- 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: Meet Heather Shaner. She's a DC Public Defender who has represented 43 J6 defendants
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:47 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
aka, schmuck penises as she describes them)
Clearly you read the whole quote
quote:
“I think a pardon is a wonderful idea. Not for people who knowingly and intentionally tried to destroy our democracy, because I think the standard for a pardon there should be a little higher,” she said. “But for schmucks who walked in and took pictures next to photographs of presidents and the statues in Statuary Hall and then walked out, I think it's fine if they get a pardon.”
1
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:48 pm to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Other professions boards would absolutely shred their license for this. Lawyers very rarely discipline their own
That’s absolutely not the case.
The only class of attorneys that rule applies to are government lawyers. They are immune from the consequences of what would otherwise be considered to be unprofessional and unethical consequences.
They rarely if ever get sued for malpractice- and a prosecutor is basically immune for it.
It is most certainly a breach of the duty of loyalty to insult your clients in A frickING NEWS ARTICLE, and to think representation means indoctrinating them into the “correct” political beliefs.
Because this woman perpetuated the absurd prosecution scheme developed by Graves and just without any regard to their other civil rights, for example the FIRST DAMN AMENDMENT - she forced them to accept guilty pleas under threat of even worse shite.
The fact that not ONE of these “public defenders” even bothered to brief or raise these defenses is disgraceful. Public defenders represent their individual clients - NOT the public.
Lawyers do police their own, and apparently with the exception of SFP, by and large we believe that being on the same team as the opposing side is pretty much a breach of the duty of loyalty. She forgot who she represented and instead put her own personal interests ahead of people facing horrific legal risks - many of which on made up crime.
It is a travesty what happened to these people, and no lawyer, whether prosecution or defense who aided in this sham should lose the ability to practice law. Forever
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Bondless C&R has virtually nothing to do with the assumed guilt inherent in pretrial detention.
It's the same thing, effectively.
Freeing someone on the spot vs jailing them with no recourse until trial "is the same thing, effectively."
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:50 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Of course a certain someone is here to tell us she’s great 
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is just gross.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:51 pm to Wednesday
quote:
This is just gross.
Getting clients better resolutions is what a defense attorney is supposed to do.
I've never been a PD for this reason, but if I was and I got stuck with some sov cit idiot you'd better believe I'd be educating them on how their mindset is increasing their chances of going to jail and they need to leave fantasy land and come back to reality
This post was edited on 1/6/25 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Oh my, do share the really great deals of Ms Blue Hair ....
..... for her clients, schmuck penises, as she describes them
Goggle is your friend. I am seeing her getting 10 days for defendants - some served on weekends - while others are getting months and months, some even years.
If I had to guess, others did not get such great deals, but the fact some did tells me she is working, not just taking what the government gives.
Clients are stupid, and lawyers tell them that to their face. It even works to say it in front of a judge. Even if she did call a client or clients "schmucks" - so what? They certainly can be, and it is a very good idea for their lawyer to say so in many instances.
This post was edited on 1/6/25 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Freeing someone on the spot vs jailing them with no recourse until trial "is the same thing, effectively."
The "release" should include getting their cell phone to get them into a communication system to remind them about court dates and to provide a portal for questions, but it's the same concept.
An arrest and release via ticket is common. Used everyday.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:54 pm to L.A.
quote:
Not for people who knowingly and intentionally tried to destroy our democracy
I am amazed anyone could think that J6 was an attempt to "destroy our democracy." What was the plan? How would that have worked without a military coup? I'm not aware of anyone attempting that.
The fact that a defense lawyer could think that is truly disgusting.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 4:58 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I am amazed anyone could think that J6 was an attempt to "destroy our democracy." What was the plan?
I have argued early and often it wasn't an insurrection
But there was a belief in many people rioting on J6 that Pence could have illegally affected the certification to undo the election, basically. The various theories (there were many) did result in an attack on that expression of democracy (the November 2020 elections). I wouldn't say it would "destroy our democracy", but that's what she's referring to I imagine. Just being overly dramatic with her wording.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clearly you read the whole quote
This entire exchange was built on a premise. It was a premise you took on, prima facie. Now you're attempting to run away.
quote:Who was that?
Not for people who knowingly and intentionally tried to destroy our democracy
Please do be specific as to who, and how?
You quote that BS. Own it.
quote:But for schmucks who walked in at the invitation of Capitol Hill Police and took pictures next to photographs of presidents and the statues in Statuary Hall and then walked out ... and were unfortunate enough to draw Ms Blue Hair as their defense attorney ... well they've spent months-years in horrendous circumstances d/t their excellent representation.
But for schmucks who walked in and took pictures next to photographs of presidents and the statues in Statuary Hall and then walked out
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:08 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Because this woman perpetuated the absurd prosecution scheme developed by Graves and just without any regard to their other civil rights, for example the FIRST DAMN AMENDMENT - she forced them to accept guilty pleas under threat of even worse shite.
This is just not reflective of reality and the facts.
One specific charge was thrown out. Every other similar crazy defense (like this "First Amendment" one, if that even existed) did not work.
quote:
she forced them to accept guilty pleas under threat of even worse shite.
Lawyers don't force clients to accept deals, and yes, prosecutors stack charges to force pleas.
quote:
and apparently with the exception of SFP, by and large we believe that being on the same team as the opposing side is pretty much a breach of the duty of loyalty.
What a weird lie-based melt
quote:
and instead put her own personal interests ahead of people facing horrific legal risks - many of which on made up crime.
This is just not true. Go look up the success rate at trial for J6ers and the sentencing they received due to the stacked charges.
quote:
many of which on made up crime.
There was ONE crime that was rejected by the USSC. The rest were not "made up".
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Wait!
The "release" should include getting their cell phone to get them into a communication system to remind them about court dates and to provide a portal for questions, but it's the same concept.
Give me a minute.
I'm trying to understand.
If I allegedly commit a crime, I can either:
A) Be jailed immediately without bond, and sit there for a 12-24 months or more, lose my job, be separated from my family, be separated from pursuits of happiness, or
B) Go free w/o financial charge to live in my 7500sqft estate and live my life in the interim
..... but it's the same concept?????
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
If I allegedly commit a crime, I can either: A) Be jailed immediately without bond, and sit there for a 12-24 months or more, lose my job, be separated from my family, be separated from pursuits of happiness, or B) Go free w/o financial charge to live in my 7500sqft estate and live my life in the interim ..... but it's the same concept?????
SFP gonna have trouble backing out of this one
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The demand for things to be offended by is drastically outweighed by the supply of things to be offended by.
You are talking about racism, but that’s about as poorly worded as that statement has ever been made, lol.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 6:14 pm to Sofaking2
quote:No no, he is not.
You are talking about racism
In fact, he may be talking about you.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 6:35 pm to texag7
quote:
SFP gonna have trouble backing out of this one
There is no "backing out"
He described 2 different views of pretrial detention. The concept is pretrial detention in both examples.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 6:35 pm to Sofaking2
quote:
You are talking about racism,
No. That phrase can apply to any concept.
Posted on 1/7/25 at 6:41 am to the808bass
quote:Seems you are confused as to how a guilty plea works.
If they didn’t stipulate to those, they didn’t get a deal. You’re doubling down on stupid.
You enter into a stipulation under oath. Are you saying they lied about their regret? If so they have other problems like perjury.
Now tell my why anyone would agree to plead guilty and stipulate facts that aren’t true? Everyone has the right to a trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Posted on 1/7/25 at 6:49 am to RFK
quote:
Everyone has the right to a trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You do realize the political leanings and climate of everyone in DC right?
Do you honestly believe anyone will get a 100% unbiased fair trial in that city if you were in any way suspected of being involved in J6 activities?
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News