual prosecutors on the case? That's another positive since he knows their weaknesses and when they're likely to be bluffing. Someone who has a brother who is an appellate judge? That's irrelevant since that judge would be conflicted out if his brother is the defense attorney.

Danyy's perceived conflicts were mostly factors that made his lawyer a valuable asset.

[EliotNess]

So now just knowing about a case is a conflict of interest. Also, he complains about being assigned a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor. Is that bad? What about those tp organizations that brag about having ex prosecutors and ex IRS people on their staff?

Danny was very lucky in his original attorney appointment. Too bad he blew it.

Someone who used to be a prosecutor is a good thing; he knows how the government lawyers think and act. Someone who knows the actual prosecutors on the case? That's another positive since he knows their weaknesses and when they're likely to be bluffing. Someone who has a brother who is an appellate judge? That's irrelevant since that judge would be conflicted out if his brother is the defense attorney.

Danyy's perceived conflicts were mostly factors that made his lawyer a valuable asset.

This premise or this argument assumes that the attorney would act in the defendants best interest at all times as defined by the defendant. If the client has lost faith or suspects the attorney is not acting is his or her best interest then the attorney client relationship becomes hopelessly compromised and unproductive.

[Dezcad]

Danny was very lucky in his original attorney appointment. Too bad he blew it.

Someone who used to be a prosecutor is a good thing; he knows how the government lawyers think and act. Someone who knows the actual prosecutors on the case? That's another positive since he knows their weaknesses and when they're likely to be bluffing. Someone who has a brother who is an appellate judge? That's irrelevant since that judge would be conflicted out if his brother is the defense attorney.

Danyy's perceived conflicts were mostly factors that made his lawyer a valuable asset.

This premise or this argument assumes that the attorney would act in the defendants best interest at all times as defined by the defendant.

And that is what is woefully missing from all of DW's motions - how did Mark Howard "not" act in DW's best interest?

[Nikki]

On the other hand, you could have a client who who is so clueless as to the actual functioning and procedures of the legal system that he is incapable of understanding that his lawyer is actually acting in his best interest.

Nah. That's too rediculous to even imagine.

[Demosthenes]

So now just knowing about a case is a conflict of interest. Also, he complains about being assigned a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor. Is that bad? What about those tp organizations that brag about having ex prosecutors and ex IRS people on their staff?

Danny was very lucky in his original attorney appointment. Too bad he blew it.

Someone who used to be a prosecutor is a good thing; he knows how the government lawyers think and act. Someone who knows the actual prosecutors on the case? That's another positive since he knows their weaknesses and when they're likely to be bluffing. Someone who has a brother who is an appellate judge? That's irrelevant since that judge would be conflicted out if his brother is the defense attorney.

Danyy's perceived conflicts were mostly factors that made his lawyer a valuable asset.

This premise or this argument assumes that the attorney would act in the defendants best interest at all times as defined by the defendant. If the client has lost faith or suspects the attorney is not acting is his or her best interest then the attorney client relationship becomes hopelessly compromised and unproductive.

Danny has provided no evidence in his motion that that is the case. Instead, he's wasting his valuable pre-trial time with filings about non-existent conflicts or interest and who knows what else.

Instead of focusing on his problems with how he handled his past attorney, Danny needs to get serious about working cooperatively with his new attorney. An attorney can say stuff that Danny can't say. An attorney knows what will work and what is a waste of time.

[wserra]

This premise or this argument assumes that the attorney would act in the defendants best interest at all times as defined by the defendant.

Lawyers have no reason not to act in their clients' best interest. Court-appointed lawyers (at least in federal courts) actually frequently have more freedom to represent their clients than retained, since money isn't an object. Frequently, however, defendants don't know what is in their own best interest. (Their families generally know even less.) BTW, defendants don't get to do things like determine tactics or direct certain motions to be made so long as they are represented. They can always make the basic decisions - whether to plead, whether to testify, whether to represent themselves (so long as they are competent). But the decisions on tactics belong to counsel.

If the client has lost faith or suspects the attorney is not acting is his or her best interest then the attorney client relationship becomes hopelessly compromised and unproductive.

Were that the standard, many cases would devolve into an unending string of attorney substitutions. It doesn't work that way.

Haven't seen a lot in federal court, have you? If you are in fact Riley's brother, do you think you're the best one to advise him about a venue of which you know so little?

[EliotNess]

Haven't seen a lot in federal court, have you? If you are in fact Riley's brother, do you think you're the best one to advise him about a venue of which you know so little?

No, and hopefully I won't ever see a federal court room, unless I'm the plaintiff.

[EliotNess]

I am sorry if that sounds harsh or cold, but anyone who repeatedly rejects reason and a prudent course of action, especially while awaiting Federal charges, has only themselves to blame for what results and I have no pity or compassion for those people.

Thank you Captain.

[EliotNess]

(and after you whup him upside the head with the Gideon's Bible)

Actually, I prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible, but I digress.