Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

[Grapeshot]

Maybe the dog ate it.

Is there anything normal, routine, proper, by the book in this entire comedy of errors?

 

[sidestreet]

Well, it sorta figures doesn't it...,

now the "security" is AWOL, CA hasn't been in, clerks out..., and the Skid just had to pick the one day that everyone was in!!!

Uh, no Grape ol' buddy, we didn't say the dog ate it, we said it's gone to the dogs!!!

I guess Peter will have to bring Zeus along to make'em kack it back up!!! EEEWWWW, what a mess!!!

sidestreet

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

 

[peter nap]

There's more to the story, I'll get back after I confirm some things with the Supreme Court.:uhoh:

 

[Blk97F150]

I told her that Charlene had paper clipped it to the outside of Paul's file but if they had lost it, I had a datestamped copy I could bring for their records.

That is too cool. You providing the court with the records that they are supposed to have!!

 

[peter nap]

OK, I have part of it anyway.

This motion was filed a week ago as of yesterday.
When I called back at 11:00 today, Charlene answered and said she couldn't put it on the docket because the computers were down to the Supreme court.

I mentioned that they seemed to have a lot of trouble with the computers and she said they were down for most of the courts but the motion was scheduled to be heard on the 9:00 docket on the 17th.

I called the Supreme Court and spoke to one of their service team members. They are not certain the system is down but they did call Surry who said the computers were up and down all week.

The Supreme Court is verifying the times the system has been down (Outage Report) and will get back with me.

NOT THAT I THINK SOMETHING IS FISHY....I'm just trying to be thorough.

 

[ixtow]

My 22 years of experience in IT has taught me that one can be 99.998% certain that "The computers are down" really means "We're too stupid to figure out how it works."

0.001% is deliberate obfuscation.

The last 0.001% is actual problems with the system.

I'm willing to bet it's door number 2 for this one...

 

[grylnsmn]

My 22 years of experience in IT has taught me that one can be 99.998% certain that "The computers are down" really means "We're too stupid to figure out how it works."

0.001% is deliberate obfuscation.

The last 0.001% is actual problems with the system.

I'm willing to bet it's door number 2 for this one...

I don't know about that. If they're running windows, that last number should be a bit higher. :cuss:

Of course, I'm a UNIX/Linux admin, so I might be biased. :dude:

 

[ixtow]

Of course, I'm a UNIX/Linux admin, so I might be biased. :dude:

I <3 Gentoo. ;-)

 

[Grapeshot]

Another hearing on motions in Surry on Tuesday, May 17th, I believe at 9:30 AM

Hope that certain FOIA requests just might be in hand by then.

It has been strongly suggested that anyone subject to breaking out in big uncontrollable grins and loud gafaws might want to get their botox injections before attending.

Also to remind some of our more stalwart friends, long pants are required in the court room.

 

[user]

That is too cool. You providing the court with the records that they are supposed to have!!

No joke! That's the reason for having them. I remember when the Arlington Co. Circuit Court caught on fire (reminds me of the movie, Joe Kidd: "One day, one day, there was a fire..."). A lot of the files had to be rebuilt from attorneys' copies of documents.

Last time they didn't want something to be in the court's records at Surry GDC, the mail kept getting diverted from the Surry P.O. to other towns. That's why everything is hand-delivered these days. I wonder whether Mr. Poindexter is familiar with these provisions:

18 U.S.C. § 1701 - Obstruction of mails generally

Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the
mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence

Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail
carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Oh, and while we're on the subject there's this, with reference to Mr. Poindexter's having intimated that what I did was an ethical violation for having suggested, early on, that we could agree to waive any civil claims if the charges were dismissed; an issue he has once again raised in his response to my motion in limine to be heard on May 17:

LEO: Criminal Action — Accord, LE Op. 547

Criminal Action — Accord and Satisfaction.

March 1, 1984

It is not improper for counsel for a criminal victim to seek accord and satisfaction in exchange for the dismissal of the criminal charge by the Commonwealth, when the criminal charge is already pending, independent of any action by the victim's counsel. [DR:7-104]

Committee Opinion March 1, 1984

CROSS REFERENCES
See also LE Op. 1388.

and, on the same topic:

LEO: Threatening Disciplinary/Criminal, LE Op. 1388 (1991)
...
Furthermore, you ask the Committee to consider the attorney conduct, following the filing of criminal charges against the corporation and agent: (1) in contacting opposing counsel and stating that the client will attempt to have the charges dismissed upon payment of the bad checks; and (2) in negotiating a settlement, initiated by opposing counsel, whereby the corporation and agent offer payment in exchange for the client's attempt to dismiss the criminal charges. Finally, you ask that the Committee opine generally as to the meaning of the term “solely” when used in the context of DR:7-104 and, based upon that definition, when it may be permissible for an attorney representing a client in a civil matter to threaten to present criminal charges.

The appropriate and controlling disciplinary rule to the issue you raise is DR:7-104(A), which prohibits a lawyer from presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal [or disciplinary] charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Further guidance is found in Ethical Consideration 7-18 [EC:7-18] which advises that threatening to use, or using, the criminal process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of the criminal process, designed for the protection of society as a whole, and an impairment of the usefulness of the civil process, designed for the settlement of disputes between parties. Additionally, the Ethical Consideration exhorts that “the improper use of criminal process tends to diminish public confidence in our legal system.” ...

and, more generally,

RULE 3.8. Additional Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor. — A lawyer engaged in a prosecutorial function shall:

(a) not file or maintain a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) not knowingly take advantage of an unrepresented defendant;

(c) not instruct or encourage a person to withhold information from the defense after a party has been charged with an offense;

(d) make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant, or to the defendant if he has no counsel, of the existence of evidence which the prosecutor knows tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment, except when disclosure is precluded or modified by order of a court; and

(e) not direct or encourage investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case to make an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6.

and, in view of Mr. Poindexter's having scheduled a three day jury trial in the circuit court for the same day as the Skidmark trial:

LEO: Are Commonwealth's Attorneys Held to the Same Ethical Requirements, LE Op. 1798 (2004)

...
Any attorney serving as a Commonwealth's Attorney, in fulfilling his duties of competence and diligence, must be mindful of a pertinent directive from Rule 1.16. Paragraph (a) of Rule 1.16 dictates that a lawyer not accept or continue a particular representation if it means violating another ethical rule. As explained in Comment [1] to the rule:

A lawyer should not accept or continue representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion.

This Committee finds persuasive the analysis and conclusions drawn by the Arizona Bar regarding a prosecutor's obligations, in its Ethics Opinion 86-4:

Ethical Rule 1.16 makes clear that a lawyer with a maximum caseload must decline new cases or terminate representation where the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. Consequently, where the demands of an extreme caseload make an attorney unable to devote sufficient attention to a particular case, acceptance of that case will cause a violation of Ethical Rules 1.1 on competent representation, 1.3 on attorney diligence and 1.16 for failing to decline or terminate representation where the representation will violate these rules.

Thus, a lawyer who accepts more cases than he can competently prosecute will be committing an ethical violation.

This Committee agrees and opines that a Commonwealth's Attorney who operates with a caseload so overly large as to preclude competent, diligent representation in each case is in violation of the ethics rules. ...

I do not feel that I am in a position to make any formal complaint, as yet, since I am not yet in possession of all the facts, and besides, the VSB doesn't like complaints made during the course of litigation (which makes sense, wait until the case is over then you'll have a better idea about what's going on and why, and also they don't like attempts to derail litigation by making intrapersonal issues between counsel into a distraction). And besides, if this case ends up in the Circuit Court, that court has jurisdiction over attorney discipline, as well, and any complaint might be raised there. All I really have right now is mere opinions and the vague feeling that something "fishy" is going on.

 

[Grapeshot]

Imagine the cats will be trying bury this too.

 

[peter nap]

Tomorrow should be an interesting and maybe a great day.
I've been working on a few new things related to the case plus the usual packing camera and audio equipment.

I know a few members are coming and I promised to Call the RiverRat and keep him updated.

I know how Poindexter will behave. He's a predictable as Novacop. Reading the Judge is another thing.

One thing for certain. It ain't over till it's over and even then, it's just a new chapter:lol:

Big Guns and Good Lawyers have a lot in common. I wouldn't want to be without either.

 

[sidestreet]

Amen to that, brother...,

Tomorrow should be an interesting and maybe a great day.
I've been working on a few new things related to the case plus the usual packing camera and audio equipment.

I know a few members are coming and I promised to Call the RiverRat and keep him updated.

I know how Poindexter will behave. He's a predictable as Novacop. Reading the Judge is another thing.

One thing for certain. It ain't over till it's over and even then, it's just a new chapter:lol:

Big Guns and Good Lawyers have a lot in common. I wouldn't want to be without either.

and a big + 1000. I think ol' Va Tazdad is coming with me!

sidestreet

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

 

[Blk97F150]

Hope this works out for the best tomorrow. Unfortunately, I won't be able to check the forum for updates during the day... but we'll be sending good thoughts down towards Surry!

 

[ixtow]

I think I'm in love with user.

 

[sol]

I think I'm in love with user.

+1

Good luck today; work keeps me occupied but looking forward to hearing some good news!

 

[Thundar]

The suspense here is better than a Tom Clancy novel!

Good Luck today!

 

[Grapeshot]

This will be the first piece of this that I haven't been right there in the middle.

Had to cancel out at the last minute due to fever and sinus problems - looks like it is getting worse before it gets better. Am waiting very impatiently for something to happen - connected to the events by my cell.

Go get 'em Dan!

 

[HeroHog]

On my knees praying for the best for Skid and the people of VA!

 

[Felix]

Should be hearing something soon, huh?

Hopefully someone with a smartphone will post an abbreviated synopsis.