- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hunter Biden Lawyers Impersonating Congressional Staff to Remove Derogatory Evidence
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:00 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
quote:Interesting that they submitted Ms Bengel’s explanation as a Declaration rather than a sworn Affidavit.
Why?
It’s interesting because Latham’s expectation was an affidavit of the clerk’s take on the events. But not what they were willing to provide.
0
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The big thing I don't get is why not just file a motion to seal?
EXACTLY
the appropriate response is a motion not a call to the clerk. $1000/hr lawyers know this.
It is shady for someone other than the party filing to call the clerk and ask for removal of another's pleading.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:06 am to OceanMan
She, nor anyone with Hunter's firm, have any business asking for info to be removed, especially the kind that implicates him as the jackass sorry crackhead ignorant Dem he is.
There is no excuse, except in an ignorant Dems childish mind............that includes every Dem on this board.
There is no excuse, except in an ignorant Dems childish mind............that includes every Dem on this board.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
“I believe there may have been some confusion”
Just another “I don’t recall” or “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:09 am to dafif
Now that I think about this a little more, if I were working at Latham and the court called me to tell me they removed the document WITHOUT filing the motion, I'd be freaking out about this exact scenario. I would be calling them back to tell them about the mistake and I would know 100% that the item shouldn't have been removed without me filing something.
What steps did Latham do to correct this obvious issue? I wonder what kind of time we're talking about between removal and the docket entry. If this is in terms of days, not hours, then that isn't a good look.
What steps did Latham do to correct this obvious issue? I wonder what kind of time we're talking about between removal and the docket entry. If this is in terms of days, not hours, then that isn't a good look.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why have a paralegal type contact ECF about what to do?
She is Director of Litigation Services. She is an attorney according to their website.
quote:
The big thing I don't get is why not just file a motion to seal? Seems pretty straightforward.
Yeah. The process used here seems unconventional.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:10 am to Bandit1980
quote:
She, nor anyone with Hunter's firm, have any business asking for info to be removed,
The firm that filed this non-redacted stuff should probably face sanctions. It's clearly against the rules protecting personal information in a public record.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:11 am to OceanMan
quote:
She is Director of Litigation Services. She is an attorney according to their website.
I didn't look at the website. I thought that title indicated a fancy title for head paralegal, basically.
That makes it so much worse if she was an actual attorney.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:14 am to cajunangelle
The court: The court has discussed the matter with the relevant individuals in the Clerk's office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengels, represented that she worked with Mr. Kittila...
Latham & Watkins, with 3 offices in China and as the go-to firm for DC criminals within the federal government:
We did nothing wrong, we promise. Please disregard the fact that we represent the son of the President, a lifelong sex predators with ties to China, who has used his position to protect his son and target political opponents, who co-opted the intelligence community to lie to the American people during a presidential election, who has corrupted the DOJ and FBI in a protection scheme. There's no pressure at all on us to use similarly unethical tactics here, you can believe us on that. No, Judge, we have no incentive at all to lie or use nefarious mechanisms on behalf of our client who is paying us a huge sum of money and if we get a great deal for this client, we can assure ourselves of many repeat customers from the den of snakes in DC, China, and other places around the globe. You can trust us. We're great people.
If you have a "misunderstanding" with the IRS, you're going to jail, getting raided, asset forfeiture, huge fines.
If you have a "misunderstanding" on a gun form, you're most definitely going to jail.
If Hunter Biden has a "misunderstanding" with the IRS, nothing will happen.
If Hunter Biden has a "misunderstanding" on a gun form, nothing will happen.
If you have a "misunderstanding" with the court, you will be held in contempt, pay a fine, and likely spend some nights in jail.
When government attorneys have a "misunderstanding" with the court, nothing happens. Reference Ted Stevens case.
Now that Latham & Watkins has had a "misunderstanding" with the court - what is the federal judiciary going to do?
Latham & Watkins, with 3 offices in China and as the go-to firm for DC criminals within the federal government:
We did nothing wrong, we promise. Please disregard the fact that we represent the son of the President, a lifelong sex predators with ties to China, who has used his position to protect his son and target political opponents, who co-opted the intelligence community to lie to the American people during a presidential election, who has corrupted the DOJ and FBI in a protection scheme. There's no pressure at all on us to use similarly unethical tactics here, you can believe us on that. No, Judge, we have no incentive at all to lie or use nefarious mechanisms on behalf of our client who is paying us a huge sum of money and if we get a great deal for this client, we can assure ourselves of many repeat customers from the den of snakes in DC, China, and other places around the globe. You can trust us. We're great people.
If you have a "misunderstanding" with the IRS, you're going to jail, getting raided, asset forfeiture, huge fines.
If you have a "misunderstanding" on a gun form, you're most definitely going to jail.
If Hunter Biden has a "misunderstanding" with the IRS, nothing will happen.
If Hunter Biden has a "misunderstanding" on a gun form, nothing will happen.
If you have a "misunderstanding" with the court, you will be held in contempt, pay a fine, and likely spend some nights in jail.
When government attorneys have a "misunderstanding" with the court, nothing happens. Reference Ted Stevens case.
Now that Latham & Watkins has had a "misunderstanding" with the court - what is the federal judiciary going to do?
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:15 am to dafif
quote:Best case scenario is you get a MTS on file in a few hours. More likely, a day or so. In either case, the document is available to the public in the interim. In a high profile case like this, every news outlet in the country copies the pleading and publishes it, rendering moot any subsequent MTS.
the appropriate response is a motion not a call to the clerk. $1000/hr lawyers know this.
GOP Counsel knew this, which is why they declined defense counsel’s request to file the amicus brief under seal to begin with. if the actual goal were to provide the judge with information relevant to sentencing, following under seal would have accomplished that goal. If the ACTUAL goal was to disseminate confidential information to everyone in the country, they followed exactly the right procedure.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The firm that filed this non-redacted stuff should probably face sanctions. I
I had this exact same thing when the plaintiffs filed employees names, addresses and salary information in a court pleading. I moved for Sanctions
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The firm that filed this non-redacted stuff should probably face sanctions. It's clearly against the rules protecting personal information in a public record.
Which makes it very strange that no motion was filed or any other paper trail left.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:did it not all take place in one business day?
I wonder what kind of time we're talking about between removal and the docket entry. If this is in terms of days, not hours, then that isn't a good look.
This post was edited on 7/26/23 at 8:20 am
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:18 am to dafif
quote:
I had this exact same thing when the plaintiffs filed employees names, addresses and salary information in a court pleading. I moved for Sanctions
Like I said, this is the kind of mistake SF PLC would make.
It's incomprehensible a $1000/hour firm (that may be under-selling it) fricked up this bad. All of them. This is all insane to me.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:it looks like she is indeed a licensed attorney, but the affidavit and letter both say that she is not practicing law. It looks to me like she is basically just supervising a bunch of paralegals.
didn't look at the website. I thought that title indicated a fancy title for head paralegal, basically. That makes it so much worse if she was an actual attorney.
This post was edited on 7/26/23 at 8:26 am
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:19 am to AggieHank86
Hank, as you know, in federal court, service of the court document is immediate. I am not sure whether availability on with the court docket is immediate for others but after service I would assume on immediate motion and a call to the judges assistant is the appropriate response.
I cannot think of a time when I call to the clerks office from the nonmoving party is acceptable
I cannot think of a time when I call to the clerks office from the nonmoving party is acceptable
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:20 am to cajunangelle
This single act alone is massively, more corrupt than anything we saw in Watergate. It’s not even close.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:24 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Jessica Bengels
Needs to lose her license.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:25 am to dafif
As you know, every court in this country has informal local rules (unwritten) and informal local procedures (unwritten).
Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable for an attorney to pick up the phone, call the clerk and say “look, I don’t think the stuff should’ve been filed. I am preparing a motion to seal. Is there any local procedure to protect the information in the interim?”
in that situation, I think the clerk temporarily pulling the material from the file would be an entirely appropriate interim solution, as well.
Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable for an attorney to pick up the phone, call the clerk and say “look, I don’t think the stuff should’ve been filed. I am preparing a motion to seal. Is there any local procedure to protect the information in the interim?”
in that situation, I think the clerk temporarily pulling the material from the file would be an entirely appropriate interim solution, as well.
Posted on 7/26/23 at 8:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
it looks like she is indeed a licensed attorney, but the affidavit and let her both say that she is not practicing law. It looks to me like she is basically just supervising a bunch of paralegals.
But it was her that corresponded with the court directly.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News