Government notes from Dogwalker's infamous day

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:28 pm

ErsatzAnatchist wrote: The obvious sincerity of some of these people in their beliefs compared with the complete lack of reality of those same beliefs. Add in the complete inability to accept any evidence to the contrary and we have an interesting personality issue.

You should look in the mirror sometime.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:53 pm

EliotNess wrote:
ErsatzAnatchist wrote: The obvious sincerity of some of these people in their beliefs compared with the complete lack of reality of those same beliefs. Add in the complete inability to accept any evidence to the contrary and we have an interesting personality issue.
You should look in the mirror sometime.

Ok, so no hyperbole here, nothing offensive. My question is this. Do you believe or think that your brother, Danny, will spend very significant jail time if convicted? If no, why? If yes, why are you not helping to convince him to keep a court appointed lawyer? Do you believe the same as your brother in regards to the B.A.R.?

Lastly, do you care at all that your brother will likely spend the remaining useful years of his life in prison?

Of course, you're under no compulsion to answer these questions, but if you won't then why are you here?

Post by **Quixote** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:10 pm

EliotNess wrote:
ErsatzAnatchist wrote: The obvious sincerity of some of these people in their beliefs compared with the complete lack of reality of those same beliefs. Add in the complete inability to accept any evidence to the contrary and we have an interesting personality issue.
You should look in the mirror sometime.

Wow, the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach. Did that work even in third grade? If you have a point, make it.

The "freedom four" hitched their cart to a delusional loser. They're paying the price for that lapse of judgment. That price could be high or low. It is, to a great extent, thier call. If they stick to their delusions, rather than face reality, the price will be very high indeed.

Post by **jkeeb** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:11 pm

Eliot Ness is going to say little, presumably to hide his ignorance.

The least he could do is get an avatar that looks like Eliot Ness.

Post by **Quixote** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:15 pm

jkeeb wrote:Eliot Ness is going to say little, presumably to hide his ignorance.

The least he could do is get an avatar that looks like Eliot Ness.

Robert Stack or Kevin Kostner? Unfortunately, if the internet can be trusted, that is a photo of Elliot Ness.

Post by **jkeeb** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:24 pm

My Eliot Ness actually fought against Al Capone and the evil Frank Nitti.

His might have poured out some Canadian Mist, but never did much and even tried to dissuade some Washington number cruncher from going on some wild goose chase thinking Al Capone could be nailed for "failure to file".-

Mr. Mephistopheles · Post by **Mr. Mephistopheles** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:28 pm

EliotNess wrote:You are all very smart legal and financial professionals of one form or another and you all seem to have it all pretty much figured out.

Most, anyway.

I don't see an upside to engaging in a futile debate about that.

Translation: "I have no means with which to defend my position so I'll roll over, play dead, and declare victory."

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:36 pm

Quixote wrote:Wow, the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach. Did that work even in third grade? If you have a point, make it.

My point was to highlight the undertow of hypocrisy here.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:38 pm

EliotNess wrote:
Quixote wrote:Wow, the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach. Did that work even in third grade? If you have a point, make it.
My point was to highlight the undertow of hypocrisy here.

God forbid you should actually engage in direct conversation...

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:43 pm

Demosthenes wrote: God forbid you should actually engage in direct conversation...

Conversation is one thing, belittling, maniacal cross examination is another.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:46 pm

EliotNess wrote:
Demosthenes wrote: God forbid you should actually engage in direct conversation...
Conversation is one thing, belittling, maniacal cross examination is another.

Okay, fair enough. What exactly would you like us to have a discussion about?

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:56 pm

Doktor Avalanche wrote: Okay, fair enough. What exactly would you like us to have a discussion about?

Thank you Doctor, lets hope some semblance of decorum can be sustained now. I trust under yours, and the other senior members guidance, it will be, less we be forced into another timeout to let the convulsion pass.

One the subject of Court appointed attorneys. What are your opinions regarding Mark Howard in light of these issues?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2064020/Feder ... m-of-Law-1

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:58 pm

It's already being discussed in a separate thread.

viewtopic.php?t=1914&start=75

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:07 am

One the subject of Court appointed attorneys. What are your opinions regarding Mark Howard in light of these issues?

Many (probably most) criminal defense attorneys are former prosecutors. That is not considered a conflict of interest unless the lawyer worked on the same case as a prosecutor that he is now trying to defend. Besides, Danny knew that Howard was a former prosecutor when he agreed to go to three proffer sessions with him.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:24 am

EliotNess wrote:
Doktor Avalanche wrote: Okay, fair enough. What exactly would you like us to have a discussion about?
Thank you Doctor, lets hope some semblance of decorum can be sustained now. I trust under yours, and the other senior members guidance, it will be, less we be forced into another timeout to let the convulsion pass.

One the subject of Court appointed attorneys. What are your opinions regarding Mark Howard in light of these issues?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2064020/Feder ... m-of-Law-1

My opinion is that your brother is clutching at straws, that he is woefully ignorant of the law, that he is but a beggar to his own demise and that if you an ounce of compassion for him you'd sit him down, set him straight and damn the expenses for competent legal counsel.

Furthermore, it is entirely irrelevant that Mark Howard used to work for the same prosecutor's office that is now trying to prosecute Danny. It's also entirely irrelevant that he knows many of the key players in the case.

Lawyers, cops, judges and prosecutors all know each other both in and outside the court. The case your brother failed to make is that such a relationship was innapropriate somehow; that there was collusion and collaboration involved.

Danny has a right to represent himself in court if he wants to although I can't for the life of me fathom why. What your brother doesn't understand is that his arguments before the court are the same tired, old chestnuts that have been dusted off and recycled many times over with the same disastrous results.

Calling himself "sui juris" and "sovereign" is not panacea, rarely impresses the court and will most likely dig him a deeper hole.

Now if you go away dissapointed with my assesment please understand that I'm actually trying to help you help Danny do the right thing.

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:43 am

Doktor Avalanche wrote:Now if you go away dissapointed with my assesment please understand that I'm actually trying to help you help Danny do the right thing.

On the contrary, I appreciate your politeness and your candor. If Danny were to turn the reigns over to his standby attorney what would be your approach to this case?

Post by **wserra** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:47 am

EliotNess wrote:If Danny were to turn the reigns over to his standby attorney what would be your approach to this case?

No one here can answer that. But the approach would not be to waste time with nonsense which has zero chance of success, either at trial or on appeal.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:51 am

EliotNess wrote:
Doktor Avalanche wrote:[Now if you go away dissapointed with my assesment please understand that I'm actually trying to help you help Danny do the right thing.
On the contrary, I appreciate your politeness and your candor. If Danny were to turn to reigns over to his standby attorney what would be your approach to this case?

I'm not an attorney but if I were Danny I'd shut my mouth, stop filing those "sui juris" and "sovereign" arguments, let anything that needs to be said to me said through him, press my attorney to try and work a deal for some reduced time (because I think we've long passed the threshold that Danny is going to get off scott free), stop trying to school the judiciary on what the concepts of law and jurisdiction are, drop the pretense that I am not a citizen of the United States and cooperate with the authorities as much as possible.

Your brother is in a heap of trouble, Mr. Riley - but you already know that. The only thing for it now is damage control.

EliotNess · Post by **EliotNess** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:58 am

wserra wrote:
EliotNess wrote:If Danny were to turn the reigns over to his standby attorney what would be your approach to this case?
No one here can answer that. But the approach would not be to waste time with nonsense which has zero chance of success, either at trial or on appeal.

Surely one can answer in the hypothetical, beyond the standard cop a plea response?

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:59 am

EliotNess wrote:
wserra wrote:
EliotNess wrote:If Danny were to turn the reigns over to his standby attorney what would be your approach to this case?
No one here can answer that. But the approach would not be to waste time with nonsense which has zero chance of success, either at trial or on appeal.
Surely one can answer in the hypothetical, beyond the standard cop a plea response?

No, one can't.

This is the way it is, Mr. Riley. Not the way we would like it to be.