taking walks through pdf's. testing how far the playback speed slider can go. if i'm wrong lmk.
NY
Joined September 2018
- Tweets2.7K
- Following1.2K
- Followers575
- Likes72.4K
Pinned Tweet
Chat, you may have seen the "black excellence" / "white mediocrity" quotes from Judge Ada Brown (currently suspended pending investigation) but the full hearing transcript has so much more 1/n
New: A lawyer’s misconduct complaint against US District Judge Ada Brown stemmed from a hearing during which she repeatedly directed racial insults at him, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg Law.
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law…
A "court order" submitted to Google purporting to order removal of Google Maps listings of a California bail bond company. For failing to have a California license. From a Kansas court.
Unlike the usual fake orders that try to remove bad reviews, this one is attempting to remove the (highly rated!) listings of, presumably, a competitor.
Interesting choice to pick an unrelated jurisdiction (a random spot almost in the middle of the US?). The cover page is a faithful reproduction of one from this court, the name of the judge fits. Why bother will all that if the case number doesn't exist and the writing is nonsense?
Jane Doe asked for an extra *60 days* to respond to Sarabia's motion to dismiss, which he immediately opposed.
Doe's counsel claim they "simply need more time to properly respond" to the "complex issues of law". But their actual arguments are mostly about the potential convenience of responding to everyone else's MTDs at the same time. 1/2
NEW🚨 Another big filing in the 'CORNELL SEVEN' Case:
Diego Sarabia (one of the 'seven') is asking the judge to dismiss Jane Doe's sexual assault lawsuit against him entirely, arguing that her own nearly 600-paragraph complaint does not specifically accuse him of rape. In a 16-page filing, Sarabia's attorneys argue that Doe identifies only two alleged acts involving him: grabbing her face and kissing her without consent, and joining other fraternity members in pouring lines of ketamine onto her body and snorting the drug. His lawyers say that Doe does not specifically accuse Sarabia of penetration, touching her intimate body parts, supplying drugs or participating in the alleged sexual encounters involving other defendants. They argue that Doe's complaint improperly lumps all seven men together under accusations of rape without differentiating what each allegedly did.
Sarabia's attorneys also argue that the claims against him are barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations and don't qualify for the extended 20-year period to certain sexual offenses. They also state that Sarabia had no legal duty to supervise or protect Doe from other adult students.
Sarabia, who denies the allegations, wants the claims dismissed with prejuidice.
#99 ADJOURNMENT OF MOTION REQUEST iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys…
#100 AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION in Opposition to Plaintiff's Adjournment Request iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys…
Cornell 7 defendant Gillio Lopes' filing today concerning joinder of the remaining defendants in the proceeding to disqualify AG James. The four represented defendants agreed to join, no stated position yet from the remaining two.
Filing also includes some preliminary thoughts on yesterday's appointment by James of Jacqueline Kelly to lead the investigation:
> [This] appointment does not eliminate Petitioner's underlying concerns about Attorney James conducting a fair investigation.
WATCH: “I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious. I'm sure we'll all want to watch it, but I also know that it won't be the whole truth.”
CORNELL SEVEN: The full press conference is below via @lamag, but here's a short exchange where I ask Gillio Lopes' attorney Andrew Miltenberg about Judge Farrell's questions concerning AG Letitia James' social media post, and the Netflix documentary released the very same day as oral arguments.
On Farrell's reaction to James' post, Miltenberg said:
“My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that,” referring to whether James' statements were improper.
Miltenberg said he only learned about the documentary that morning, and his initial reaction reflected his surprise that the governor had reportedly participated while the defense had not been approached.
The judge expressed concerns about the joinder issue, questioning why the other six men had not been included in Lopes' challenge.
Farrell gave the defense until Nov. 5 to submit additional information addressing the issue.
"No, I'm asking you whether you think it's appropriate for a prosecutor to make that statement."
Highlights from just-released transcript of the Oct 29 Article 78 proceeding to disqualify AG Letitia James from the Cornell 7 criminal investigation.
A lot of skepticism toward the state from Judge Farrell. Full transcript here: iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys…
"The public has lost faith with Attorney James,” Stuart Bernstein said in court. “She has shown no presumption of innocence, she has shown she picked sides … so the question before you: Is she qualified to serve as special prosecutor in this case?”
washingtonpost.com/nation/20…
Tyrone Blackburn defamation suits: it's been 120 days since these were filed, so the ordinary time to serve has passed. I guess he is abandoning some of the claims.
- TMZ, Fox, Harvey Levin, Charles Latibeaudiere: not seved
- Reed Smith, Ian Turetsky, process server James Hunt: served // Hunt's LLC, private investigator Nicholas Palmeri: not served
Too bad, I was curious how his filing the TMZ suit one day past the SOL would play out.
The Joe Tacopina lawsuit is the only one progressing. There is a MTD pending, with a Nov 24 return date.
There are also related suits against Complex and The Source, but he has a few weeks left to serve those.
The lawsuit against Complex and writer Trey Alston has been served as well. iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys…
See also this brief released today. First 12 pages are a book report recitation of (ir)relevant facts, riddled with grammatical errors and incorrect dates, followed by 6 pages of "argument" that quotes an outdated version of the relevant statute and doesn't even try to establish prejudice beyond a conclusory assertion.
Why not at least ask an LLM for a review? It would have surfaced most of these issues, and more. And -- just as an observation, not a suggestion -- but I'm pretty sure many defendants would be better off if GPDC just spent the $5k they pay attorneys on Claude tokens instead.
S26A1628. Blackwell v. The State
efile.gasupreme.gov/viewFili…
ALT Removed trial counsel's name because it's not relevant to a discussion of the appellate brief's quality. Not sure why she was even mentioned by name in the brief.
ALT - Fire was in August, not April - MFNT hearing was in 2026, not 2025 - 911 call was at 1:08 a.m., not 11:08 a.m.
ALT Amended in 2015 to add timely objection requirement. (She does later quote the new version)
The Supreme Court of Georgia's decision to provide copies of the parties' briefs along with the Opinion has had the effect of exposing unethical and incompetent appellate attorneys. This guy doesn't even make an argument in an appeal from a life sentence.
efile.gasupreme.us/viewFilin…
An interesting argument in this case was about one word in the transcript:
> by commenting on the Appellant's "attitude," the trial court cast the Appellant in an even more negative light.
The Supreme Court says that this is not supported by the record since there are overlapping speakers, so we don't know what the court was referring to.
Idk about that -- what else could it be about? How an appellant can make this argument better, given the limitations of a transcript? Maybe question trial counsel at MFNT hearing?
Curious how often issues arise where the conduct at issue is not effectively captured by a traditional transcript, but might be addressed by a recording. I feel like I don't see this actually come up much, but maybe that's because there's no point in bringing up something that can't be shown by the record.
The outdated statute she quoted was actually the version prior to an amendment sponsored by then-Senator Justice Bethel, which makes it a bit more embarrassing.
Interestingly, at the time, he wanted to remove the objection requirement that foreclosed appellant's argument in this case (though it would still likely not have been successful under his proposal anyway).
Judge Kaplan is allowing Chirayu Rana's attorneys to withdraw, over Hajdini's objection. Makes sense, since they have consented to continued jurisdiction over them for the pending sanctions motion.
Currently at issue for sanctions is a recording of a phone call Rana's previous attorney had with his sister. According to withdrawing attorney Norinsberg, this call provides a basis for his believing her (now recanted) affirmation.
Rana is willing to produce this call transcript, but JPMC claims that privilege is now also waived as to *all related notes, drafts, and other interviews*.
Chase and Hajdini both just filed SPICY oppositions to Chirayu Rana's attorney's withdrawal motion.
They claim that Rana's sister, and his friend Allan Flott have recanted their previous sworn statements, which formed the bulk of the evidence for Rana's claim.
And, his withdrawing attorneys were notified of this *prior* to filing Rana's latest amended complaint, which continues to use their statements.
----
Summarizing the call with the sister's attorney, JPMC attorney writes:
> [H]er brother, Chirayu Rana, came to her to ask her to present the statements in the affirmation as if they were facts within her own personal knowledge, but they were not. You stated that [she] was told by her brother the affirmation would not be used in court or disclosed publicly.
A weird thing about NY is that judges *can* explicitly consider factors like prior firearm use and seriousness of the crime when setting bail.
But, it's true that, uniquely among the states, these factors cannot be considered for reasons of public safety -- judges must consider dangerousness, but only if it (somehow!) relates to flight risk.
If this doesn't make sense, you're not alone:
Bronx County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Zimmerman, very unhappy with this situation, laid it out on a 2023 opinion:
- we must only consider flight risk
- the legislature keeps adding factors to consider
- they don't directly relate to flight risk
- they do directly relate to dangerousness
so therefore:
- "Judges can consider dangerousness, but only as it goes to likelihood to return to court"
- "The legislature is instructing us that dangerous people […] are less likely to return to court"
He suggests (and I don't know enough to comment, but it seems reasonable) that this is really a way for lawmakers to implement community safety bail standards that people generally expect, without having to explicitly allow safety as a statutory bail eligibility factor.
People v Santiago, 2023 NY Slip Op 50770(U) nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseri…
Probably also worth noting that there are more factors judges are allowed to consider when *revoking* bail, like being charged with certain new crimes, intimidating witnesses, violating an order of protection, etc.
These do not have to be justified in terms of flight risk.
ALT § 530.60 Certain modifications of a securing order https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/530.60
