'I had obligation to defend rapist'

[bendog]

LMAO...

A judge can NOT insist that a private attorney represent a paying client.

Ever.

LMAO...you will believe anything that meets your needs.

i choose to believe the people involved - unless someone can offer proof otherwise.

Really?

So you prefer to believe someone who very well may be a Hillary supporter over the law?

Find me anything that says that a judge can ORDER a private attorney to represent someone she believes is guilty and refuses to defend.

Jesus....use your ******* brain.

First, the link shows the scumbag was NOT a paying client. He had a PD. Clinton was asked to take the case when she was working in a legal aid clinic. The scumbag didn't pay her.

Second, apparently Clinton unwisely agreed to take the case. After a judge appointed her as counsel, she contacted the judge. The article is unclear whether she asked to withdraw. Regardless, once a court appointed her, the only way out was for the court to allow her to withdraw. The article indicates the court declined to do so. In short, she was stuck with the scumbag

I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

you might wanna be careful in telling others to "use their ******* brains."

 

[Jarhead]

i choose to believe the people involved - unless someone can offer proof otherwise.

Really?

So you prefer to believe someone who very well may be a Hillary supporter over the law?

Find me anything that says that a judge can ORDER a private attorney to represent someone she believes is guilty and refuses to defend.

Jesus....use your ******* brain.

First, the link shows the scumbag was NOT a paying client. He had a PD. Clinton was asked to take the case when she was working in a legal aid clinic. The scumbag didn't pay her.

Second, apparently Clinton unwisely agreed to take the case. After a judge appointed her as counsel, she contacted the judge. The article is unclear whether she asked to withdraw. Regardless, once a court appointed her, the only way out was for the court to allow her to withdraw. The article indicates the court declined to do so. In short, she was stuck with the scumbag

I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

you might wanna be careful in telling others to "use their ******* brains."

I read the article and I saw everything you saw.

Yes, she took the case willingly and once she was entrenched in it, the judge felt it inappropriate for her to withdraw...however, if she told the judge she did not believe in his innocence, he would have allowed her to be removed...likely INSISTED she remove herself, seeing as he asked her defend him to begin with.

And if you are an attorney, you would know that.

I already cited the exact same paragraph in an earlier post.

It does not say she requested to be removed......that is the rhetoric.

And yes....people should use their ******* brains. When I first heard about this, I automatically assumed she was a PD....and that was why she represented the guy.

To find out that she wasn't?" ANd could have had herself removed but didn't?

She actually did the wrong thing by her client (defending him while thinking he is guilty), and the wrong thing from an ethical standpoint...defending a child rapist she believed to be guilty.

 

[BlindBoo]

Disgusting anti-Americanism at it's finest. Anyone who supports these type of attacks on our Constitution should renounce their citizenship and move to Russia.

Top Stories - If It?s Okay that John Roberts Defended a Mass Murderer, Why was Debo Adegbile Rejected by the Senate for Defending a Cop Killer? - AllGov - News

However, Roberts represented a killer of eight, John Errol Ferguson, in Florida on appeal. This wasn’t seen as a problem during Roberts’ 2005 confirmation hearings. Ferguson was executed in 2013. Similarly, Adams, who later became the second president of the United States, represented British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. He did so because of his belief that all accused deserve to be represented by counsel.

“The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough,” Adams wrote. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

 

[bendog]

Really?

So you prefer to believe someone who very well may be a Hillary supporter over the law?

Find me anything that says that a judge can ORDER a private attorney to represent someone she believes is guilty and refuses to defend.

Jesus....use your ******* brain.

First, the link shows the scumbag was NOT a paying client. He had a PD. Clinton was asked to take the case when she was working in a legal aid clinic. The scumbag didn't pay her.

Second, apparently Clinton unwisely agreed to take the case. After a judge appointed her as counsel, she contacted the judge. The article is unclear whether she asked to withdraw. Regardless, once a court appointed her, the only way out was for the court to allow her to withdraw. The article indicates the court declined to do so. In short, she was stuck with the scumbag

I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

you might wanna be careful in telling others to "use their ******* brains."

I read the article and I saw everything you saw.



And if you are an attorney, you would know that.

I already cited the exact same paragraph in an earlier post.

It does not say she requested to be removed......that is the rhetoric.

And yes....people should use their ******* brains. When I first heard about this, I automatically assumed she was a PD....and that was why she represented the guy.

To find out that she wasn't?" ANd could have had herself removed but didn't?

She actually did the wrong thing by her client (defending him while thinking he is guilty), and the wrong thing from an ethical standpoint...defending a child rapist she believed to be guilty.

Once appointed, she could not get out unless the judge agreed to remove her. My guess is she did not formally request it because that would have had repucussions with the judge if she needed something like a bend over backwards continuance in another case.

And this part of your post is pure bullshit "Yes, she took the case willingly and once she was entrenched in it, the judge felt it inappropriate for her to withdraw...however, if she told the judge she did not believe in his innocence, he would have allowed her to be removed...likely INSISTED she remove herself, seeing as he asked her defend him to begin with."

Attorneys represent clients they believe are guilty every day, every minute of every day and probably every second of everyday. Factual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. It's only relevant that the defendant receive a trial (or guilty plea) in accordance with his const rights.

And, you REALLY should be careful of telling people to use their ******* brains.

 

[Jarhead]

First, the link shows the scumbag was NOT a paying client. He had a PD. Clinton was asked to take the case when she was working in a legal aid clinic. The scumbag didn't pay her.

Second, apparently Clinton unwisely agreed to take the case. After a judge appointed her as counsel, she contacted the judge. The article is unclear whether she asked to withdraw. Regardless, once a court appointed her, the only way out was for the court to allow her to withdraw. The article indicates the court declined to do so. In short, she was stuck with the scumbag

I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

you might wanna be careful in telling others to "use their ******* brains."

I read the article and I saw everything you saw.



And if you are an attorney, you would know that.

I already cited the exact same paragraph in an earlier post.

It does not say she requested to be removed......that is the rhetoric.

And yes....people should use their ******* brains. When I first heard about this, I automatically assumed she was a PD....and that was why she represented the guy.

To find out that she wasn't?" ANd could have had herself removed but didn't?

She actually did the wrong thing by her client (defending him while thinking he is guilty), and the wrong thing from an ethical standpoint...defending a child rapist she believed to be guilty.

Once appointed, she could not get out unless the judge agreed to remove her. My guess is she did not formally request it because that would have had repucussions with the judge if she needed something like a bend over backwards continuance in another case.

And this part of your post is pure bullshit "Yes, she took the case willingly and once she was entrenched in it, the judge felt it inappropriate for her to withdraw...however, if she told the judge she did not believe in his innocence, he would have allowed her to be removed...likely INSISTED she remove herself, seeing as he asked her defend him to begin with."

Attorneys represent clients they believe are guilty every day, every minute of every day and probably every second of everyday. Factual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. It's only relevant that the defendant receive a trial (or guilty plea) in accordance with his const rights.

And, you REALLY should be careful of telling people to use their ******* brains.

So you are NOT an attorney.

For if you were you would know that all one needs to do is tell a judge the reason they ask for removal from a case is they have doubts of their clients innocence.

And why?

If the client is found to be guilty and it is later found out that the attorney admitted to not believe3 in the clients innocence, a mistrial will be declared immediately.

Of course attorneys knowingly represent guilty clients. That was not what I was saying...

Those that admit it to a judge? Will be relieved of that client immediately. NEVER told to represent him anyway.

So as I said....you are not and attorney.

Neither am I. My wife is. Not a trial attorney...a contract attorney. But she knows her shit.

You should be careful as to who you lie to when claiming to be something you are not. Jillian pulled the same shit...until I asked her about her "real estate brokers license" which she claimed to not have......even though in her state of NY all attorneys are real estate brokers by default.

 

[R.D.]

Prosecutor in controversial case says Clinton had no choice but to defend rapist ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

He's lying. This would have come out of her mouth if true

she did say that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/08clinton.html?_r=0

your turn.

Last week. LMBO, a week after the prosecutor came out lying for her. Nope, not believable. Plus what difference does it make? do you really think anyone will change their opinions based on this latest spin?

 

[bendog]

Bullshite

For if you were you would know that all one needs to do is tell a judge the reason they ask for removal from a case is they have doubts of their clients innocence.

 

[Jarhead]

Disgusting anti-Americanism at it's finest. Anyone who supports these type of attacks on our Constitution should renounce their citizenship and move to Russia.

Top Stories - If It?s Okay that John Roberts Defended a Mass Murderer, Why was Debo Adegbile Rejected by the Senate for Defending a Cop Killer? - AllGov - News

However, Roberts represented a killer of eight, John Errol Ferguson, in Florida on appeal. This wasn’t seen as a problem during Roberts’ 2005 confirmation hearings. Ferguson was executed in 2013. Similarly, Adams, who later became the second president of the United States, represented British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. He did so because of his belief that all accused deserve to be represented by counsel.

“The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough,” Adams wrote. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

Did any of them make fun of the fact that they believed they were guilty yet represented them anyway?

Just curious.

 

[Jarhead]

Bullshite

For if you were you would know that all one needs to do is tell a judge the reason they ask for removal from a case is they have doubts of their clients innocence.

What the hell is that sup[posed to mean?

That is exactly what I am saying....and that is why many times a judge allows an attorney to resign from a case.

You were the one who claimed otherwise.

And you are 100% wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

Disgusting anti-Americanism at it's finest. Anyone who supports these type of attacks on our Constitution should renounce their citizenship and move to Russia.

Top Stories - If It?s Okay that John Roberts Defended a Mass Murderer, Why was Debo Adegbile Rejected by the Senate for Defending a Cop Killer? - AllGov - News

However, Roberts represented a killer of eight, John Errol Ferguson, in Florida on appeal. This wasn’t seen as a problem during Roberts’ 2005 confirmation hearings. Ferguson was executed in 2013. Similarly, Adams, who later became the second president of the United States, represented British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. He did so because of his belief that all accused deserve to be represented by counsel.

“The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough,” Adams wrote. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

Did any of them make fun of the fact that they believed they were guilty yet represented them anyway?

Just curious.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.

Sounds like she is making fun of polygraphs.

 

[bendog]

Bullshite

For if you were you would know that all one needs to do is tell a judge the reason they ask for removal from a case is they have doubts of their clients innocence.

What the hell is that sup[posed to mean?

That is exactly what I am saying....and that is why many times a judge allows an attorney to resign from a case.

You were the one who claimed otherwise.

And you are 100% wrong.

I'm saying you're full of bullshit

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

Whether an attorney has actual knowledge of a client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant to whether he/she may ethically represent him. A judge has no duty to remove a lawyer just because he/she thinks the client "did it." The one hard and fast rule is that an attorney should not participate in questioning a witness, even a client, if they know the witness will perjure himself.

Yes, there's an irony with the Clintons.

 

[Jarhead]

Bullshite

For if you were you would know that all one needs to do is tell a judge the reason they ask for removal from a case is they have doubts of their clients innocence.

What the hell is that sup[posed to mean?

That is exactly what I am saying....and that is why many times a judge allows an attorney to resign from a case.

You were the one who claimed otherwise.

And you are 100% wrong.

I'm saying you're full of bullshit

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

Whether an attorney has actual knowledge of a client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant to whether he/she may ethically represent him. A judge has no duty to remove a lawyer just because he/she thinks the client "did it." The one hard and fast rule is that an attorney should not participate in questioning a witness, even a client, if they know the witness will perjure himself.

Yes, there's an irony with the Clintons.

If an attorney approaches a judge presiding over a case and tells that judge that he does not believe his client is innocent...the judge will immediately call a mistrial for the defendant is not getting "a fair trial".....

This is not assumption.

 

[Jarhead]

Disgusting anti-Americanism at it's finest. Anyone who supports these type of attacks on our Constitution should renounce their citizenship and move to Russia.

Top Stories - If It?s Okay that John Roberts Defended a Mass Murderer, Why was Debo Adegbile Rejected by the Senate for Defending a Cop Killer? - AllGov - News

However, Roberts represented a killer of eight, John Errol Ferguson, in Florida on appeal. This wasn’t seen as a problem during Roberts’ 2005 confirmation hearings. Ferguson was executed in 2013. Similarly, Adams, who later became the second president of the United States, represented British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. He did so because of his belief that all accused deserve to be represented by counsel.

“The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough,” Adams wrote. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

Did any of them make fun of the fact that they believed they were guilty yet represented them anyway?

Just curious.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.

Sounds like she is making fun of polygraphs.

That is what you post to refute what I said?

Wow.

Sort of makes you look like....well.....what do they call it?....a sheeple?

 

[bendog]

What the hell is that sup[posed to mean?

That is exactly what I am saying....and that is why many times a judge allows an attorney to resign from a case.

You were the one who claimed otherwise.

And you are 100% wrong.

I'm saying you're full of bullshit

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

Whether an attorney has actual knowledge of a client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant to whether he/she may ethically represent him. A judge has no duty to remove a lawyer just because he/she thinks the client "did it." The one hard and fast rule is that an attorney should not participate in questioning a witness, even a client, if they know the witness will perjure himself.

Yes, there's an irony with the Clintons.

If an attorney approaches a judge presiding over a case and tells that judge that he does not believe his client is innocent...the judge will immediately call a mistrial for the defendant is not getting "a fair trial".....

This is not assumption.

BulllShit

Fox TV commentator Bill O'Reilly led a campaign to get California criminal lawyer Jeffrey Feldman disbarred because leaked plea bargaining sessions showed that he knew his client, child killer David Westerfield, was guilty of murder while Feldman was vigorously disputing his guilt in court. O'Reilly pronounced Feldman a liar. He was wrong,

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

 

[Jarhead]

I'm saying you're full of bullshit

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

Whether an attorney has actual knowledge of a client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant to whether he/she may ethically represent him. A judge has no duty to remove a lawyer just because he/she thinks the client "did it." The one hard and fast rule is that an attorney should not participate in questioning a witness, even a client, if they know the witness will perjure himself.

Yes, there's an irony with the Clintons.

If an attorney approaches a judge presiding over a case and tells that judge that he does not believe his client is innocent...the judge will immediately call a mistrial for the defendant is not getting "a fair trial".....

This is not assumption.

BulllShit

Fox TV commentator Bill O'Reilly led a campaign to get California criminal lawyer Jeffrey Feldman disbarred because leaked plea bargaining sessions showed that he knew his client, child killer David Westerfield, was guilty of murder while Feldman was vigorously disputing his guilt in court. O'Reilly pronounced Feldman a liar. He was wrong,

The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty

Please....enough.

If an attorney admits to a judge that he does not believe his client is innocent, the judge will immediately call for a mistrial as the defendant is not getting a "fair trial".

If the trial had not yet begun, the judge will inform the defendant that his attorney does not believe in his innocence and suggest a PD or a new attorney.

If there is a plea bargain.....THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT IS ADMITTING HIS CLIENT IS GUILTY.....THUS THE PLEA BARGAIN.

Move on. You may be a good poster, but you are wrong here.

 

[natstew]

The prosecutors evidence was lost, just like Hillary's Rose Law Firm records was lost!

And no, she did not have an obligation to defend a rapist she knew was guilty.

 

[BlindBoo]

Did any of them make fun of the fact that they believed they were guilty yet represented them anyway?

Just curious.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.

Sounds like she is making fun of polygraphs.

That is what you post to refute what I said?

Wow.

Sort of makes you look like....well.....what do they call it?....a sheeple?

Is that all you got? When a lawyer make a plead bargain for their client, do they know their client is guilty?

 

[Jarhead]

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.

Sounds like she is making fun of polygraphs.

That is what you post to refute what I said?

Wow.

Sort of makes you look like....well.....what do they call it?....a sheeple?

Is that all you got? When a lawyer make a plead bargain for their client, do they know their client is guilty?

Yes. That's why they plea.

But you have not been paying attention to the thread.

The claim was that Clinton asked to be removed from the case and the judge refused. She admits she knew he was guilty....so if such is true, all she had to do was say to the judge "I believe he is guilty and my sentiments will compromise my ability to ensure a proper defense"....

For if she did, he would have immediately granted her request.

So she is full of shit when she claims she asked the judge to relieve her.

That was my point all along.

Pay attention next time.

 

[reconmark]

I understand lawyers have the obligation to defend the defendant, but that doesn't mean they should get them off at any cost. Our justice system is a joke, where rapists and pedophiles get off lightly thanks to shitbag lawyers like Clinton. They all knew this scumbag was guilty, and yet pleaded him down to walking. Disgusting.

Hey clueless one, there are little things called "rules of evidence", these rules happen to be very clear cut.
I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on those rules, search them yourself.

She didn't get anybody "off at any cost" she followed the rules of evidence and jurisprudence and presented the best case she could put forward.

If that irritates you, move to where kangaroo courts are the norm.
Please post the site where it's fact that she knew he was guilty and even if she did know, in your small mind, how should that have affected her case?

 

[reconmark]

That is what you post to refute what I said?

Wow.

Sort of makes you look like....well.....what do they call it?....a sheeple?

Is that all you got? When a lawyer make a plead bargain for their client, do they know their client is guilty?

Yes. That's why they plea.

But you have not been paying attention to the thread.

The claim was that Clinton asked to be removed from the case and the judge refused. She admits she knew he was guilty....so if such is true, all she had to do was say to the judge "I believe he is guilty and my sentiments will compromise my ability to ensure a proper defense"....

For if she did, he would have immediately granted her request.

So she is full of shit when she claims she asked the judge to relieve her.

That was my point all along.

Pay attention next time.

That's utterly stupid. Please make this the last place you spout something so idiotic.