HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Epstein's jailers claim h...

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:15 AM

Epstein's jailers claim he was removed from suicide watch at request of his defense lawyers.

They left the suicidal prisoner alone in a room with a bunkbed and a sheet. And then they didn't check on him until they found him dead.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-hanged-himself-with-prison-bedsheet-source/

Jeffrey Epstein was found hanging in his lower Manhattan jail cell with a bedsheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk bed, The Post has learned.

The convicted pedophile, who was 6 feet tall, apparently killed himself by kneeling toward the floor and strangling himself with the makeshift noose, law enforcement sources said Monday. He hadn’t been checked on for several hours, sources said.

Epstein was “unresponsive” when he was discovered in his cell at the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center at around 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, the federal Bureau of Prisons has said.

SNIP

Epstein was removed from suicide watch at the request of his defense lawyers, who had been meeting with him for up to 12 hours a day before asking that his supervision be eased, the Journal said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-were-serious-irregularities-at-federal-jail-where-jeffrey-epstein-died-barr-says-11565622895


Among the primary questions for investigators is why Mr. Epstein was taken off suicide watch and left alone with minimal supervision. After an earlier incident in which he was found unconscious in his cell with marks on his neck, Mr. Epstein was put in the suicide-watch unit July 23, but was removed from the watch days later at the request of his attorneys and after daily psychological evaluations.

SNIP

The Manhattan-based federal prosecutors handling Mr. Epstein’s case also could seek to seize his assets through a process known as civil forfeiture. That process could allow prosecutors to sue for assets that were used to facilitate the alleged sex trafficking, including Mr. Epstein’s real estate, jets and bank accounts. Money from forfeited properties goes into a Justice Department fund that can be distributed to victims.

Through the civil forfeiture process, prosecutors could lay out the evidence they have gathered against Mr. Epstein that hasn’t become public, according to former federal prosecutors. The government could use investigative tools, such as search warrants and grand jury subpoenas, unavailable to victims suing the estate, said Jaimie Nawaday, a former federal prosecutor who has handled asset-forfeiture cases.

“It might be in their interest to let the government go first,” said Ms. Nawaday, now a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. “The government has a higher rate of success.”

117 replies, 3806 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 117 replies Author Time Post
Reply Epstein's jailers claim he was removed from suicide watch at request of his defense lawyers. (Original post)
pnwmom Tuesday OP
Scarsdale Tuesday #1
Botany Tuesday #2
njhoneybadger Tuesday #26
jberryhill Tuesday #30
Shrike47 Tuesday #39
StarfishSaver Tuesday #51
empedocles Tuesday #57
jberryhill Tuesday #96
asiliveandbreathe Tuesday #55
dixiegrrrrl Tuesday #98
gordianot Tuesday #3
ashredux Tuesday #4
duforsure Tuesday #10
ashredux Tuesday #13
2naSalit Tuesday #14
njhoneybadger Tuesday #29
no_hypocrisy Tuesday #5
former9thward Tuesday #9
LisaL Tuesday #12
jberryhill Tuesday #22
LisaL Tuesday #100
StarfishSaver Tuesday #11
jberryhill Tuesday #19
StarfishSaver Tuesday #21
jberryhill Tuesday #27
StarfishSaver Tuesday #49
Blue_Tires Tuesday #36
LisaL Tuesday #6
FBaggins Tuesday #7
jberryhill Tuesday #17
FBaggins Tuesday #18
jberryhill Tuesday #20
FBaggins Tuesday #48
StarfishSaver Tuesday #50
jberryhill Tuesday #56
ashredux Tuesday #8
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #15
jberryhill Tuesday #43
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #47
StarfishSaver Tuesday #53
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #61
jberryhill Tuesday #78
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #81
jberryhill Tuesday #83
jberryhill Tuesday #65
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #93
jberryhill Tuesday #94
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #95
Claritie Pixie Tuesday #16
jberryhill Tuesday #23
Beringia Tuesday #24
jberryhill Tuesday #25
Ponietz Tuesday #38
jberryhill Tuesday #40
Ponietz Tuesday #46
StarfishSaver Tuesday #54
Ponietz Tuesday #58
StarfishSaver Tuesday #60
Ponietz Tuesday #63
jberryhill Tuesday #67
Ponietz Tuesday #74
jberryhill Tuesday #77
Ponietz Tuesday #86
jberryhill Tuesday #87
Ponietz Tuesday #88
jberryhill Tuesday #89
Ponietz Tuesday #92
uponit7771 Tuesday #111
Ponietz Wednesday #115
pnwmom Tuesday #68
jberryhill Tuesday #69
pnwmom Tuesday #71
LisaL Tuesday #99
jberryhill Tuesday #101
Iliyah Tuesday #28
jberryhill Tuesday #32
Iliyah Tuesday #33
jberryhill Tuesday #35
Ponietz Tuesday #34
Shrike47 Tuesday #42
jberryhill Tuesday #44
uponit7771 Tuesday #112
42bambi Tuesday #31
jberryhill Tuesday #73
Hoyt Tuesday #37
jberryhill Tuesday #41
Shrike47 Tuesday #45
underpants Tuesday #52
pnwmom Tuesday #62
Sneederbunk Tuesday #59
redstatebluegirl Tuesday #64
lame54 Tuesday #66
jberryhill Tuesday #70
ElementaryPenguin Tuesday #72
mainer Tuesday #75
DeminPennswoods Tuesday #76
jberryhill Tuesday #79
pnwmom Tuesday #80
jberryhill Tuesday #82
pnwmom Tuesday #84
jberryhill Tuesday #85
pnwmom Tuesday #90
jberryhill Tuesday #91
pnwmom Tuesday #97
jberryhill Tuesday #102
pnwmom Tuesday #103
jberryhill Tuesday #105
pnwmom Tuesday #106
jberryhill Tuesday #107
pnwmom Tuesday #108
jberryhill Tuesday #109
pnwmom Tuesday #110
jberryhill Tuesday #113
pnwmom Wednesday #114
jberryhill Wednesday #116
pnwmom Wednesday #117
still_one Tuesday #104

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 05:03 AM

1. Who trusts Barr to

handle this? He is tRump's lapdog. He BEGGED for the position, promising never to hold tRump responsible, since in his opinion "presidents are above the law". Will we ever get the truth? Seems strange that the security cameras were not operating at the crucial time. Who monitors those, and why didn't they realize they were not working? I also read that Epstein claimed he was attacked by another prisoner in the previous "suicide attempt". Just another day in the tRump administration, the truth is hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 05:57 AM

2. Since when do defense lawyers get to control prison protocol?

Good God in butter this really doesn't pass the smell test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:51 AM

26. Exactly, what bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:56 AM

30. Since we passed the Constitution

But, don’t worry, as soon as we get rid of the Constitution, lawyers and courts won’t have any say in how prisoners are treated. There will be no right to object, and no right to petition the court if that objection is ignored. You’ll love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:14 AM

39. Actually, defense lawyers can persuade jail staff, or a judge, to change conditions of confinement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:42 AM

51. That's part of their job.

One of the reasons that more well-off prisoners get better treatment is that they can afford people to advocate for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #51)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:53 AM

57. 'advocate' for them. Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #51)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:14 PM

96. That's a really good point


The justice system would be a whole lot more equal if people had access to uniformly zealous legal representation.

Who hasn't marveled at a barely-readable hand-scrawled habeus corpus petition in the course of their career and wondered whether that was one of the many handwritten inmate letters that lawyers regularly get from prisoners with nothing to do but continue to write letters to lawyers from the list of practitioners in their jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:51 AM

55. There should be a transcript, or defense motion, no? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:47 PM

98. It works this way....



Suicide watch is a mental health protocol, has to be signed off by a shrink.

Jails/prisons have to provide whatever passes for suicide watch in their jurisdiction.

Client decides he does not want or need further watch, the lawyers tell the shrink, who does a new mental status exam, and if s/he agrees, tells the prison staff no suicide watch.
Of course defense team or someone should tell the prosecutors, so everyone is on same page.

Many gaps can happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:24 AM

3. Too bad Epstein was not jailed in an ICE facility.

There would have been enough people to prevent suicide, he would have gotten to wear his own clothes. His attorneys might have helped in reporting the horrid condition to the world. A winner all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:33 AM

4. Some Facts

Facts:

1. Bill Barr is connected to Jeffrey Epstein via his father.
2. The Florida newspaper started running their stories about the old Epstein’s case in Nov. 2018
3. The entire sordid mess is back.
4. Bill Barr’s “audition”memo to Trump for the job of Attorney General in June 2018
5. After Bill Barr becomes attorney general, Jeffrey Epstein gets arrested and put in jail.
6. Now Jeffrey Epstein is dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashredux (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:12 AM

10. What I've wondered

Was Putin involved , and was this all planned? Was Epstein using his services with underage girls to get dirt on others to use against others, like the job he got at Barr's fathers school? Did he get because his dad had been using his services and was blackmailed into getting this so Epstein had another source to get more girls with? And when suspected by the school he and Barrs father was let go? Was Epstein selling stuff to Putin and/or trump to use? Was this all planned using Barr? Is this where Epstein was really making huge sums of money? I got a feeling Putin is behind this with trump turning other republicans into loyalists, and to further corrupt others with other schemes , like laundering money for campaigns, and helping undermine our elections. Was Barr's appointment all prearranged to corrupt the justice system, like he's done to the GaoP? It makes me wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:24 AM

13. Makes one say.."Hmmm."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:26 AM

14. The answer is

probably yes. I think that many were also using the sex slave services along with money laundering and blackmail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashredux (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:53 AM

29. 7. Dead men tell no tales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:40 AM

5. The attorneys are culpable whether it's murder or suicide.

Should have demanded 24/7 cameras in exchange for less physical supervision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:10 AM

9. No they aren't.

Even if the claim is true, defense lawyers do not control what goes on in a prison. They can ask for steak dinners every night for their client too. So what? It is on the prison administration and the prison employees completely. They have complete control and responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:55 AM

12. Exactly. Jail has to follow its own rules, not what defense lawyers request.

They could be asking to put modern furniture into his cell, allow him to wear pricey suits instead of orange jump suit, etc. Jail ain't doing that. But take him off suicide watch-all righty then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:11 AM

22. Nonsense

Prisoners have their attorneys file petitions about the conditions of their confinement all of the time. That’s a completely normal every day occurrence.

Typically, if a prisoner has an issue, the attorneys will do just that - complain to the administration about the condition, with the implicit understanding the attorney will file a petition with the court if necessary.

The administration then has to decide whether it’s worth spending time in court over it - particularly when dealing with a prisoner such as Epstein who definitely will go to court - or addressing the complaint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:24 AM

11. No, they're not

They represent their client. If he wanted off of suicide watch, they were bound to make the request.

And suicide watchnand measures such as 24/7 surveillance are generally considered to be a tremendous burden to and often abusive to clients. It's not unusual for attorneys to try to get the restrictions removed, especially if their client is adamant about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:00 AM

19. Yep. DU has the memory of a housefly

People were beating their chests and wailing when Chelsea Manning was put on suicide watch, because it is restrictive.

“Manning was stripped naked and kept under continuous surveillance!”

Fucking ridiculous.

And of course the prison administration - understaffed and underfunded - has to decide how much staff time they want to put into court time if Epstein’s lawyers file a motion seeking to have him removed from suicide watch. People here act like the lawyers just “ask” without the implicit understanding they’ll go forward with a time-sucking court petition if denied, and so we come to, as in this thread; “Epstein’s lawyers were in on it!”

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:11 AM

21. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:51 AM

27. What's shocking about threads like this

Is that so-called “liberals” will be happy to toss away the Eighth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments like used snot rags when the right conditions come along.

“A lawyer objecting to the conditions under which their client is held? Inconceivable!”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:39 AM

49. Shocking but not surprising, based on other things I've seen here.

Many people want a Trumpian version of politics, governance and law (our way now, damned the law, the rules, or what anyone but us wants ), as long as it reaches (or they think it will reach) the ends they desire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:11 AM

36. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:44 AM

6. And did his defense lawyer also asked to remove his cellmate, and not check on him every

30 minutes as protocol requires?
The jail was not following their protocol on the highest profile inmate they had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 07:08 AM

7. If true, that would be ridiculously irresponsible

His defense lawyers represent him... which means that this is just another way of saying that Epstein requested to be taken off of suicide watch.

Ignoring any conspiracy theories and just taking the claim at face value... it would make no sense. The last thing you should do if you're worried about a prisoner killing himself... is let him request that you stop making hard for him to kill himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:35 AM

17. Oh really?

Do you remember the people going on about Chelsea Manning being “tortured” by having been out on suicide watch?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10021036336

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:59 AM

18. IIRC... that was both after and before

actual suicide attempts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:06 AM

20. No, you don't recall correctly

The first time, the Manning camp claimed that Manning had made a “joke” about suicide.

But the point is that suicide watch is intrusive and uncomfortable. If Epstein didn’t like it, then OF COURSE, his lawyers would be making therapy-clearing noises preparatory to filing a petition to the court about his treatment.

You are a prison administrator. You’ve got a prisoner on suicide watch and limited resources. A bunch of Fifth Avenue lawyers are going to file a petition seeking to move that prisoner off suicide watch. That petition is going to cost you time. It’s going to cost your staff time. What you are going o do - unless it is crystal clear and absolutely necessary because the guy is running around saying that he’s gonna kill himself - is find out if there is any question about whether he belongs on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #20)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:37 AM

48. "Last week, Chelsea made a decision to end her life,"

That was a joint statement from Manning's lawyers a few days later. I don't see "joke" mentioned.

But the point is that suicide watch is intrusive and uncomfortable. If Epstein didn’t like it, then OF COURSE, his lawyers would be making therapy-clearing noises preparatory to filing a petition to the court about his treatment.

I don't doubt that lawyers would ask... but if I really believed that someone was a suicide risk... I would be nuts to listen to those lawyers. If someone wants to kill himself... of course he's going to ask that I stop taking measures to keep him from killing himself.

is find out if there is any question about whether he belongs on it.

Sure... and it appears (in both cases) that they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:41 AM

50. It's not likely that he was taken off of suicide watch just because he and his lawyers asked

There were probably psychiatrists/counselors (prison and perhaps privately-retained) who vouched for his stability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:52 AM

56. Nice try: "Manning lawyer: Suicide joke led to stripping". You are conflating different events

The clue to your error is the name “Chelsea”. Manning didn’t use that name when taken into pre-trial custody.

The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Mar 5, 2011 17:42:21 EST

WASHINGTON — The lawyer for a jailed soldier suspected of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks wrote Saturday that his client was stripped of his clothing at night because he had made sarcastic comments about using underwear to commit suicide ...


When considering what people at DU have said, DU. is a great resource. Here is a whole thread of DUers calling suicide watch “torture”:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10021036336

It was okay at DU for Manning’s lawyers to object to Manning’s conditions of confinement. But if Epstein’s lawyers did so, it is unheard of, impossible, etc.. What bullshit.

You don’t see “joke” mentioned, because you weren’t looking for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 07:11 AM

8. A well done hit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:33 AM

15. So the lawyers are enabler, co-conspirators?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:22 AM

43. You left out one...


I realize this is kind of an improbable and loot theory but what if, instead of being enablers or co-conspirators, they were lawyers representing a client who didn’t want to be on suicide watch?

Kinda silly, I know, but it could happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:34 AM

47. Oh, hell yes it could happen.

Here, locally, lawyers have been known to pro-bono one client against the local government, while someone in their law firm represented a good paying developer that wants to bring another, unrelated project before the commission. The pro-bono client might be something like, I don't know, a rehab center. Guess which client's project got approved, and which client was dropped like a hot potato when the usual protests erupted?

Or, the story of two malls. The same lawyer represented the local master HOA to fight against access roads that would benefit a new mall, while the same lawyer represented a competing mall developer down the road.

So, yes. You might be onto something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:45 AM

53. Where was the two-timing mall lawyer operating?

That sounds like a blatant violation of ethics. Either or both clients could go after them for conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #53)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:29 PM

61. He may have been an independent attorney.

I kept the Orlando Sentinel newspaper article that brought up the questions that you have, but I don't think anything happened to him. The 90s in Central Florida were the wild, wild west. But, only because we didn't have the internet. It might take me sometime to locate the source, but if you're interested, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

BTW, when the Master THOA changed presidents, the law firm handed all the legal boxes to the old president, so we lost the paper trail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #61)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:21 PM

78. But getting back to the point


You don't see anything suspicious about his lawyers going forward with the appeal of their proposed pre-trial release conditions that were denied with the trial court; but if the same lawyers arguing for pre-trial release should happen to object to suicide watch, then there is something suspicious about it.

Is that correct?

Because it would be a lot MORE suspicious for them to acquiesce in suicide watch when they are trying to get him released on house arrest in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #78)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:31 PM

81. Just heard on tv that his lawyers are

Getting criminal lawyers?! MSNBC. If so, something is happening fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #81)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:38 PM

83. Well, yeah...


Also unsurprising for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread.

They were seeking pre-trial release for their client and had also requested the least restrictive conditions for their client in the meantime.

He is now dead, and the estate has a potential malpractice claim.

Who would you suggest they hire for an independent consultation and review of their work? Dentists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 01:47 PM

65. Oh, okay, so....

Epstein's lawyers were secretly working for the DoJ against Epstein because, why, the DoJ pays better?

They had a guaranteed revenue stream of "sky's the limit" billing going forward with this case on motions, discovery, more motions, plea negotiations, and maybe some day a trial. But, instead, they figured that it would be better to have their client killed, because they didn't want to do all of that billing.

Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. They are out millions because he's dead.

The possibility that, just like lawyers everywhere, every day, they were attempting to get better detention conditions for their client and at the behest of their client is just beyond credibility for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #65)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 05:48 PM

93. If you knew that your client tried to commit suicide, isn't it

malpractice if you don't move to ensure that he doesn't succeed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #93)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:02 PM

94. It's not an easy question

I believe that any attorney will tell you that they have had difficult times with clients who may, or may not, have a mental illness of some kind.

An attorney is not competent to diagnose whether their client is mentally ill. I presume, absent a medical opinion to the contrary, that my clients are not mentally ill or otherwise impaired in their judgment.

I had a case in which I represented a client who would change his settlement position every couple of hours. We would have long discussions about the case and what our next settlement position should be, I would send him a draft proposal to send to the other side, and he would change his mind again and throw in requests for absolutely ridiculous things that made no sense at all.

Absent the ability to settle his case, which was in arbitration, I went ahead and won it.

After that, the other side still wanted to negotiate a settlement with him, and he continued to be absolutely batshit about it. Fortunately, at that point, I could point to the original engagement terms under which I agreed to represent him in the dispute. The dispute had ended in his favor and I had no further obligation to him.

But, once again, we are faced with the obvious fact that him being under suicide watch undercut the argument - on appeal by these lawyers - that he should be released to home confinement of some kind.

If, for example, they had the most recent psych eval (which we certainly won't see for a while) that gave him a favorable prospect of return to normal conditions, then sure, why not.

But I would not for a moment conclude on my own initiative that my client was crazy without a medical professional saying so.

If my client died under these conditions, I would probably hire another criminal lawyer to independently review my work for two reasons: 1. To address any potential malpractice claims from the estate, and 2. To justify my position in any potential billing dispute with the estate.

But I cannot imagine any scenario in which it is to his criminal defense lawyers' advantage to have him killed. He was worth more to them alive than any possible inducement that could be offered to them. Aside from which, they were actively working to have him released from jail. I mean, that's kind of the point.

Can you imagine your defense attorney saying, "You know, Bobo, I could try to get you released, but I think you ought to stay in jail for your own good."

That would get you disbarred pretty quick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #94)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:05 PM

95. Thank you. Very informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:35 AM

16. Since when does a fed prison under DOJ rules listen to a defense attorney?

This is certainly not normal procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claritie Pixie (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:30 AM

23. Pretty much every day


They have to listen. Because the first step before filing a petition with the court is to pursue administrative remedies - i.e. take it up with the prison administration first.

The overwhelming majority of times, the answer is “no” because the request is frivolous. But when you have a prisoner with a legal team like Epstein’s then you have to consider that any room for subjective judgment is going to be scrutinized in court and is going to tie up your time and your staff’s time dealing with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:33 AM

24. Defense lawyers shouldn't be able to request that


Obviously whether someone wants to commit suicide or not, they don't want to be on suicide watch. The defense lawyer's wishes and the client's wishes should be completely disregarded. It should be up to the psychologist or warden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beringia (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:37 AM

25. Bullshit

The Eighth Amendment. Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment disagree with you.

The conditions under which prisoners are kept is not up to the sole discretion of either prison administrators or medical professionals.

Their decisions are most certainly open to scrutiny by a court, which is the reason why they had damned well better listen to the reasoned objections of defense counsel.

I’m am amazed that so-called “liberals” suddenly think it is wrong for a prisoner’s defense counsel to have the ability to object to the prisoner’s conditions of confinement. It is a normal everyday occurrence.

I don’t ever want to see another thread on DU where anyone is complaining about the conditions under which any federal prisoner is held.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:12 AM

38. Keeping Epstein on suicide watch was a no-brainer

There are no 8th Amendment implications—cruel and unusual punishment to keep a prisoner on suicide watch who has already attempted to take his own life? Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:15 AM

40. You can laugh all you want

But when someone with the means to go to court over it, along with their own psych evaluation etc. and tie up your limited staff arguing over it, then as an administrator your decision is pretty simple.

Your fellow interestingly-named poster was saying defense attorneys should not be able to even make the request. That is simply bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:30 AM

46. I read the post to indicate that the authority for the change had to come from admin

And I’m confident higher-ups were consulted beforehand.
It wasn’t a shift worker who removed him from suicide watch.
Not buying the overworked and intimidated narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #46)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:48 AM

54. This is the problem with making assumptions without information or knowledge

Unless you know how the facility, system and law work, it's very difficult to correctly assume what happened at this point. You're just guessing without any basis.

Lawyers who do have a much better understanding of this are trying to tell you how these things work. You should listen and not reject this information out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #54)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:54 AM

58. 25 years honorable service practicing criminal defense

Am I qualified to render an opinion, now?
Keeping him on suicide watch was a no-brainer, but many will continue to attest the sky is green.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:13 PM

60. Given your background in criminal defense, it's surprising you're so dismissive of the

"overworked and intimidated" issue. That's a simple reality in these facilities. Your assumptions led me to believe you don't have a background in the law. I was wrong. But your assumptions are even more puzzling to me now since I would think you'd know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #60)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:38 PM

63. Know better than stating continued suicide watch was a no-brainer?

Those responsible for pretrial detention have one job—to get the detainee safely to court for trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #63)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 01:58 PM

67. So, let's be clear


Your position is that Epstein's lawyers were not seeking to have him taken off suicide watch.

Your position is further that lawyers don't make such requests on behalf of prisoners, and that prison administrators never grant such requests on review of whatever the psych evaluation might have suggested?

The OP is about Epstein's lawyers having sought to remove him from suicide watch.

The run of comments on the article is that it is unheard of for lawyers to make such a request, and that prisons ignore any and all objections by lawyers to pre-trial detention conditions.

You've been practicing law for 25 years and you have never heard of an attorney seeking to modify the conditions of detention of his or her client, and you've never heard of a prison administrator who modified such conditions in response. Is that correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #67)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:07 PM

74. Read the title of the OP--"Jailers claim..."

We both know defense lawyers routinely seek to modify conditions of detention. Was there a Motion filed to take him off suicide watch ? Why not?
The responsibility rests with administration, period, and it wasn’t a low-level employee who made the call. His lawyers just lost at a release hearing and their client attempted suicide.
It was a no-brainer to keep him on suicide watch.
But, go ahead, sky is green guy. Talk about the 8th Amendment that doesn’t even apply to pretrial detention, and continue to misconstrue my words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #74)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:19 PM

77. The Eighth Amendment addresses pre-trial detention

As you will recall, the same lawyers are appealing the denial of his petition for pre-trial release in the first place. People here find it shocking that his lawyers would have sought to have him taken off of suicide watch, but completely ignore the fact that the SAME LAWYERS are working to have his pre-trial conditions modified to house arrest in the first place. Whether and what sorts of pre-trial release conditions are appropriate is an Eighth Amendment issue. Since they had thus far not been successful with the trial court, they were appealing his detention and seeking the least restrictive conditions of pre-trial confinement.


In other words, for his lawyers NOT to object to suicide watch would undercut their larger Eight Amendment "excessive bail" argument that he shouldn't be in jail pending trial in the first place.


WTF kind of position is it to effectively say, "We want him sent home to be by himself and have access to everything in his house, but we are totally cool with protective custody because he can't be trusted in the meantime."?

"Was there a Motion filed"

No, because before you file a motion in a circumstance like this, you have to exhaust administrative remedies - i.e. dealing directly with the prison administration. You don't file a motion with the court until you've taken the issue up with the jail directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #77)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:47 PM

86. I want to know who approved it without even a Motion being filed

Not buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #86)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:51 PM

87. Okay, so...


Your point is that it is dumb for courts to require that prisoners seek administrative relief before filing a motion, because the administrative relief route never works.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #87)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:58 PM

88. You know the point--keeping him on suicide watch was a no-brainer

The sky is blue, jberryhill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #88)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:04 PM

89. Then why were his lawyers trying to GET HIM OUT OF JAIL ENTIRELY?


I don't have access to the psych evaluations as you seem to have.

People here are shocked that the very same lawyers who were trying to get him out of jail, were also trying to get him the least restrictive conditions of detention, as if that is some kind of cosmic mystery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #89)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:53 PM

92. You seem shocked in your own way

My issue is with administration—it was a no-brainer to keep him on suicide watch.
I’m convinced you know that but would rather play games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ponietz (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:19 PM

111. The "Sky is green" folk also think the Barr DOJ should be given some benefit of the doubt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #111)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:33 AM

115. Yep, and have logorrhea, besides

Cheers 🍻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 02:19 PM

68. I can't imagine how they had a medical justification for taking a patient off suicide watch

who had just attempted suicide 6 days ago and whose circumstances had just, if anything, gotten worse (with the release of the documents.)

(Or taking away his roommate. Or leaving him alone in a room with a sheet, when he'd already tried to hang himself.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #68)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 02:24 PM

69. Obviously, the facility is not run according to your imagination

You can imagine a conspiracy run from Trump to Barr on down to the lowest guard in the facility, involving a whole string of people, to kill Epstein. Other people here imagine hit men sneaking in and killing him.

But, an administrator of an underfunded and understaffed federal facility - just like many these days because Trump is dismantling the very machinery of government - deciding it's not worth tying up time and resources on an inmate with an entire team of the best-funded lawyers on the planet, to go toe-to-toe with them in court over the conditions of his confinement, is just too far fetched.

Okay.

In the real world, if you threaten suicide, you can be locked up for 72 hours before you are entitled to a review of whether you should remain locked up. Why is three days good enough for everyone else on the planet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #69)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:02 PM

71. It wouldn't have cost them any time or resources

to keep a roommate in his room, as they promised in a letter to Barr that they would, or to leave him in a room without a sheet to strangle himself with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #69)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:53 PM

99. Well, excuse me, but facility wasn't even run according to their own protocol.

So if you are arguing that facility was on the up and up you are sadly mistaken.

"Attorney General William Barr said Monday that investigators had already discovered "serious irregularities" at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, where Epstein had been housed."

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750884421/justice-department-reassigns-warden-of-prison-where-jeffrey-epstein-found-dead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #99)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:58 PM

101. Yeah and?

You have the list of federal facilities run according to their own protocol? Do you have any idea what the Trump federal hiring freeze has done to all sorts of facilities and their protocols?

I did not say it was “on the up and up”. In fact I’m sure it’s a complete shitshow just like many other facilities run by the Trump administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:53 AM

28. Defense attorneys can not do that

without approval from higher ups from the Federal Prisons. Criminal Barr knew and either him or someone else gave permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:01 AM

32. That's just not true


Defense attorneys can request whatever the fuck they want on behalf of their client. They can file a petition with the court if their request is denied.

Petitions concerning the conditions of pre-trial detention are made on behalf of inmates every damned day. It is one of the most common types of papers filed in any federal court. Each one is preceded by an request directly to the prison administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:02 AM

33. And the DOJ knew . .

enough said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:09 AM

35. Huh?


What is that even supposed to mean?

The entire DoJ?

The facility is run by the BOP which is part of the DoJ, so um, it’s not as if one would take the request to the Department of Commerce.

But as far as the conditions under which a federal prisoner is being kept under pre-trial detention, it is unlikely that a whole lot of people are directly engaged in that process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:04 AM

34. Exactly, I suspect the warden approved it

Defense attorneys can petition for whatever, but it takes a warden to make it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:21 AM

42. What? You seem to be saying Barr personally controls conditions of confinement. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:26 AM

44. What's really stupid about this shit...


Is that they could have just skipped a step by not putting him on suicide watch in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:20 PM

112. You're right, Barr has no influence at all :rolleyes:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:58 AM

31. Is it possible that Epstein paid a

guard to be unavailable for a certain period of time in order to kill himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 42bambi (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:06 PM

73. Yep, and he got lucky on the first try!


Getting lucky on the first try is really important when you are going to bribe someone. Otherwise, they might report your attempt to bribe them.

But, fortunately, most people are easily bribed.

So, Epstein says, "Okay, so I need the wire information for a bank account you own, so that I'll have someone wire money to you after you leave me alone long enough for me to kill myself."

The guard, of course, agrees, and provides the wire transfer information.

Epstein gives this information to his attorneys during their daily session, and since they'd rather have Epstein dead this week instead of providing billable work for months on end, they pass it along to someone with authority over one of Epstein's accounts to wire the money to the account of the guard.

Naturally, since Epstein is going to be dead, then any transfers of assets prior to his death are going to be looked at by the estate administrator, but they all said "Fuckit, we'll deal with the paper trail later. After all, some guard about whom we know absolutely nothing and who has agreed to be bribed, is a perfectly trustworthy person on whom we can rely to never spill the beans or screw up."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:11 AM

37. Something tells me the prison admin and guards didn't see Epstein as a means to take

trump down. He was probably just a pain in their rears.

I can see suicide watch being lifted, especially if the first incident was believed to be an attempt to get bail or a better prison assignment -- rather than suicide -- and he, through his attorneys, were requesting removal from suicide watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:19 AM

41. Are you kidding?


People spend decades of their lives in government service, just itching to jump at the chance to participate in a shady conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:29 AM

45. As much as it may pain me to say it, listen to Berryhill. What the lawyers did was normal.

The prison reaction was normal. We’ve already heard this facility was woefully understaffed, that’s why all the forced overtime. Epstein wanted less supervision, his attorneys asked for it, the facility gave in. It was difficult for them to provide in the first place.

Criminal defense attorneys represent their clients wished. That is their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #45)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:45 AM

52. Heard an NPR report this morning- prisoners often request to go back to

Rikers Island rather than stay at that place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #45)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:32 PM

62. Bottom line is the guards might as well have left Epstein alone in a room with a loaded pistol,

instead of giving a bedsheet to the same person who'd already come close to killing himself with one.

It doesn't matter that they were understaffed. It required no extra staff to keep a roommate in his room. It would have required no extra staff to put in him a room without sheets. And they could have pulled staff off other duties to walk down the hall and make sure this very, very, very high profile prisoner had his mandated checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:58 AM

59. I see where Epstein's civil attorneys are lawyering up. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:48 PM

64. I still wonder who with access to this guy had a large deposit in their accounts afterwards.

Lots of rich guys with reasons to knock this guy off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 01:56 PM

66. A prisoner is allowed to remove himself from suicide watch?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #66)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 02:58 PM

70. A prisoner is allowed to have legal representatives seek modification of their detention conditions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:02 PM

72. Hanged himself with PAPER sheets? Bullshit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:13 PM

75. Surely you've all heard the "Epstein is alive" theory?

Defense attorneys took him off suicide watch so they could engineer his escape, using a lookalike's dead body and the cooperation of Epstein's brother, who falsely IDs the ringer at the morgue. A waiting plane, plastic surgery, and off he goes. Everyone's paid off.

Watch a few Matt Damon movies, and conspiracy theories become second nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:18 PM

76. I think Maddow reported last night

that 2 of Epstein's lawyers have now hired their own criminal defense lawyers. Maybe this is part of the reason why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #76)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:23 PM

79. Yes, they would want separate lawyers to review...

...their position on seeking less restrictive confinement, in view of a potential malpractice claim by the estate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #79)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:29 PM

80. But would you need criminal defense lawyers to defend against a potential malpractice claim?

My first guess was that maybe the lawyers had been asked to store something of evidentiary value for Epstein, and wanted to protect themselves from any charges for how they dispose of or retain that -- since attorney client privilege wouldn't survive the death. Or would it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:34 PM

82. Sigh...


If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer.

I can't even figure out what the rest of your post is about. Anything in their possession that was given to them by their client is the property of the estate, and they will follow any directions given to them by the administrator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #82)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:40 PM

84. I agree. So why would they need a criminal lawyer, the kind of lawyer they are said to have hired,

if your theory is correct that this has something to do with a malpractice claim against the estate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #84)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 03:44 PM

85. I literally just answered that question

"If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer."

If your client dies due, in part, to circumstances for which you advocated on that client's behalf, then it would behoove you to hire another specialist in that area to conduct a review of your work. The relevant area here being criminal defense work.

I don't know how to put it to you any simpler than:

"If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer."

You do not hire a dentist. You do not hire a pet groomer. You do not hire a patent lawyer. You hire a criminal defense lawyer.

Any specialist attorney in any field does two things: 1. Practices in that field, and 2. Does opinion work on malpractice claims in that field. For example, I'm a patent attorney. I have represented clients in patent work and I have also worked for other attorneys seeking opinions on malpractice of other patent attorneys. That kind of work comes up in billing disputes in addition to straight-up malpractice claims.

So, it could also be the case that they may need an independent opinion when it comes time to bill the estate for their time and expenses, if any, not covered by any retainer they may have already obtained. The nice part is that they can bill that too, as an expense.

Of course, they should have hired the bestest attorney in the world, Michael Avenatti. Because I heard a rumor that the reason Epstein killed himself is that he found out that Avenatti was going to be his lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #85)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:10 PM

90. Or maybe they are protecting themselves from criminal exposure not related to his death.

Here is another theory.



After Jeffrey Epstein's death, prosecutors examine his inner circle
The jail cell death of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein over the weekend positioned prosecutors to pursue his associates, some of whom allegedly assisted him in abusing underage girls. On...
cnn.com

Shimon Prokupecz

@ShimonPro
This would be at least the 3rd associate of Epstein to hire a criminal defense attorney. This from The NY Times: In a sign that the attorneys are bracing for government scrutiny of Mr. Epstein’s companies, Mr. Indyke and Mr. Schantz both recently hired criminal defense lawyers.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #90)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:18 PM

91. Yes, Twitter is full of theories

And the most popular ones get a lot of attention.

In retrospect, how did all the expert opinion on Michael Avenatti stack up against what I had to say about him from day one? Twitter "legal experts" with thousands of followers had so many more interesting things to say than I did. They were all wrong, btw.

I'm not particularly interested in whether my opinions are popular on Twitter.

But I'm sure you'll find an opinion on Twitter that suits you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #91)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:03 PM

97. So is DU. But the lawyers I follow on Twitter, like Laurence Tribe,

give considered opinions and aren't afraid to attach their names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #97)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:03 PM

102. I don't understand your comment

What does the part about attaching names have to do with the price of tea in China?

My name is J. Berryhill

https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/find-attorney/attorney-detail/83911

I also tweet under @berryhillj

What are you attempting to suggest with that comment “pnwmom”?

Let me know when any of them would waste a second of their time talking to you.

Go ask any of them how “unusual” it is for a lawyer to seek less restrictive conditions of detention for his or her client, and get back to me when you get an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #102)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:10 PM

103. Why are you taking this personally? You denigrated lawyers on Twitter

("Twitter 'legal experts' with thousands of followers') and I pointed out that there are lawyers there who give considered opinions and state their names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #103)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:13 PM

105. And I'm asking you a simple question

What is “stating their names” intended to suggest?

You were attempting to draw some sort of contrast, no?

How did they fare with their opinions about Avenatti?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #105)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:15 PM

106. That they're not the anonymous "legal experts" you implied that they were. (Post 91.)

(And, for the record, all the lawyers on Twitter didn't have the same opinion about Avenatti.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #106)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:17 PM

107. Who said anything about being anonymous?


I didn’t say they were anonymous. What I said was that they, like all media lawyers, don’t derive their income from actual legal work as much as they do from attracting media attention. It goes without saying that one doesn’t do that anonymously.

What did I say about anonymity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #107)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:24 PM

108. You didn't name a single "legal expert" aside from Avenatti. But you said they were "all wrong"

and that you were right. This is a claim that can never be proven or disproven, since you chose not to reveal the names of these lawyers you follow who were all wrong.

Twitter "legal experts" with thousands of followers had so many more interesting things to say than I did. They were all wrong, btw.

I'm not particularly interested in whether my opinions are popular on Twitter.

But I'm sure you'll find an opinion on Twitter that suits you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #108)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:46 PM

109. "They" being the ones you kept citing in that discussion


During the Avenatti discussion, you had no end of legal experts from Twitter and elsewhere whom you likewise would quote things from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #109)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:32 PM

110. Yeah, right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #110)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:41 PM

113. Yeah indeed


Your legal experts have included Louise Mensch:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029060793

"Taylor and Mensch now report, based on separate sources, a sealed indictment against DT."

In that thread, you pull out the classic argument...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029060793#post54

"An attorney tweeted this:"

Wherein you link to a now-deleted tweet from Andrew Laufer who has apparently realized he was full of shit long after I did.

Despite the obvious legal nonsense being touted by Mensch for months, as long as there was an attorney on Twitter who agreed with it, then it was all true!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #113)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:07 AM

114. Yes, you are always right.

You are never wrong.

You are so right, you will search back more than two years, just to prove someone's been wrong.

Everyone else is always wrong, but never you.

Happy now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #114)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:48 AM

116. Thanks again



https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028263192#post73

All kinds of Twitter legal experts were sure of that one, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #116)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:59 AM

117. As I said, you are always right. Righty right right.

Everyone on DU bows down to your incomparable rightness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #102)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:12 PM

104. Actually the price of tea in China is much higher than it needs to be, but that is because of the

trade war “I think”, and not Epstien

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread