Platt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at LawPlatt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at Law2024-02-09T04:58:55Zhttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1201694/2021/08/cropped-favicon-32x32.jpgOn Behalf of Platt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at Lawhttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=480012024-02-07T20:43:43Z2024-02-07T20:43:43Z1. Consistent communication
Maintaining consistent communication is helpful for co-parents dealing with seasonal work arrangements. Using various communication tools, such as video calls, phone calls and emails, can help bridge the distance. Establishing a routine for regular check-ins ensures that both parents remain involved in the child's life, even with limited physical presence.
2. Flexibility in scheduling
Given the nature of seasonal work, it is good to incorporate flexibility into the parenting plan schedule. Creating a plan that adapts to the parent's work schedule can prevent conflicts and facilitate a smoother co-parenting experience. Flexibility allows for adjustments during peak work seasons and can ensure that the parents consistently meet the child’s needs.
3. Extended visitation periods
When a parent is away for an extended period due to seasonal work, it may be beneficial to arrange for longer visitation periods when they return. This approach allows the noncustodial parent to make up for lost time. It can foster a stronger bond between the child and the absent parent during the periods of availability.
4. Financial planning and support
In Oak Harbor, the median household income is $68,039. Seasonal work often brings fluctuating income, making financial planning an integral part of the parenting plan. Clearly outlining responsibilities for child-related expenses, such as education, health care and extracurricular activities, helps prevent disputes. Ensuring both parents contribute proportionally to these costs fosters financial stability for the child.
5. Education and school involvement
Consistent educational support is important. Both parents should play a part in decisions related to the child's education, regardless of physical distance. Regular communication with teachers and participation in parent-teacher conferences can help the noncustodial parent stay informed and engaged in the child's academic progress.
6. Mediation and conflict resolution
In situations where disagreements arise, a clear process for mediation and conflict resolution can prevent escalation. The parenting plan should include guidelines on how to address disputes, ensuring that the child's best interests remain the focal point of any resolution efforts.
Crafting a parenting plan that accommodates seasonal work challenges requires foresight and cooperation.]]>On Behalf of Platt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at Lawhttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=480002023-11-10T15:48:05Z2023-11-10T15:48:05ZEligible offenses
Washington law offers the opportunity to expunge certain types of crimes, allowing individuals to move beyond their past mistakes. The eligibility criteria depend on the type of offense and the specific circumstances. Eligible crimes often include:
Misdemeanor convictions
Certain Class B felonies
Deferred prosecution cases
Vacated convictions
Regardless of the nature of the crime, expungement conditions often entail completing any court-ordered requirements and remaining crime-free for a certain period of time.
Ineligible offenses
Not all offenses are eligible for expungement in Washington. Some crimes, such as serious violent felonies and certain sex offenses, are typically not eligible for expungement. Additionally, individuals with multiple convictions or ongoing legal issues may face challenges in pursuing expungement.
The expungement process
If you believe you are eligible for expungement, you must follow a specific process to clear your record. This starts by reviewing and confirming your eligibility, followed by completing any court-ordered obligations. You can then file a petition to the relevant county court and attend a scheduled hearing. After making your case for why the court should expunge your record and proving your rehabilitation, it is a matter of waiting for the final decision.
In a study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, 9 out of 10 members of the study group who sought expungement were able to completely clear their criminal records. This study shows that, even in cases where expungement might be a lengthy process, it is one worth pursuing.]]>On Behalf of Platt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at Lawhttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479992023-08-07T20:09:31Z2023-08-07T20:09:31Z
Focused. Those who agree to collaborative divorce generally sign an agreement that they will focus on this process. This includes an agreement to refrain from using litigation as a threat during negotiations. Instead, all parties must agree to follow the collaborative process or fire the professionals involved and start over.
Limited counsel. As noted above, the attorneys who sign on to offer counsel during the collaborative divorce process will not provide representation if the process fails and the couple heads to court. If this happens, the couple will need to find new representation. The same is generally true for any additional experts, like financial specialists.
Control. Parties who choose to use the collaborative process to divorce often have more control over the outcome in comparison to going to court and leaving these decisions with the judge.
This process is also much more private than traditional litigation as courtroom proceedings are often public.
How does it work?
Those who chose collaborative divorce generally hire their own legal counsel. This means each party has an attorney advocating for their interests. However, instead of fighting to win a case both parties are negotiating to reach a final agreement that works for everyone involved.
Once legal counsel is in place the parties meet with their attorneys to determine their goals and priorities. Negotiations will follow with the goal of putting together a settlement agreement.
Is it effective?
Judges are often in favor of collaborative divorce. For many couples this is an effective alternative to litigation. Judges note that couples who use collaborative law are more likely to put together a final agreement that is more manageable than one developed through litigation mitigating the risk of future litigation and requests for modifications.
It is important to note that there are situations when collaborative divorce is not the best option. This can include relationships that have a history of abuse or a large power disparity.]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479972023-08-05T17:56:12Z2023-08-05T17:55:36Znot one. But I can say that if you asked anyone who ever knew me, I strongly doubt anyone would say that I was.... unless it was an anti-White-Cracker-Good-Ol’-Boy bias. That I have, I admit. I was told by a friend once, who was not a haolie like me, that “There must have been some mistake upstairs. You were clearly meant to be an Ethnic.” I took that as high praise.
I worked at a Caterpillar factory in rural Illinois in college for a summer, where I felt a bit like Peter Fonda in Easy Rider.... the bit at the end. At “dinner”, so called, we all ate at the same time in a giant cafeteria. ALLLLL of the white rednecks sat in a giant L shape around one far corner. In that far corner is where the black guys sat. I sat with them. More my type. You can only imagine how that went over.
So, I lead with this white man “Some of my best friends are black” angle for a reason. It’s important to clarify that I don’t put up with it. But I also know, being a privileged white guy, that I have never had to put up with it, personally. That goes to the entire point of this blog.
In my opinion this case does have to do a lot with race, but at a much, much deeper level, than “White cop bad, black man good.” It’s just like the “four legs good, two legs bad” approach people bring to the political debate these days. Black and white. Literally.
Wrong. Much more gray than that.
Why?
The truck driver, no matter what his skin color, rolled for almost half an hour, after lights came on and he had a duty to immediately pull over, instead not stopping, changing lanes, somewhat evasively, maybe not a major Reckless Driving case, but not good driving, to put it mildly. Not to mention borderline Felony Eluding. In a huge semi, a rolling death trap. So.... what does that have to do with color of the driver’s skin? Can someone please explain that to me?
What would any normal cop think? Any normal person, for that matter? Why is this person not pulling over? That is a big truck! WHAT is in it? Drugs? “Illegal” Immigrants? Guns? Worse? Explosives?
I would begin thinking this way, personally, after about the first ten minutes or so. Who wouldn’t? Whether or not I could even see the driver.
When you are in this kind of situation, your adrenaline jacks up. It just does, period. Nothing to do with race. Well, maybe if you’re a racist that adds to the “fight or flight” thing, but do you honestly think if the driver had been white, the cops would be all chill about this? Wrong.
In terms of the cops, it is very unclear who was told what, by whom. The cops with the dog arrived fresh on the scene, moments before dog was released. All they knew was a giant truck had been basically eluding cops for half an hour. Huh. Wonder if they were all chill? Even with muscle memory level training you are not chill in these situations. Ask anyone who’s been in them. The juices are flowing. True, the state cop called out not to let dog go, but I can see easily that the other cop might not have heard him. NOBODY can say beyond a reasonable doubt what the other cop heard. Even if they have already convicted him in their minds.
Not to mention the state cop was not dog cop’s boss.
All of which, as in combat, can lead to the Fog of War syndrome. Mistakes are made. People lose track of who is doing what, where, and why. It happens.
Did it happen here? How would I know?
Was there some giant miscommunication screw up, between the two different police agencies? (Much stranger things have happened.) Or is this cop a dedicated racist who intentionally sicked a dog on a totally innocent black man, not by mistake, but because he is a racist?
All I know is one thing. He was NOT a “totally innocent” anyone, no matter what color he is.
I can almost hear the jaws dropping to the floor right about now.
The problem is that calling “Racist” every single time, with zero analysis behind it, is wrong, just as calling “Rape” is morally wrong if it’s not true. Why? Because doing that hurts the true victims of these crimes.
THIS is where it gets complicated. The part where you look beyond the “four legs good, two legs bad” angle.
Racism IS involved here. That’s the entire point. HOW?
The truck driver explained that he was afraid to pull over, because he did not think he was doing anything wrong (it was a friggin’ missing mud flap “violation” for crying out loud) and all he saw was white cops in Redneckland, I think pointing guns at him? (I figure that had to be after the first ten minutes or so, and not sure I blame them) and he was afraid to pull over.
Why on earth did he think that? I mean, I have been stopped in the same kind of territory and was nervous about some cracker shaking down my out-of-town self to maybe extort a bribe (I have experienced that twice, once in Wyoming and once in the remote mountains of Morocco, which was beyond scary). And I was scared. But I pulled over. I’m white. But, even more than I was in those situations, he was scared, too afraid to stop. Why? Because, ...white cops.
White people, esp. white cops, have trouble processing that. THIS is why racism is part of this equation. The white cops simply can’t conceive of the driver not pulling over, simply because they were white. Think about it. There is no common experience going on here. They see the world very differently. Why? Racism.
Where does the law come in?
Well, if I were defending the dog cop, I would probably go with the Fog of War Defense / Miscommunications between overlapping police departments theory, and argue that this caused the mistake, not racism.
And, if I were representing truck driver? I would probably play the so called “race card”, and explain that he has an affirmative defense of some kind, based on his prior personal history, which he described, when he talked about his prior experiences with cops pulling guns on him for no good reason. Kind of like self-defense, where your prior personal experiences can be relevant. He stated he feared for his life when the lights came on. Same thing.
“Fearing for your life” is enough to justify committing Murder. It is. Text book self-defense.
So, I figure it’s enough to justify “not pulling over”, assuming that his story is legit, which I am sure it is.
I guess the conclusion is that, instead of blaming some cop and instantly convicting him of “racist intentional assault by dog, beyond a reasonable doubt”, when maybe it wasn’t, how about instead focusing on what is wrong with a society where it’s not unreasonable for a black man to be afraid to be pulled over by white cops?
Maybe that is the bigger problem, not some cop who takes the heat for our entire racist society.
How about that angle?]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479962023-08-05T01:21:33Z2023-08-05T01:20:58ZNO WAY.
This is a political defense, being played out in the court of public opinion, a court in which no rules exist, no judges preside, no legal analysis is required. No. It’s simply talking heads trying to wash the gullible brains of the public.
Here’s why Free Speech is NOT a defense to Conspiracy: ALLLLL Conspiracies require proof of speech. SPEECH IS the crime. No Speech? No conspiracy. (Note: Texts, emails, etc., are all “speech”).
It’s like arguing that it’s legal to possess a firearm, except what you are charged with is Armed Robbery. There are limits to what you can do with a gun. Like not robbing banks with it. There are similar limits to what you can do with speech. Like not committing Fraud. Even committing Forgery is a form of Speech. Writing. So, it’s a silly argument, at least for real lawyers.
The classic example of unprotected speech is that the First Amendment does not protect someone causing a riot by yelling FIRE! In a crowded movie theater, just for fun. It’s a crime. Here, a better analogy is that a bunch of people talking about robbing a bank, in person or otherwise, even if they ALL went to law school and hold bar cards (also not a defense, duh) are all guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery.
The idea that Free Speech would fly as a valid legal defense in a REAL COURTROOM with a Conspiracy charge is absurd. I doubt they even attempt to run that up the flagpole. No, that nonsense is only meant for the ill-informed public, living in their world with no rules.
WHAT IS a decent “colorable defense”? I think I’d argue that he truly believed he had won, and really relied on advice from his lawyers, so therefore, he did nothing wrong. That could fly. That would be my first guess, without ever reading Discovery. So, it could change if I really were on this case and read it all. Unlike pundits, I need to see actual case files before forming a final opinion.
But, at first blush it’s a valid defense they cannot shut down, regardless of what pundits say about it. The pundits are clueless if they get all ‘legal eagle’ about it, pointing out that a defendant cannot legally follow illegal “legal” advice. Technically, it’s true. Legally speaking. (Confused about all the “legals”? Good, that’s the idea in trial.)
However. The only question in a courtroom (vs. a TV Studio) is whether the Government can stop the Defense from making that argument in front of a jury.
It is true that there are some defense arguments that are simply not allowed. For example, if you use the SODDIT defense (some other dude did it) there are rules about what you can and cannot argue, and how. If you simply get up in Opening and start telling jurors that it was somebody else, not your client, who did the crime, with zero proof, the judge will shut it down before you can get started. You could even be sanctioned. It looks bad too, in front of the jurors, to be called out like that. So, you don’t even try.
With the “I really truly believed I won the election, and simply followed my lawyers’ bad legal advice” defense, I do not see how the Feds can prevent the Defense from arguing that in court. So, I feel they can argue it. Keep in mind that all the defense needs is one juror, really. If only one juror believes that theory, it would mean at least a hung jury.
That would mean a mistrial and the entire long, slow process would have to go all the way back to Square One and start up all over again. Complete with appeals and more motions along the way.
There has to be a unanimous verdict, one way or the other. So, if you confuse just one juror, even if you use a borderline argument, so what? You won.
Hanging a jury in Federal Court on a giant trial is a win, trust me. I know. I’ve done it. It feels great, even if it’s not a Not Guilty.
So, that would be a good result and that is all they need in the end. Of course, they will shoot for the big NG, but a hung jury here, given the timing and the election and on and on and on? What a mess that would create for the Feds.
Therefore, this is my prediction if this case winds up in trial. (Of course, that would only be after multiple Pre-Trial Motions, so who knows when that will happen, another critical variable). The Defense is going to fly the flag of:
“I really believed, in good faith, everything my lawyers told me. I didn’t go to law school, but they did. I had many lawyers saying many different things. I picked the advice that I felt was the best, in order to help me fix the fact that I won the election and Biden cheated to win.”
By the way, more than half of all Republicans apparently now believe this is true, that Biden stole the election, so it is far from not being believable, it would seem, in terms of what potential jurors might warm up to as a defense theory.
So, that’s my call, as someone who has done some big cases in Federal Court: Clueless follower of bad legal advice believed what he was told, not Free Speech, will be the Defense.
That is what I would do.]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479902023-07-30T06:04:45Z2023-07-30T06:04:04ZFedlandia (my term) games, then observe how the uninformed public reacts. I don’t blame non-lawyers for not understanding this stuff. I have played the pretrial shenanigans game for decades. And I am still trying to figure out the best way to navigate my clients through it. It’s a lifelong process of learning, i.e., “practicing law”. [You are only done practicing when you retire. This is literally true.]
But most of the public is not even at the “practice level” yet. They can’t be practicing something they do not have a clue about. So, they guess. They do not know what this Superseding Indictment means in the real world. Which is why I am explaining it. Simply put, it’s not just the smoking gun. It’s a gun pointed at his head and waiting to be fired, figuratively speaking.
The videos that were used as the basis for the Superseding Indictment are beyond damaging, at least for the two people shown in them. Superseding Indictment. The words bring a chill to all Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers’ spines. Ugh. It normally means your client is now toast. It would for sure mean that here, with any other defendant in the world. In fact, any random coke dealer would be in detention or forced to post huge bail by now, while this all got resolved.
The reason that this part of the chess game is so interesting is the way the moves are unfolding. Frankly, I smell some serious strategy going on here by the Special Prosecutor. He knew Trump would be all over TV and Social, blabbing about his case, denying any knowledge that anything was secret and/or that he had miraculously declassified it with his magic wand. Wrong.
This video evidence clearly proves that two of the people who worked the most closely with Trump were obviously mapping out which cameras are able to record what, basically “casing the joint” as they say, and thus determining which camera’s videos needed to be scrubbed. Right after those videos were subpoenaed and right after a long secret meeting. This is NOT brain surgery, people.
The overall timeline spells it out to anyone who can see, with the exception of those who are terminally in denial. The dreaded timeline of overlapping criminal conduct. We hate those in my line of work. They tend to be effective. Because the events described are always all there in Discovery, backed up by videos and wire taps and descriptions of meetings and phone calls and texts and airplane flights, oh my, all lined up in order, perfectly showing the step-by-step commission of the crimes.
We begin with the issuance of the draft subpoena to Trump by DOJ. It asks for all video surveillance recordings from Mar a Lago, to help DOJ track the stolen secret documents Trump absconded with. I have to admit, I find this draft subpoena in and of itself strange. My drug dealers and corporate embezzler clients never receive such special treatment -- being notified in advance. Why don’t they receive formal notice (rather than battering rams)? They would hide or destroy the evidence!! Duh. Coke flushes down toilets easily.
Instead, this move gave Trump time to flush the video evidence of his document hiding down the digital toilet.
It makes me wonder. Why did DOJ do that? It’s as if they KNEW he would try to obstruct and tamper with evidence, before he did it. It’s almost Entrapment! I can hear Trump saying that. Maybe he will? (Hope so as that’s an “admission against interest” imho). But, seriously, how could he NOT commit a couple spare felonies on the side in response to this? Right? It’s irresistible to a dirty, dishonest crook not to do things like this. It comes naturally to Trump. Like a Mafia don.
That said, two employees doing stuff does not a conspiracy make. This is where the dreaded timeline comes in. The timeline here is lethal; it ties the evidence up with a pretty bow.
How so?
Timeline: Draft Subpoena drops on Trump, asking for videos. Next thing Trump did was to talk to one of the two guys who were videoed later, scoping out the cameras, who then immediately changed his travel plans in order to fly halfway across the country that very minute, in order to meet in person (huh? Who does that these days?) with Trump at Mar a Lago, where they spoke longer than they ever have before, talking about something. In secret.
Gee. Wonder what?
We learn the answer to that question by watching what happens immediately after that very long, very private, and very secret in person discussion. Guess what? The dude who flew halfway across the country to avoid a tapped cell phone or text trail, so he could sit in the same assumedly not bugged room with his boss and talk with no one listening, immediately gets busy destroying evidence. Again, this is not brain surgery. Surely, this is common sense stuff, and does not require a law degree from Stanford to understand. (Although, I admit, it helps.)
If this was cocaine, something much less dangerous than leaking war plans for Iran, in my simplistic way of thinking, and the defendant a Mexican Cartel boss vs ex-President, this would be open and shut.
I guess my focus on the gravity of hiding Top Secret Documents (as opposed to cocaine), comes from all of the security clearances I have held in my life. When you do the work I do, it comes with the territory, so I totally “get” the secret documents thing. As for how protected this material is, even compared to hard drugs, .......? I never once had to sign anything when I was throwing around bags of China White in the courtroom, no matter how dangerous it is (note: it kills people).
With Top Secret government documents? (I ran law enforcement for an entire country years ago, in Saipan.) Reams of waivers and clearances and the rest come with these docs. It’s more dangerous to let Top Secret information get out than any amount of hard-core drugs. Way more people could die from leaked War Plans with Iran than from a little toot, pretty sure. So. This is some very serious stuff.
Here is what really gets me. Back before the country went mad, when I was doing this Fedlandia work every day, up to my eyeballs in international drug smuggling cases (i.e. “Operation Frozen Timber”: Google it), defending people who were being railroaded by the Feds, always complaining about the FBI and HSA, my words falling on the deaf ears of family and friends, the exact same people who are now calling this all a corrupt prosecution, they used to YELL at me (literally) that I was some sort of “commie criminal lover” and how dare I criticize their beloved FBI and Homeland Security saviors. Really, they did. Same people. I do not get that.
But. I digress. How do the Feds tie Trump to the videos of the two guys obviously caught in the act of attempted Evidence Tampering and Obstruction (at a minimum)? Well, first is that darn damning timeline, with that abnormally long secret talk in Trump’s office, closely followed by the employee actively “casing” the cameras.
Then, there is the main game. Fedlandia is fueled by snitches. Confidential Informants, for sure. But the main game is flipping co-conspirators. You threaten one defendant with years in prison unless they “cooperate” and testify against people higher up in the criminal conspiracy. i.e., Trump, in this case. If they do, they get probation or short prison terms. (This is where Rap lyics about “5K’s” and “Snitches get Stitches” come from.)
I know for a fact that is going on here. This is why they added another conspirator to the Indictment yesterday. He refused to snitch, so they charged him. Although here, snitches are not getting stiches. They are getting free lawyers, paid for by the Mafia Don, Trump.
That will be the focus of my next ditty on this: The bizarre conflicts of interest going on where Trump (or his people) are apparently paying, or offering to pay, for the lawyers of his co-conspirators. I do not get how that works either. I find it unethical conduct and would never do it.
But, back to the issue at hand. DOJ has Trump “set up like a bowling pin”.
With the first Indictment, they basically baited him to blab about how he had no clue anything was secret, and of course he did blab, all over the airwaves and internet. Then they warned him that the subpoena was about to drop, AFTER WHICH he began this part of the crime, tampering with the subpoenaed video evidence, then they dropped the Superseding Indictment, adding a potential snitch, and which directly contradicted the now very public record of Trump denying that anything was secret, before he orchestrated the destruction of evidence.
Why scrub cameras urgently if you did nothing wrong? Well? Why? An emergency lack of hard drive storage space that only Trump could handle?
Give me a break.
If he were a Mexican cartel drug lord? We’d be talking guilty plea about now. Since he’s guilty. Clearly guilty, to everyone not blinded by their personal political views. Nothing personal about this.
It’s the Law, Stupid.]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479382023-07-18T23:37:45Z2023-07-18T23:37:09ZAnimal Farm, by George Orwell, the guy who wrote 1984. He had a clue about the Future, let’s face it.
In Animal Farm life boils down to one basic axiom: “Four legs good. Two legs bad”.
Hopefully, that is self-explanatory, but given the cluelessness of the comments to my last post, I will explain that people have two legs and farm animals have four. It’s meant to be an allegory.
It sounds like the opposing sides on the Trump debate. JUST like them, in fact. Nobody can be bothered to think anymore. “Four legs good. Two legs bad” is not exactly a deeply analytical debate now, is it? And it’s pretty close to “Trump good, Trump bad.”
Not that I don’t understand. People are being inundated by falsehoods and lies and distortions from all quarters. From both sides. Take the Trump case discussed in my prior blog, the Documents case I’ll call it (and no doubt draw tons of rants about using such a loaded and biased term as “documents”, oh MY!)
I said very clearly that DELAY is the name of the game for all Criminal Defense Attorneys. In EVERY case, with only a very few exceptions to that rule. It is how it’s done. Period. I said so in my blog. And it came to pass. Gosh. Maybe I actually do know something about how this all works.
I tell every client the same thing. “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” is a phrase that judges and prosecutors like. They want to convict everyone and toss them in jail ASAP. We defense lawyer types say: “Justice Delayed is Justice.” Why?
Cases improve with time. First and foremost, the more time the lawyers have to prepare a decent argument the better that argument becomes. It takes time to work on motions, and cross exams and arguments. Time is on the side of the Defense. In every single case. It’s basic.
But, no. The media has seized upon the fact that Trump’s lawyers are actually doing something competent for a change, by asking the Court to Continue the trial date, as if it is some sort of devious, sleazy trick. Seriously? I have never had a Federal case where I was not in court, usually MULTIPLE times, begging to set over trial dates. And, at least in Seattle, I prevailed on every single one of those requests. I NEVER went to trial on the first trial date set. I have done that ONE TIME in decades of trying serious Felonies. And that one time it totally backfired; I admit it. (It was not my idea; I’ll leave it at that.)
Why do we always want more time? Because it’s Due Process. It gives Defendants TIME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. It’s not a sin to ask for time to get ready on a major case with tons of Discovery and multiple legit Pre-Trial Motions to argue. It’s malpractice to not ask for more time.
So, what we have here is equal opportunity cluelessness. Instead of seeing how this trial is being handled, in terms of how normal cases are handled, people only see their own blind rage. Here a Continuance is almost mandated. Just think of how the classified documents are going to be handled in court. Motions on that issue alone could take weeks, if not months. That does not even take into account of the logistics involved in obtaining Security Clearances not only for the lawyers involved, but also paralegals and jurors and anyone else who handles the “Evidence”, including court clerks I suspect. Even the judge should be cleared, frankly.
Beyond that there could be endless motions to suppress any confidential or privileged information that is being used as Evidence. There will doubtless be a Motion to Dismiss for Selective Prosecution. The list is literally endless. Not to mention that every ruling could be challenged by filing Interlocutory Appeals. That alone can take months.
Thus, the defense lawyers are simply being defense lawyers here. It has zero to do with who the client is, and whether people like him or not, other than the fact that the Presidential campaign is yet another reason to request a Continuance of the trial date. It’s a valid motion, and whether you do or do not like Trump makes no difference. Why? Because it’s about the Rule of Law, stewpud. :)
That should draw some angry rants! (And I didn’t even mention the new target letter Trump just received regarding January 6th. That can wait until my next post. “It’s gonna be wild.”)]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479362023-06-14T00:39:10Z2023-06-14T00:38:34Zbit better how this all works. Hopefully.
None of this explanation has anything to do with politics. It’s just the Law, stewpud. It’s about Federal Court, which I affectionately call “Fedlandia”. It’s a world unto itself. Full Disclosure: I have gone to war against US Attorneys and Homeland Security in real time in real life and fought against them tooth and nail. I hate them and they hate me. Just to be clear.
But I leave that all at the Courthouse door when it’s Showtime. Then it’s only about doing my job, and they can all jump in a lake as far as I’m concerned. But clearly, I am not a friend of the Feds, to put it mildly. Right, HSA? This is not a love letter to them. It’s not a love letter to Trump, either, to put it mildly. I can’t stand the guy. What a blowhard. He’s embarrassing. No. It’s about how criminal lawyers do their jobs.
First, I would think like a defense attorney and do what I do in every single case I ever take on. Read the Indictment. Read the statutes that apply. Figure out what the Government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. What are the “Essential Elements” of the crimes charged? What is the factual basis used to support those elements? Is mens rea an element? What is it? What kinds of Evidentiary Issues are presented that I can argue in Pre-Trial Motions? What mistakes did cops make? Was there a search? Can I attack the Search Warrant? The time to begin thinking about Cross Examination and Closing Arguments begins here and now.
This, my friends, is simply how it is done. It’s like this on every single case.
The other big thing to worry about right up front is “What if? What if I lose?”
Sound defeatist? It isn’t’. It’s just good lawyering. I tell every client that “Your job can be to hope for the Best. That’s fine. But my job is to prepare for the Worst. If I did not, I would totally suck as a lawyer.” So, you look at possible prison sentences. First, the Mando’s. (Mandatory Minimums, the fuel that feeds Fedlandia and greases the wheels of the giant Snitch Machine that is Federal Criminal Court, the Land of the “5K”.)
Did you notice that none of this has anything to do with politics?
In this case I did read the Indictment, and did view it through my Criminal Defense Attorney eyes. How could I not? It’s no longer possible for me to think like a “normal person”. So. I don’t.
Here, my very first thought would be…… Crap. (Actually, it would be more graphic than ‘Crap’.)
“My client is toast. “Then, I would begin the long process of clawing my way back, spending weeks and weeks, then months and months, then sometimes years and years, gradually persuading myself that the case is so weak and such an outrageous example of Governmental overreach that it’s almost impossible to believe that it’s even in court in the first place. Well, it’s not always quite that extreme, but you get the idea. You drink the Kool-Aid of your Defense (…if you are any good).
Regardless, you fight. (Of course, the entire time the case is pending, you also try to cut a deal and avoid a trial altogether 99% of the time, but this is about trials, not guilty pleas).
So, you file Motions. There is NO WAY that I would not file the following motions in this case:
Motion(s) to Suppress Evidence
These could be based on a variety of theories. Attorney / Client Privilege, First Amendment (Private Papers and Affairs). Fifth and Sixth Amendment (Due Process and Confidential Attorney Client Communications). And, of course, Fourth Amendment with respect to the sufficiency of the particularity and specificity of the wording in the Search Warrant. There is ALWAYS SOMETHING TO ARGUE IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.
First and foremost, I would be focusing on any communications with lawyers which are being used to prove guilt. I would argue that these should be suppressed, that they never should have been seized in the first place, and should be suppressed because they are Confidential. The Government would argue that they are an exception to the rule because they fall under the “Crime / Fraud Exception” since the lawyers were helping facilitate the crime of Obstruction.
I’d be ready to reply, and argue that all Trump was doing was clarifying what was legal and what was not legal. Personally, I have had hundreds of conversations with clients about what they could and could not do legally, and have told them things like “No, don’t flea to Mexico.” And they did not -- because I told them it was another crime, Bail Jumping, which can carry a ton of additional time if convicted. Did either of us commit a crime by talking about that? No.
Motion to Dismiss
I would aggressively argue Selective Prosecution. This is where the topic of “What about Biden and Clinton and the others?” comes up. I would say Trump was targeted for political reasons, and that “similarly situated” people who did “similar” things were not charged, so my client is being singled out selectively. THIS is where arguing politics is relevant. This and Jury Selection, for obvious reasons……
Jury Selection
I teach this. But I don’t know whether the lawyers get to say much during Voir Dire in this particular Court. In Fedlandia the judges frequently do most of it, depending on the jurisdiction, but it’s fun to imagine what you would ask if you are able to get a free shot. That’s because the whole ball game here is the Jury. ONE juror who hides and is a stealth “Always Trumper,” who will NEVER convict, would be my whole goal in this case. If so? Hung jury. Plus, there is a chance that if jury hangs, and Trump gets elected, then orders AG to dump the case, he gets off Scot Free. Which leads me to…
Continuances
I’d be filing every possible motion to tie up the case. Delay, delay, delay. “Justice Delayed” is Justice, not “Justice Denied” we Defense Lawyers like to say.
If the trial is continued until after the Election? Never know what could happen, depending. So, it’s worth a shot, and for sure a very Major Objective. The Election would, of course, be Exhibit A in any Motion to Continue. For sure there is no caselaw precedent on that issue. It is SURELY good cause to set over trial. “Your Honor, my client has to give his Acceptance Speech for Republican Presidential Nomination and can’t attend trial that week….” (perish the thought, but it’s possible). I see NO WAY that this would ever go to trial before November of 2024. No way.
As for Prosecutorial Misconduct? I argue that all the time in trial situations. It’s just another trick. In reality, there is none of that here, at least that I can see.
Theory of the Case
This is when I would begin to try to begin putting it all together and let it take over my life. I eat, breath and dream my case. I imagine Jury Selection. “Is your Garage messy, Juror No 5?” “Even though you are sitting here in a MAGA t-shirt you CAN BE FAIR AND PROMISE TO SET ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, RIGHT?!?!?!?” And so on.
For Cross and Closing you follow Craig’s Golden Rule: “Take the very worst piece of Evidence and make it work for you.” Huh? Simple. I take the very worst thing the Government has, and find some way to make it work for the Defense.
Here? Easy peasy. The photos of the giant stacks of boxes are clearly hugely damning. So USE THEM.
e.g. Cross: “ALL OF THESE BOXES were in the storage locker? And you found 104 documents in this HUGE STACK? Like finding Needles in a Haystack?”
“Objection”
“Sustained. Move on.”
“How many total documents did you find, including all of the PERSONAL, PRIVATE, and PERFECTELY FINE TO POSSESS LEGAL DOCUMENTS?” “So, out of 4,867 pieces of paper you found 104 that were used to falsely accuse my client of these very serious crimes? “ etc. You get the idea.
The other bad piece of Evidence is the fact that Trump went through everything with a fine-tooth comb, so therefore he obviously knew what was in them.
Another easy peasy. You seize upon fact that there is SO MUCH STUFF, and he did SO MUCH WORK to sort through it all. He did his best. It’s not his fault IF he didn’t find all the needles in those giant haystacks. He tried, really, he did. He’s a hoarder, not a criminal.
When you see the lawyers do this type of thing, it is only because this is what we always do. It does not mean someone is not guilty in reality, only that they are Presumed Innocent and entitled to Due Process. This is what you are seeing, not a fake prosecution. Anyone who calls it a sham is a sham.Final Point
To Donald Trump. Since you love social media so much, I suppose this might magically wind up in front of your eyes. Just in case you think I might be interested in working on your case? Don’t. There is no amount of money in the world I would accept to do that.
I have standards. I only represent honest criminals, not crooks like you.]]>On Behalf of Platt, Thompson and Buescher, Attorneys at Lawhttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479352023-05-18T19:42:35Z2023-05-18T19:42:35ZFederal law
After individuals receive convictions that have punishments of one or more years in prison, typically a felony, from any court, they lose their federal rights to carry a weapon. However, prospective gun owners can apply for restoration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, which can fail to reply or deny your application.
New laws prevent federal courts from hearing these appeals, so restoration is unlikely. In fact, in many cases, only a presidential pardon can restore your federal rights.
Washington State law
You can restore your Washington state gun rights. This only occurs if you receive your civil rights back or the court releases you from any penalties of your conviction. Your civil rights include voting, holding public office and serving on a jury.
In the state, those convicted of felonies can have their rights restored after completing their punishments, e.g., serving prison time and paying all fines and fees. When this is complete, these individuals receive a Certificate of Discharge.
Then, prospective firearm owners need to file a petition with the court where they received their convictions or their county’s superior court. After paying a $240 fee, these individuals may or may not need to appear in court, and the judge should grant their gun rights restoration if they fulfilled statute requirements. However, Washington does not require that petitioners prove rehabilitation, that they are not a danger or that they can handle a firearm safely.
If the petition receives approval, these individuals can purchase, carry, own and operate firearms and apply for concealed carry permits, just like others who do not have criminal convictions.]]>by craigplatthttps://www.seattlecriminallawyerhelp.com/?p=479322023-05-02T22:44:06Z2023-05-02T02:39:02Z