SBF is expected to lose his smartphone; special counsel Jack Smith is hurrying (by federal prosecutor standards); Trump's lawyers face questions about the extent of attorney-client privilege
Suggestion for another episode (I can't see where to make comments that aren't attached to a particular episode):
In the Trump-Carroll case, a few weeks back, Trump agreed to produce a DNA sample...but that was rejected by judge as being too close to court date. Why would the court date need to change? Can't a DNA test be performed in 1-2 days? Even if it did take potentially months, why refuse to allow that to go on in parallel and see if it comes up with an answer before the verdict?
Maybe there are some rule of evidence or something in play here...which the uninformed (=me) would like to hear about!
Ken was the Cassidy Hutchinson - Passantino issue an illustration of what you were describing as - if I understand what you said - non permitted coercion in a joint defense situation? Or was that coloring inside the lines? Thanks.
David Leavitt, in his excellent piece for the New Yorker, (āThe Marvelous Boys of Palo Altoā), recalls growing up on the Stanford University campus, surrounded by the mythos of the āboy genius.ā In his story, Leavitt recounts that after his mother died, his father, a Stanford professor, sold the familyās campus home to two married professors named Bankman and Fried. Later that same year, the Bankman-Frieds welcomed their first child, Sam, into the world.
Professor Leavitt was able to sell only the house itself to the Bankman-Frieds, as the land beneath it belongs, by charter, to Stanford University. The many owners of houses on the Stanford University campus cannot pass their homes on to their children, Leavitt reports, but can only sell them to other āprofessors and administrators.ā
If this is so, it raises a question:
If SBF was somehow able to engineer a clean escape from confinement at his parentsā home and become a fugitive from justice - say, by sliding down a knotted sheet from his bedroom window and hiding under a blanket in the back of his friend Biffās parentsā station wagon - could the government actually take possession of the Bankman-Fried home?
The "invitation to staffers the office anyway" sounds like a great way to determine the intent behind the letter. As of today, Bragg "won't say" if he will subpoena them. Well duh.
Anyway, Ken, hope your vacay was good, and also appreciated your essay on 1A that I read this morning on your page.
KIDS THESE DAYS
Ken, is SBF a good client?
Joint defense agreements without even a mention of Mary Carter agreements. SMH.
Suggestion for another episode (I can't see where to make comments that aren't attached to a particular episode):
In the Trump-Carroll case, a few weeks back, Trump agreed to produce a DNA sample...but that was rejected by judge as being too close to court date. Why would the court date need to change? Can't a DNA test be performed in 1-2 days? Even if it did take potentially months, why refuse to allow that to go on in parallel and see if it comes up with an answer before the verdict?
Maybe there are some rule of evidence or something in play here...which the uninformed (=me) would like to hear about!
Ken was the Cassidy Hutchinson - Passantino issue an illustration of what you were describing as - if I understand what you said - non permitted coercion in a joint defense situation? Or was that coloring inside the lines? Thanks.
Gentlemen,
David Leavitt, in his excellent piece for the New Yorker, (āThe Marvelous Boys of Palo Altoā), recalls growing up on the Stanford University campus, surrounded by the mythos of the āboy genius.ā In his story, Leavitt recounts that after his mother died, his father, a Stanford professor, sold the familyās campus home to two married professors named Bankman and Fried. Later that same year, the Bankman-Frieds welcomed their first child, Sam, into the world.
Professor Leavitt was able to sell only the house itself to the Bankman-Frieds, as the land beneath it belongs, by charter, to Stanford University. The many owners of houses on the Stanford University campus cannot pass their homes on to their children, Leavitt reports, but can only sell them to other āprofessors and administrators.ā
If this is so, it raises a question:
If SBF was somehow able to engineer a clean escape from confinement at his parentsā home and become a fugitive from justice - say, by sliding down a knotted sheet from his bedroom window and hiding under a blanket in the back of his friend Biffās parentsā station wagon - could the government actually take possession of the Bankman-Fried home?
You guys were missed this week, but it's not like there's not more where that came from. Meanwhile, I very much enjoyed the spank you very much letter from Bragg's office (post Costello, pre white powder) responding to Jordan, McCarthy and Comer. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23720977-20230323-letter-response-from-manhattan-da46 Here's the link to the letter.
The "invitation to staffers the office anyway" sounds like a great way to determine the intent behind the letter. As of today, Bragg "won't say" if he will subpoena them. Well duh.
Anyway, Ken, hope your vacay was good, and also appreciated your essay on 1A that I read this morning on your page.
What is the difference between RICO and Racketeering Conspiracy that former Ohio political figures were just found guilty of?