|
Mercury_Storm posted:Lolling that these guy's lawyer is Norm Pattis, the same guy who got his license suspended in Connecticut while being Alex Jones' lawyer and was on the case that lost Jones a billion dollars. Good choice guys! Norm is a turdperson, but the billion dollars part had more to do with Jones refusing to participate in the discovery process and just leaning head-first into the incoming legal shitstorm in every way possible.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Lolling that these guy's lawyer is Norm Pattis, the same guy who got his license suspended in Connecticut while being Alex Jones' lawyer and was on the case that lost Jones a billion dollars. Good choice guys! Still better than his stand-up act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
Name Change posted:Norm is a turdperson, but the billion dollars part had more to do with Jones refusing to participate in the discovery process and just leaning head-first into the incoming legal shitstorm in every way possible. Losing the case by default was definitely entirely on Alex Jones, but I would argue that it was Norm Pattis’s decision to pursue a legal strategy of accusing the Sandy Hook parents of being fueled by rage and trying to make the case about the second amendment that made the jury absolutely loathe him to the point that they ran the final score up over a billion dollars. There was definitely no good way to defend Alex Jones, but he may very well have picked the worst way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Losing the case by default was definitely entirely on Alex Jones, but I would argue that it was Norm Pattis’s decision to pursue a legal strategy of accusing the Sandy Hook parents of being fueled by rage and trying to make the case about the second amendment that made the jury absolutely loathe him to the point that they ran the final score up over a billion dollars. Then why did Jones have the exact same strategy in Texas where he had different counsel? That was Jones’ decision. Norm is an rear end in a top hat and I’m not defending him, but Jones shouted vitriol at the Sandy Hook parents in front of the jury. The legal strategy decisions are kind of meaningless when the guy is beet red and screaming about Satanic pedophile cabals all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
Trump canceled the press conference where he was going to present 100 pages of irrefutable evidence for fraud in Georgia  
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Then why did Jones have the exact same strategy in Texas where he had different counsel? You also forget basically having a press conference on the steps of the courthouse screaming the judge is a pedophile. More than once I think. Norm's an rear end in a top hat but I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with that decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Trump canceled the press conference where he was going to present 100 pages of irrefutable evidence for fraud in Georgia This random Capitalization Of Words threatens To give me A Stroke!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Trump canceled the press conference where he was going to present 100 pages of irrefutable evidence for fraud in Georgia "You know what, let's not just hand them exhibits G through FFF"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:This is pretty normal, right? “Equal to the governments time investigating” No that’s in no way normal. It’s extremely stupid. It’s extremely abnormal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:You also forget basically having a press conference on the steps of the courthouse screaming the judge is a pedophile. More than once I think. By that point in the trial, Norm had made at least one presentation to the judge that boiled down to "look your honor, my client is a crazy rear end in a top hat and I can't control him." Which too is not to defend him, Norm sucks out loud and I'm glad he's basically ended his career over this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:You also forget basically having a press conference on the steps of the courthouse screaming the judge is a pedophile. More than once I think. Was Pettis the one that accidentally gave the plaintiffs a complete copy of Jones' phone and then didn't pull it back when notified?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
Hypnobeard posted:Was Pettis the one that accidentally gave the plaintiffs a complete copy of Jones' phone and then didn't pull it back when notified? Only indirectly. Norm is the lawyer who received that information and shared it with the attorney in Texas who actually did the gently caress up. God those trials were a loving watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Only indirectly. Norm is the lawyer who received that information and shared it with the attorney in Texas who actually did the gently caress up. Thanks, it gets confusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
This continues to deliver the absolute best content possiblequote:The lawyers said the extraordinary delay was needed because of the historic nature of the case and the extraordinary volume of discovery evidence they will have to sort through — as much as 8.5 terabytes of materials, totaling over 11.5 million pages, they wrote in a filing to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the case. https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1692314627915317488
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:“Equal to the governments time investigating” Yes that “logic” was stupid. But I think defense councils asking for crazy long times before cases are heard is normal, and the expectation is the judge will pick something between what the prosecution and defense asked for. The thing I’m not sure about is if 2.5 years is even crazier than what’s normally asked for. But so much of the case is unprecedented that it’s hard to figure out what to comp it to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
"Your honor, my client left so much evidence of his many crimes, it will take very long to get through it all!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
Remember when ~ thing ~ would happen, sometimes several times a day? And we would all sigh, and say, "throw it on the pile?" Here's the pile, you unfortunate boobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
I mean, yes, they have a point about the volume of discovery. Most of my clients with high volumes of discovery are waiting for trial in jail because they weren't granted bond.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:This continues to deliver the absolute best content possible By the way, unless the government sent some ridiculously inefficient form of electronic paper, going by their own words 11.5 million pages is anything between 15-40 gigs of data. No way over 100 at best. So they're just deliberately lying through their teeth. This is explicitly for fundraising and justifying the loss to chuds. They're going to get slapped down so hard. Also this tells me they don't actually have anything to defend with. Sheer incompetency. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Aug 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:By the way, unless the government sent some ridiculously inefficient form of electronic paper, going by their own words 11.5 million pages is anything between 15-40 gigs of data. So they're just deliberately lying through their teeth. This is explicitly for fundraising and justifying the loss to chuds. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the government sent everything as scanned image based pdfs. I mean, I'd do that. Make em work for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It actually wouldn't surprise me if the government sent everything as scanned image based pdfs. I mean, I'd do that. Make em work for it. It wouldn't surprise me either, the question would be regular lawyer incompetence with technology or weaponized incompetence with technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:By the way, unless the government sent some ridiculously inefficient form of electronic paper, going by their own words 11.5 million pages is anything between 15-40 gigs of data. No way over 100 at best. So they're just deliberately lying through their teeth. This is explicitly for fundraising and justifying the loss to chuds. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have emotion, then argue emotion. If you don't have facts or emotion going for you, then pound the table and yell a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:17
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:This continues to deliver the absolute best content possible I AM an actual lawyer who specializes in running an e-discovery department, so this is literally my jam. So let's take the lawyer at his word here and assume all 11.5 million pages are potentially reviewable. I'm sure this is before any search terms or threading are done to reduce the population since they want to pump up the population. And he gave the page count rather than the doc count which is what you usually go by. So lets break down how you'd go about tackling this. 11.5m pages. In my experience you typically see 2.5-3 pages per document. It depends heavily on the types of docs you see, but a sufficiently large population will probably even out an not be super heavy with orphan families or chat threads or whatever. So lets go with 3 pages per doc on average. That's 3.8 million documents in the review set. Now we need to run search terms, threading, deduping, etc on the set. You might even be able to run active learning on the set to cut it down further. But lets assume you're not doing any AI stuff. You'd usually see a reduction of the review set to about 30% of the original doc count from this stuff. Again this is highly dependent on the data set. A richer set will have more. A set from a variety of custodians might have a ton of dupes that can be cut out. But lets go with 30% left over here because that's a pretty normal amount. So that leaves us with 1.15m docs that need reviewing for responsiveness/privilege/issues. They need to be redacted where they have attorney privileged info on them. And a privilege log needs to be generated for the docs you are withholding which are responsive. How long does this take? Well, with a sufficiently well-developed review company you can staff up to hundreds of attorneys on a case in short notice, so actually grabbing the reviewers to look at these docs shouldn't be a problem. Lets say we want to get this done in 10 weeks with another 2 weeks for logging and redactions. How many reviewers would we need to accomplish this? Typical review speeds are ~45 docs an hour, assuming the docs aren't enormous or tiny and the coding choices aren't voluminous. Let's say the reviewers need to pick responsiveness/privilege and apply up to 6 issue tags. A normal review. They will have on average an 8-hour day and 40 hours a week (often you'd allow/require more than that, but let's give them a nice work/life balance here) 40hrs * 45dph * 10 weeks * 65 reviewers will get you 1.17 million docs reviewed. Go up to 70 or 80 to give yourself some wiggle room in case things don't go according to plan. While 65-80 reviewers is not a small review. It's certainly not a huge review and it's the kind of thing that gets done all the time for other cases. I've run dozens of them like this and advised clients on ones for my department where I didn't run them. You don't need 2 years to do this kind of review. Edit: and if this is 11.5 million docs are all government produced docs then we don't need to worry about privilege at all. Maybe they are richer though since (hopefully) the government did their own responsiveness review and so didn't produce a ton of junk docs. You can again run your search terms, deduping, etc. Though if the government already did that and trimmed down their production then you might be left with a pretty rich set. In this case you'd have to review most of the review set that hits on search terms. Still about 3.8 million docs. Larger than my above estimate. In that case a good team size might be to double your review time to 20 weeks with a team of 110 reviewers. Larger, but not overbearing. And I've run larger reviews with shorter turn arounds. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Aug 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
Trump's attorneys have to run their preferred judge to let her know that the Special Counsel is very disrespectfulquote:A Special Counsel committed to the fair administration of Justice should never have circumvented this Court’s orders under any circumstance, much less with full knowledge of the various issues presented with these multiple indictments against the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States. Lum_ posted:This continues to deliver the absolute best content possible quote:@OANN National Political Correspondent; Covering the Trump campaign
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You don't need 2 years to do this kind of review. You mean... Trump's lawyers would just... lie? Can you DO that? I eagerly await the slapdown from the judge in about 12 hours or so
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I promise there were better ways to get the image from the filing. Ones that don't involve a tweet citing it approvingly from a guy going on about how they're only indicting him because they know they can't beat him. Oh yeah, I just did a quick search because it's late to get the image on the forum. Please don't take it as any sort of endorsement!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I AM an actual lawyer who specializes in running an e-discovery department, so this is literally my jam. So this is a bit off topic because Trump can obviously afford it, but how much does hiring 100 reviewers cost? Let's say you're not literally Donald Trump and you can't afford to pay all those people to review the literal mountain of evidence against you. Do you just not get to mount a competent defense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It actually wouldn't surprise me if the government sent everything as scanned image based pdfs. I mean, I'd do that. Make em work for it. starve the beast
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So this is a bit off topic because Trump can obviously afford it, but how much does hiring 100 reviewers cost? Let's say you're not literally Donald Trump and you can't afford to pay all those people to review the literal mountain of evidence against you. Do you just not get to mount a competent defense? For the reviewer's time, the RM would probably be charged at ~$110-$150 an hour and reviewers at ~$60-$80 if everything is remote. QC might be somewhere in between those two numbers, or just charged at the lower/higher number. Depending on the review company's billing structure and the contract with the client. If we assume the larger estimate in my post that might be something like $7.4 million for the review. Excluding the QC time. Assuming 10% QC *(which is honestly kind of low) and they charge it at the same rate as RMs that would be an additional $1.3 million. But like I said the QC charges will be highly dependent on the company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:For the reviewer's time, the RM would probably be charged at ~$110-$150 an hour and reviewers at ~$60-$80 if everything is remote. So then the second half of that question - if I (person who doesn't have nearly 10 million lying around) am in that position, do I just tell the court "I literally cannot afford to defend myself so I guess I die in prison now"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So then the second half of that question - if I (person who doesn't have nearly 10 million lying around) am in that position, do I just tell the court "I literally cannot afford to defend myself so I guess I die in prison now"? Dunno. I don't deal with clients that can't pay lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So then the second half of that question - if I (person who doesn't have nearly 10 million lying around) am in that position, do I just tell the court "I literally cannot afford to defend myself so I guess I die in prison now"? I presume you, a person who doesn't have nearly 10 million lying around, do not have a MYCRIMES.TXT that takes up over 8.5 terabytes. Whereas Donald J. Trump, possibly the most successful (and certainly most blatant) con man of the 21st century so far going by how much he's gotten away with, does, but also has his own political action committee dedicated to paying (or not paying) armies of lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
Giuliani apparently stole $300k from investors in an anti-Biden movie https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-biden-documentary-scam-money-lawsuit-2023-8%3famp
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:I presume you, a person who doesn't have nearly 10 million lying around, do not have a MYCRIMES.TXT that takes up over 8.5 terabytes. Whereas Donald J. Trump, possibly the most successful con man of the 21st century so far going by how much he's gotten away with, does, but also has his own political action committee dedicated to paying (or not paying) armies of lawyers. I know that we're all happy that [bad thing] is finally happening to [bad person] instead of [random unlucky minority], but remember that ACAB and while this exact thing won't happen to a random person, I wouldn't be surprised if prosecutors intentionally make legal discovery as painful as possible just because they can. Let's say someone is in trouble for selling drugs on Craigslist - the government is probably just going to dump the logs of every website you ever visited as part of discovery because they don't have to be nice and only give you the relevant stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:56
|
|
|
wow that's a lot of pages of discovery good thing trump raised like $250m for his legal defense. maybe if he was some random citizen without the resources that would seem like some horribly unfair burden, but not for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Giuliani apparently stole $300k from investors in an anti-Biden movie This is the most Republican fuckin' thing I've ever seen. He embezzled money from farmers for a fake anti-Biden movie!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:wow that's a lot of pages of discovery good thing trump raised like $250m for his legal defense. maybe if he was some random citizen without the resources that would seem like some horribly unfair burden, but not for him. He can afford it, but my point is that we shouldn't be celebrating onerous, unnecessary burdens on defendants just because this one guy deserves it this one time. The government obviously doesn't plan on presenting millions of pages of documents in court. They KNOW what documents they are going to use to argue their points. They should have to provide those documents and not stick them in a giant hay stack. We can call out unfair bullshit, even when it happens to the kind of people we want unfair bullshit to happen to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:He can afford it, but my point is that we shouldn't be celebrating onerous, unnecessary burdens on defendants just because this one guy deserves it this one time. The government obviously doesn't plan on presenting millions of pages of documents in court. They KNOW what documents they are going to use to argue their points. They should have to provide those documents and not stick them in a giant hay stack. I want to point out here that I'm taking Trump's lawyer at their word about the document and page count. I have seen multinational merger second requests which are smaller than the page counts that he is talking about here. So I really doubt that this is actually a realistic review size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I want to point out here that I'm taking Trump's lawyer at their word about the document and page count. I have seen multinational merger second requests which are smaller than the page counts that he is talking about here. So I really doubt that this is actually a realistic review size. That's fair but even if the page count was 1/100th of that, most people couldn't afford it without selling everything they own and probably taking on student-loan amounts of debt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
most people don't try to overthrow the results of an election or have a quarter of a billion dollars raised for their legal defense, let him deal with the complexity of the situation he himself created
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2023 06:10
|
|