|
Objecting to saying "yeah he looks like a biter" is really something Edit: Yeah, the scar story was hard to listen to for obvious reasons.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Norm going to hard on cross on any of these parents in front of this jury would be a massive mistake I honestly think he's here as an attack dog? Norm knows Alex is going to lose, so he's just doing whatever Alex wants him to in open court. Attack a parent of a dead child? Imply to the jury that Hillary Clinton is behind this, even when the judge repeatedly tells him not to? Sure, whatever. He's getting paid 6 figures a month. He'll make any dumb argument Alex wants him to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Last time he tried to object to a grieving parent dissolving into tears rather than answering a question directly as "non-responsive". There are some lawyers who believe the job is just being as vicious as you can because litigation is like war! I would never hire one of these lawyers because being a massive rear end in a top hat is not a reliable trial strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Everyone always asks criminal defense attorneys how they represent someone they know is guilty. There's usually some lofty ideal about holding the government to their standards, etc. It isn't easy to do. I couldn't represent domestic abusers, for example, because I don't like cross examining crying alleged victims. I don't like Norm Pattis, but he's a competent attorney. It is literally his job to object as he is doing. I think he's a slimy piece of poo poo, but I think he's a decent trial litigator. Andino Reynal is not a good trial litigator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
waydownLo posted:There are some lawyers who believe the job is just being as vicious as you can because litigation is like war! I would never hire one of these lawyers because being a massive rear end in a top hat is not a reliable trial strategy. I don't see Pattis as being a deliberate rear end in a top hat. He's just being a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't see Pattis as being a deliberate rear end in a top hat. He's just being a lawyer. Have you seen his standup or his appearances on Aex Jones'? He's definitely a deliberate rear end in a top hat and a true believer The fact that it can be masked as competence in this particular instance is very convenient for him, but it's just a mask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
waydownLo posted:There are some lawyers who believe the job is just being as vicious as you can because litigation is like war! I would never hire one of these lawyers because being a massive rear end in a top hat is not a reliable trial strategy. I took a criminal justice course in highschool that was taught by a retired lawyer. What made me never want to even consider it was his opinions on how the court worked. He believed strongly that your job was to do what your client wanted and defend them, your job was to show flaws in the law and if you could get someone off with obvious murder you were supposed to so the law could be fixed. He never did go into details on why he was retired and in his 40s so I'm guessing he got disbarred. Like the entire thing justice wasn't part of it, it was about the letter of the law and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't see Pattis as being a deliberate rear end in a top hat. He's just being a lawyer. He has the politics of petty bullies, of course that's gonna bleed into the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Have you seen his standup or his appearances on Aex Jones'? He's definitely a deliberate rear end in a top hat and a true believer I think he's a piece of poo poo - no argument from me on that front. I'm just saying that he's a much better trial litigator than Andino Reynal. Being an rear end in a top hat inherently is a useful quality for an attorney, because it allows you to more easily cross examine people who are breaking down. You don't have to be an rear end in a top hat to be a good lawyer, but it helps. Norm Pattis is an rear end in a top hat. His objections are not the result of that - he's just being a lawyer. The fact that being a good lawyer can be indistinguishable from being an rear end in a top hat is just the nature of the job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
pixaal posted:I took a criminal justice course in highschool that was taught by a retired lawyer. What made me never want to even consider it was his opinions on how the court worked. I think you kind of have to have that kind of mindset if you are going to be defending obviously guilty people, which actually needs to happen(because obviously guilty people sometimes aren't) Judges should be concerned with justice, jurys should be concerned with justice, lawyers should be concerned with, well, rules lawyering
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Could Pattis being a true believer be brought up in court? Like there must be footage of him agreeing with Jones that SH is ‘as phony as a 3 dollar bill.’ It’s probably in evidence already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Could Pattis being a true believer be brought up in court? Like there must be footage of him agreeing with Jones that SH is ‘as phony as a 3 dollar bill.’ It’s probably in evidence already. Pattis isn't on trial here, and when he has strayed across the line, he has been reeled in by the judge. The case is about Jones - not his lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Yeah, as fun as it would be to cross examine Pattis or something, it isn't about him, it's about Jones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Koskoff(?) seems to do much better with his arguments on these sidebars then when actively in front of the jury. Poor guy does have a ton of nerves
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Whisper a little louder Pattis!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
I just hate his stinkin’ guts so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
Jesus this sidebar
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Judge at the side bar: oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Does Pattis want to argue that the plaintiffs deserve less if they knowingly opposed Alex's political agenda? How does that make sense with regards to defamation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
i swear every time i turn on the stream theyre in a sidebar
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Pattis trying to tell the judge what to do, hooboy
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:i swear every time i turn on the stream theyre in a sidebar Not a bad thread title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
"Everything that comes out of his mouth seems to be an obvious lie. I cannot discern what his personal positions are, no"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Pattis always gets so huffy when he ends questioning, just throws his hands in exasperation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Like the entire thing justice wasn't part of it, it was about the letter of the law and that was it. That’s the legal system in general, not a specific problem of lawyers. I’d love to hear what he thinks the supposed process of law getting fixed is, I’m guessing it’s either a lot of mumbling or relies on enough luck cash and fortitude to pursue appeals in higher courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Jones unlikely to be called today, which is for the best. Feels like it'd be an even uglier sidebar given that the Sandy Hook victims are testifying today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
gently caress yes, please talk to the Marshall, Judge Bellis. I don't know what you're gonna talk about but gently caress if I don't wanna see the results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
I missed it - what happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
I'm confused by the judges ruling on all this guns/politics stuff. I think everyone is. I'm not even sure the judge fully understands what she wants to see happen. At the end of all that back and forth it seems like she just wants them to avoid using certain words?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Pattis apparently wants to argue that this suit is intended to silence Alex about the first and second amendments (I think the plaintiff's lawyer said that while they were sidebarring and Pattis didn't deny) which is why he keeps bringing up politics. Judge says this is about damages for defamation and harassment and the politics part is irrelevant so stop going that direction. Pattis does not like this ruling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I missed it - what happened? I don’t know who you’re talking to but I’ll respond. Everyone was arguing about politics/guns after the jury left, then the judge broke for lunch and shouted that she wants to talk to the “marshall” now. No clue who that is but I love me an ominous title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Defense is attempting to make it seem this is politically motivated, which might have been a really dumb defense for the actual trial but that didn't happen to he is trying to do an end around by putting it in the juries head that this is a political hit job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Tree Dude posted:I'm confused by the judges ruling on all this guns/politics stuff. I think everyone is. I'm not even sure the judge fully understands what she wants to see happen. At the end of all that back and forth it seems like she just wants them to avoid using certain words? My impression was she wants jones’ politics and the plaintiffs politics to be in bounds but doesn’t want either jones or witnesses to talk about any specific politicians. Presumably her logic is that a juror may not know the politics of this case but could be a big supporter of trump or Hillary or Obama and wants to avoid the jurors judging anyone as being for or against those figures. It’s not really a needle that can be threaded imo people with strong opinions on those politicians will know generally what side they’re on with respect to issues like gun control or globalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don’t know who you’re talking to but I’ll respond. Everyone was arguing about politics/guns after the jury left, then the judge broke for lunch and shouted that she wants to talk to the “marshall” now. I think it was just her normal cadence, I wouldn't ascribe scare-italics to her request
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don’t know who you’re talking to but I’ll respond. Everyone was arguing about politics/guns after the jury left, then the judge broke for lunch and shouted that she wants to talk to the “marshall” now. that’s what i was talking about. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Does Pattis want to argue that the plaintiffs deserve less if they knowingly opposed Alex's political agenda? How does that make sense with regards to defamation? He's trying to argue that the plaintiffs aren't really that aggrieved or bothered by what Jones did, and that they only filed this lawsuit as a political weapon due to Jones' increasing political prominence. By presenting the plaintiffs as biased agents seeking to destroy Alex's platform for political advocacy, rather than as grieving families who were victimized and harassed by Jones' unprovoked campaign, he seeks to make the jury unsympathetic toward the plaintiffs
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Jones with a statement on the courthouse steps about the bankruptcy news. e: his statement is basically "This is actually good for us and the media is reporting like it isn't" I think Then he rants about all the exact same poo poo he did on the steps yesterday. Been apologizing for years, I question everything and I'm right a lot, Jussie Smollett, etc etc Tree Dude fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Sep 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
I clocked it in his speech that at exactly 1:51PM Eastern, Jones made a statement about how he's apologized to the parents. I'm counting to see how long before he says something directly offensive about the parents or otherwise says something antithetical to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
this guy can talk forever and yet say nothing, it's fascinating
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:this guy can talk forever and yet say nothing, it's fascinating Kinda surprised he never tried to run for office but when you have a cash cow
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:57
|
|
