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.
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...
Of course, I'm a UNIX/Linux admin, so I might be biased. :dude:
That is too cool. You providing the court with the records that they are supposed to have!!
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.
and, on the same topic: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, more generally,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, 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: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.
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. ...
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.
I think I'm in love with user.