Attorney Client Relationship Under PA Law

February 28, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

<center>[attachmentid=2176] </center>
It appears that one of the the important factors in determining if an attorney client relationship was established is whether or not the person thought that he had retained the lawyer. “Legal Malpractice Law in Pennsylvania” CLICK HERE

Did Joseph Kerekes THINK that he had retained Demetrius Fannick? It seems to me that if Kerekes THOUGHT that he had hired Fannick, Kerekes would have filed his own motion to disqualify Fannick from representing Cuadra.

How is the DA in a position to know if Kerekes THOUGHT that he had hired Fannick as his lawyer? What standing does the DA have to to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes? Further,

How is a Judge in a position to rule that Kerekes THOUGHT that he had hired Fannick or even that Kerekes INTENDED to hire Fannick to represent him?

Only Joseph Kerekes can state what he THOUGHT and what he INTENDED with respect to Demetrius Fannick.

The Factors set for for an implied Attorney/Client Relationship DOES NOT mention how many times the two parties meet. There is also no mentioning of whether or not the attorney learns of some “privileged” information when he met with the prospective client.

Clearly, Kerekes met with Demetrius Fannick some eight times pursuant to a lawsuit strategy that The Luzerne County DA was too dumb to anticipate. HERE’S A CLUE …

Since the entire prosecution of Cuadra and Kerekes is centered entirely on actions Prosecutors alleged that Harlow Cuadra took, MAYBE Fannick and Kerekes realized that if the case against Cuadra fell apart, there would be no case against Kerekes.

Thanks to President Judge Mark Ciavarella stepping into the Bryan Kocis Murder Trial and assigning Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Cuadra, it should only be a matter of time before the Prosecution of Harlow Cuadra falls apart. Or,

Is it possible that even a court system as fucking laughable as Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas has the BALLs to put an accused on trial for murder when some Judge stepped out of the blue into the case and assigned The Murder Victim’s lawyers to represent the accused?

For the 100th time folks,

You can’t assign the murder victim’s lawyer to represent the accused in a death penalty murder case and proceed with the prosecution as if nothing happened.

IT IS ALSO PROBABLY NO ACCIDENT that every single argument which the Luzerne County DA is now presenting to disqualify Demtrius Fannick can be used by Harlow Cuadra to support the position that Cuadra should never have been assigned Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers by President Judge Mark Ciavarella.

Hey, maybe I’m the fucking idiot here … maybe it is common place for murder suspects to be assigned the murder victim’s lawyers.

Harlow Cuadra and The Writ of Habeas Corpus

February 27, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

<center>Beware The Ides of March and Writs of Habeas Corpus</center>
A Writ of Habeas Corpus should be filed on behalf of Harlow Cuadra the second AFTER Luzerne County Court rules on disqualifying Demetrius Fannick as Cuadra’s lawyer. If charges against Cuadra are NOT dismissed at the next hearing, you can probably count on a Writ of Habeas Corpus from Cuadra.

Some weeks ago, I noticed an interesting little FACT a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In order to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to Federal Court, a petitioner must first exhaust his remedies with the lower court.

Joseph Kerekes filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus with Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas can thus be seen as a pre-requisite to Kerekes filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus with FEDERAL COURT.

In other words, Kerekes’ Defense Team is probably counting on Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas DENYING Kerekes’ Writ of Habeas Corpus because they want to get a Federal Judge to weigh in on what has happened in the Cuadra/Kerekes case with respect to Harlow Cuadra’s and Joseph Kerekes’ RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL.

If you were a Defense Lawyer and you had clients before something like Luzerne County’s Court of Common Pleas, wouldn’t you want AN OUTSIDE COURT to weigh in on what has happened to your clients?

And, I can’t imagine that Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Mark Ciavarella is eager to have a FEDERAL JUDGE weigh in on Ciavarella assigning Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Harlow Cuadra. Let’s call a spade a spade here,

PRESIDENT JUDGE MARK CIAVARELLA FUCKED UP THE PROSECUTION OF HARLOW CUADRA WHEN HE STEPPED INTO THE CASE AND ASSIGNED BRYAN KOCIS LAWYERS TO REPRESENT CUADRA.

The only question before Luzerne County Prosecutors is do they proceed with a prosecution of Cuadra when they know the prosecution has been fuckedup by Ciavarella OR, do Prosecutors dismiss the charges against Cuadra and refile the charges in a new complaint?

The last report out of Luzerne County had Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas DELAYING a ruling on Joseph Kerekes’ Writ of Habeas Corpus. Luzerne County Court is probably delaying ruling on the Writ of Habeas Corpus because it knows that once the Writ is denied THEN, Kerekes can petition a Federal Judge to weigh in on what has happened thus far in The Bryan Kocis Murder Trial.

A Federal Judge Has Already Weighed In On The Bryan Kocis Murder Trial

Well, the simple fact of the matter is that a Federal Judge has already weighed in on what has happened thus far in the prosecution of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.

Federal Judge Kaplan in New York dismissed all criminal charges against former KPMG employees because he found that Prosecutors HAD GONE TOO FAR is preventing the defendants from retaining the legal counsel of their choosing and that Prosecutors had GONE TOO FAR in preventing the defendants from following the lawsuit strategy of their choice.

Federal Judge Kaplan’s ruling in the KPMG Case is provoking proposed legislation from Congress to prevent Prosecutors from interferring with defendants obtaining legal counsel. Judge Kaplan’s ruling has essentially LINKED “the constitutional right to legal counsel” with the right of criminal defendants to pick a particular lawyer and the right of criminal defendants to decide on a particular lawsuit strategy.

Isn’t the whole Demetrius Fannick matter all about the right to legal counsel, the right to decide on a particular lawyer AND the right to follow a particular lawsuit strategy.

Just as Luzerne County Prosecutors didn’t see that they were being SETUP by Cuadra and Kerekes asking for public defenders, Luzerne County Prosecutors can’t see that they are being SETUP for a Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus based on the same issues Federal Judge Kaplan ruled on in the KPMG Tax Case.

Again, Judge Kaplan’s ruling in New York has clearly LINKED the constitutional right to legal counsel with a defendant’s right to pick a particular lawyer and the defendant’s right to decide on a particular lawsuit strategy. Judge Kaplan’s ruling also weighs in on Virginia Beach seizing the assets of Cuadra and Kerekes, making them unable to afford private counsel. It’s a Perfect Storm.

Why Demetrius Fannick is Representing Harlow Cuadra

February 27, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

I seriously doubt that Demetrius Fannick signed on to represent Harlow Cuadra because Fannick expects the case against Cuadra to proceed to a trial. In my opinion, Fannick is representing Cuadra because he knows that the prosecution of Cuadra can’t be salvaged. You can’t assign The Murder Victim’s Lawyers to represent the Accused in a Death Penalty Murder case and then proceed with the prosecution as if nothing happened..

Clearly, a Judiciary System like that in Luzerne County DOES NOT breed brilliant lawyers.

If Luzerne County Prosecutors really were interested in getting a valid conviction of Harlow Cuadra, they would drop the current charges against Cuadra and refile the charges under a new complaint. THIS is the only way Prosecutors can recover from the move by President Judge Mark Ciavarella of assigning Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Cuadra.

In general however, Prosecutors are not famous for thinking LONG TERM. Most prosecutors will take a conviction even when they know the conviction will probably be overturned.

Disqualifying Fannick (the private lawyer Harlow Caudra hired) after Cuadra was assigned Bryan Kocis’ lawyers by President Judge Mark Ciaveralla (a judge who isn’t even the assigne trial judge for Cuadra’s case) would just be icing on the cake for the argument that Cuadra was harmed (and his right to counsel violated) when he was assigned Bryan Kocis’ lawyers.

Fannick may just be representing Cuadra because he is convinced that President Judge Mark Ciavarella assigning Bryan Kocis lawyers to represent Cuadra DESTROYED the prosecution of Harlow Cuadra.

Luzerne County Prosecutors clearly FALED to anticipate the legal problems associated with The Luzerne County Public Defender repreesenting Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.

I obviously have no proof that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes deliberately created the situation in which they would be assigned Public Defenders who were Bryan Kocis’s Former Lawyers. However, as I’ve said several times, SOMEONE was definitely in a position to anticipate that there would be a big legal problem associated with the Luzerne County Public Defender’s Office representing Cuadra and Kerekes. SOMEONE was in a position to bet money that if Cuadra and Kerekes were financially unable to afford private counsel, that President Judge Mark Ciaverella would step into the Bryan Kocis Murder Trial and assign Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Harlow Cuadra.

An attorney like Demetrius Fannick HAS to be in a position to know whether or not there exists any appeals courts in Pennsylvania that will hold that it was PROPER for President Judge Mark Ciaverella to assign Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Harlow Cuadra.

What does it matter WHO Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer is when the Prosecution of Cuadra is DOA?

Demetrius Fannick Joseph Kerekes Attorney Client

February 26, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

A motion to disqualify Demetrius Fannick from representing Harlow Cuadra makes legal sense only if it can be established that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes. However, as we and Demetrius Fannick have already pointed out, even if there is a conflict of interest with Fannick representing Cuadra, Joseph Kerekes can waive objections to Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra. It can be argued that Luzerne County Prosecutors established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes more so than Demetrius Fannick did.

The Infamous KPMG Tax Case in New York, which we have cited before in relation to Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers having a conflict of interest representing Harlow Cuadra, was an instance in which The US Attorney asked the Court to investigate whether an attorney who represented one defendant had a conflict of interest representing another defendant.

THE KEY POINT WITH THIS CONFLICT OF COUNSEL ISSUE is that an attorney has a “continuing obligation” to his client, even when the client is a former client.

Luzerne County Prosecutors moving to disqualify Demetrius Fannick as Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer makes no legal sense if there was no attorney client relationship between Fannick and Joseph Kerekes.

YES, Fannick apparently met with Joseph Kerekes several times. However, the fact that Fannick met with Kerekes when Kerekes had lawyers representing him does not on its face establish that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes.

Even if Fannick gave Kerekes legal advice, Kerekes was represented by counsel when Fannick met with Kerekes. The simple fact that Kerekes had lawyers who had filed an appearance on his behalf sorta kinda HARMS the argument that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with a Kerekes (a guy who already had about four lawyers representing him when Fannick met with him).

It is not even clear to us if Luzerne County Prosecutors were smart enough to actually argue that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes. HOWEVER,

The only way The Court could claim that there could potentially be a conflict of interest with Fannick representing Cuadra IS if The Court finds that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes.

Unless Fannick’s TALKS with Kerekes were taped, I don’t see how the fuck anyone can even begin to claim that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with a guy who was already represented by counsel.

IT MIGHT ALSO BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE: that the US Attorney in the KPMG case asked The Court to look into if there might be a conflict of interest with an Attorney who had an attorney client relationship with one defendant representing another defendant. The US Attorney DID NOT file a motion on behalf of the defendant (as Luzerne County Prosecutors filed a motion ON BEHALF of Kerekes). AGAIN,

Luzerne County Prosecutors have no standing to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes. The fact that Luzerne County Prosecutors DID file some idiot fucking motion ON BEHALF of Joseph Kerekes gives weight to the argument that Luzerne County Prosecutors have established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes.

Judge Kaplan delayed the trial of three former KPMGers and a one-time Sidley Austin lawyer today after disqualifying a defense lawyer in the case. In an order Thursday, Judge Kaplan DQed Steven Bauer, lead counsel for ex-KPMG senior tax manager John Larson, after several closed hearings on potential conflicts of interest. Opening statements were scheduled to begin Tuesday. (Click here and here for Law Blog Background on the much-diminished case.)

“Mr. Larson declined to waive his right to conflict-free representation,” the judge said. “The court therefore has no choice but to disqualify Mr. Bauer as trial counsel for Mr. Larson.” The judge didn’t rule on whether Bauer’s law firm, Latham & Watkins, also should be disqualified “unless and until Mr. Larson seeks to be represented at trial by someone else at that firm.”

Last month, the feds asked the judge to explore potential conflicts of interest by Bauer and David Scheper, a lawyer for ex-KPMGer Robert Pfaff, as a result of a joint defense agreement they may have reached with David Amir Makov, who is now a cooperating witness in the case and is expected to testify in the trial. The feds then asked the judge to preclude Bauer from cross-examining Makov based on evidence that he had acted as counsel to Makov in the early stages of the investigation. “A lawyer cannot attack his former client through cross-examination or argument to the jury” because of his or her “duty of continuing loyalty” to that former client, prosecutors said. In filings with the court, Larson, Pfaff and Bauer denied the government’s assertions; Bauer didn’t return a call for comment WSJ

Harlow Cuadra and Proving the Obvious

February 25, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

The body of Bryan Kocis was found in his burning house by firemen on 1/24/07. This is a fact. However,

There is no evidence whatsoever that Bryan Kocis was killed on 1/24/07. In order to claim that Bryan Kocis was killed on 1/24/07, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME A LOT.

Most importantly, you would have to ASSUME that the people who claim that they communicated with Bryan Kocis on 1/24/07 will testify to such on the witness stand AND that they can some how prove that the person they were communicating with was actually Bryan Kocis.

1. It is a very big fucking assumption to assume that the people who claim that they communicated with Bryan Kocis on 1/24/07 will testify to such on the witness stand BECAUSE, all of those persons appear to have a great deal to lose if they DO testify about their DEALINGs with Bryan Kocis.

2. None of the people who claim that they communicated with Bryan Kocis on 1/24/07 actually SAW Bryan Kocis. As we pointed out previously, Prosecutors don’t appear to have any witnesses on their list of trial witnesses who will testify to when Bryan Kocis was last seen alive.

When Was Bryan Kocis Last Seen Alive and By Whom?

Why is this question a question at this stage of the Bryan Kocis Murder Trial?

Everyone knows that it can be very difficult if not impossible to scientifically prove a TIME OF DEATH when the corpse has been frozen or burned. And, there is no evidence whatsoever that Luzerne County conducted the SPECIAL TEST which the forensic experts have accepted as a valid test to prove time of death using the victim’s eyes.

Paul Cortez and Making Assumptions

It would be a huge mistake for the Defense Teams for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes to just accept Prosecutors’ claim that Bryan Kocis was killed on 1/24/07 when it is clearly IMPOSSIBLE for Prosecutors to prove WHEN Bryan Kocis was killed.

What does it matter if Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes were in a motel in Luzern County on 1/24/07 if Bryan Kocis was killed on the four or five days earlier?

IN THE MURDER TRIAL in New York for Paul Cortez for the murder of Catherine Woods, Prosecutors claimed that they found Cortez’ bloody fingerprint on a wall in Catherine Woods’ apartment.

Instead of bringing in experts to QUESTION if the fingerprint found was an actual match to Paul Cortez, Cortez’ lawyers merely accepted Prosecutors’ claim that the fingerprint was in fact a match to Paul Cortez.

Fingerprint matching IS NOT an exact science. I have also read that the FBI uses a different standard for fingerprint matching than City police departments.

“The big difference is that on TV they usually find a single match, which pops up with a picture of the individual,” Michael Wieners, chief of the FBI Laboratory’s Latent Print Support Unit, complained to LiveScience.

“What the system really does is provide a list of the most likely matches,” Wieners said. “There must always be a human being who then looks at the print on the screen, side-by-side with the sample print, to determine which is really a match.”
Livescience

I would not bet money that Bryan Kocis’ Lawyer is eager to testify under oath about his dealings with Bryan Kocis. I wouldn’t even bet money that Bryan Kocis’ lawyer will voluntarily agree to testify at a Cuadra/Kerekes Murder trial.

IF I HAD BEEN Bryan Kocis’ Lawyer for that lawsuit Kocis filed in San Diego, I would not be eager to testify under oath to anything relating to Bryan Kocis.

Bryan Kocis and Things That Make You Go Hmmmm

February 25, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

1. Isn’t it funny that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes have been arrested for the Murder of Bryan Kocis and that The State is seeking the death penalty against Cuadra and Kerekes AND, The State is still claiming that it shouldn’t have to be tired down to a specific “theory of the crime” at this stage?

We theorized (apparently correctly) that The Alibi Defense from Joseph Kerekes was merely a defense ploy to get Prosecutors to commit to a “theory of the crime” and to get prosecutors to commit to a specific date and time for Bryan Kocis’ murder. Last week, Luzerne County Prosecutors argued that they should not be required to state whether they believe Joseph Kerekes is the principal killer because they should not be forced to decide on “a theory of the crime” at this stage. So,

What stage is a good stage for Prosecutors to actually have a definite theory of the crime? I mean, Prosecutors have arrested two guys already and they are seeking the death penalty against those two guys and Prosecutors don’t have a definite theory of the crime?

In fact, as we’ve said several times before, Prosecutors can’t even definitely prove WHEN Bryan Kocis was killed. AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, Prosecutors haven’t even presented any persons to testify on when Bryan Kocis was last seen alive. When you have a burned corpse, the date and time the victim was last seen alive becomes kinda critical.

2. What exactly do you suppose Bryan Kocis’ Estate hoped to accomplished by filing a civil suit against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes when Cuadra and Kerekes are currently immune to civil process?

Personally, it looks to us like Byran Kocis’ Estate filed a civil suit against Cuadra and Kerekes because they know the criminal charges against Cuadra and Kerekes are going to be dismissed.

The Civil Suit Bryan Kocis’ Estate filed in Luzerne County Court should be dismissed not only because Cuadra and Kerekes are immune to civil process but, Cuadra and Kerekes are not residents of Luzerne County. Any Civil Suit against Cuadra and Kerekes would have to be filed in Federal Court in PA or in Virginia Beach.

The fact that Bryan Kocis’ Estate filed a Civil Suit against Cuadra and Kerekes should help Defense Attorneys with their argument that Outrageous Press has tainted the jury pook in Luzerne County. FROM WHERE WE SIT, the only thing accomplished by the civil suit filed by Bryan Kocis’ Estate against Cuadra and kerekes was that Bryan Kocis relatives reached potential juries with the headlines about their civil suit.

NOTE that there have been no subsequent news items about the civil suit, like how Cuadra and Kerekes are immune to civil process.

The Joseph Kerekes Show

February 21, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

<center>IPB Image <br>Live From Luzerne County, it’s The Joseph Kerekes Show<br><i>A Child Molester/Gay Pornographer, A Judge and a Priest walk into this bar in Luzerne County and The Priest Says…</i></center>

The newspapers in Luzerne County are reporting that Joseph Kerekes walked into Court yesterday screaming about Demetrius Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra. The newspapers claims that Joe yelled at Fannick that Fannick had better not mention anything to Cuadra that Kerekes said to Fannick during their meetings.

Am I the Only One Who Sees The Humor In Joseph Kerekes Screaming At Fannick About Fannick Representing Cuadra?

Seriously, Joseph Kerekes has BALLS.

I have long suspected that there was a Method To The Madness associated with the comments, interviews and outburst coming from Joseph Kerekes. Joe Kerekes’ Comedy Routine yesterday in Court just confirms my quess.

When Joseph Kerekes walked into Court screaming about Fannick, don’t you think THAT lead Luzerne County Prosecutors to believe that Kerekes would oppose Fannick representing Cuadra? Did Kerekes tell the Court yesterday that he opposed Fannick representing Cuadra?

Seriously, if Kerekes really opposed Fannick representing Cuadra, Kerekes and his attorneys could have verbally informed the Court of such yesterday. The fact that Kerekes and his lawyers didn’t tell Court yesterday that they opposed Fannick representing Cuadra GIVES THE VERY STRONG IMPRESSION that Joseph Kerekes’ antics yesterday was yet another demonstration of Joseph Kerekes playing HEAD GAMES with Luzerne County Prosecutors.

Of Course, I have no proof that Joseph Kerekes played the HEAD GAME of hiring Fannick to represent Cuadra. Seriously, is Kerekes smart enough to do that?

[attachmentid=2167]

Michael Melnick Joseph Kerekes Attorney Client

February 21, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

<center>IPB Image <br>Mike and Joe Sitting in a Tree<br>K.I.S.S.I.N.G</center>
Since Bryan Kocis’ Lawyer tried to GIT-WITH Harlow Cuadra, I guess it is only fair that Assistant DA Michael Melnick now try to GIT-WITH Joseph Kerekes

We hightlighted previously the LEGAL TECHNICALITY between:

A. The Luzerne County District Attorney asking the Court to look into whether there might be harm to Joseph Kerekes if Demetrius Fannick represents Harlow Cuadra; and

B. The Luzerne County District Attorney filing a motion on behalf of Joseph Kerekes.

While The Luzerne County DA clearly has standing to do A (i.e. ask the Court to look into whether there is a problem with Fannick representing Cuadra), Only Joseph Kerekes’ Lawyers having standing to do B (i.e. file motions with the Court on behalf of Joseph Kerekes).

So, now, the lastest little Scandal in The Bryan Kocis Murder Trial is

Has The Luzerne County District Attorney Established An Attorney/Client Relationship With Joseph Kerekes?

Out of the question you say?

Well, consider that Courts have found that Lawyers established Attorney/Client relationships with people when the Lawyers responded to legal questions from those people on internet messageboards.

Surely if an attorney can establish an Attorney/Cient relationship with a guy by responding to a legal question from the guy posted on an internet messageboard, then DA Melnick has established an Attorney/Client Relationship with Joseph Kerekes by filing a motion with The Court, in a fucking Death Penalty Murder Trial, on Kerekes’ Behalf.

IF The Luzerne County District Attorney HAS established an Attorney/Client Relationship with Joseph Kerekes (and you can fucking Bet Money that Demetrius Fannick will argue that they have) THEN, The Luzerne County District Attorney will just have to Disqualify Itself From The Bryan Kocis Murder Case and bring in OUTSIDE CONFLICT FREE PROSECUTORS.

Something Tells Me That Charges Against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerkes are going to DISAPPEAR before The Next Hearing Date.

Either Charges Against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes will disappear or Some Sane Person in Authority with The Comonwealth of Pennsylvania will step into The Bryan Kocis Murder Trial and move the whole SideShow OUT OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

Disqualification of Demetrius Fannick Becomes Court’s Motion

February 21, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

Melnick and his team of prosecutors are trying to have Fannick disqualified from the case because his past discussions with Kerekes create a conflict of interest, they said … Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said he will first decide that issue before ruling on the evidence issue … Fannick has to file a response to Melnick’s motion by Feb. 29. The judge also wants Kerekes’ attorneys to determine if an actual or potential conflict exists with Fannick’s representation of Cuadra, whether Kerekes can waive that conflict, and, if he can, will he waive it. That, too, has to be filed by Feb. 29. A hearing on the issue is set for 8:30 a.m. March 5. TimesLeader

The way Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr handled that idiot motion from Assistant DA Melnick to Disqualify Demetrius Fannick as Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer provides us with a glimpse into exactly how dumb District Attorneys like Marsha Clark (OJ Trial) and Thomas Sneddon (Michael Jackson Trial) managed to win so many convictions before they were made to look like complete fools by high priced lawyers in high profile criminal case. The Marsha Clarks and Thomas Sneedons of the world probably managed to win so many convictions in their idiot careers because they had the help of “sympathetic judges”.

Assistant DA Melnick’s Motion to Disqualify Demetrius Fannick Makes Not Sense

The Motion by Assistant DA Melnick to Disqualify Demetrius Fannick is actually a Legal Joke.

Melnick’s motion to Disqualify Fannick might just be a clue as to why Melnick was passed-over for the “Second in Command Job” by new DA Jackie Musto-Carroll.

If you blinked yesterday, you might have missed the fact that That Dumbass Motion filed by Assistant DA Melnick to Disqualify Demetrius Fannick as Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer has now become The Court’s Motion. DA Melnick has no standing to file motions on behalf of a death penalty defendant. However, The Court has standing to, on its own motion, to question if there might be harm to Joseph Kerekes with Demetrius Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra.

The simple fact of the matter is that The Luzerne County DA has no standing to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes. The fact that DA Melnick filed such a motion and then didn’t even have the common decency to amend the motion makes you wonder if DA Melnick intends to totally rely on a “sympathetic Court” to get convictions against Cuadra and Kerekes.

If DA Melnick had any “sense of “shame” whatsoever, he would have at the very least amended his motion to re-phrase the motion in such a way that the DA’s Office would be in the position of asking the court to consider whether there is a conflict of interest in Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra, rather than the DA’s Office being in the position of filing a motion on behalf of a defendant in a death penalty case.

Do you get the point?

DA Melnick has no standing to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes but DA Melnick DOES have standing to petition the Court to consider whether Kerekes might be harmed by Fannick representing Cuadra.

All of this may sound like splitting hairs. However, shouldn’t the public expect DA’s and Judges to comply with the letter of the law in death penalty murder cases?

As I said, the way Judge Olszewiki has handled the motion from DA Melnick to disqualify Fannick provides us with a glimpse into how DA Melnick thinks AND a glimpse into how Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr thinks.

AT THE VERY LEAST, we now know that Judge Olszewiski is MINDFUL of not making DA Melnick look like a total idiot.

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LAW, as I see it, would have had Olszewiski denying Melnick’s Motion on Wednesday on the grounds that The DA’s Office has no standing to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes.

No Go Without Kerekes’s Lawyers

Even with THE HELP of Judge Olszewiski, I personally don’t see how Judge Olszewiski can disqualify Demetrius Fannick as Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer without Kerekes’ Lawyers asking Olszewiski to do so. Especially when the “the law of the case” is that The Court itself created a “conflict of counsel issue” resulting in harm to Cuadra when The Court assigned Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers to represent Cuadra.

FROM WHERE I SIT, it is settled law that Kerekes is the only party who can claim that he would be harmed by Fannick representing Cuadra. And, even if the Court decides (independent of Cuadra) that there is some conflict “potentially” harmful to Kerekes with Fannick representing Cuadra, Kerekes has the authority to WAIVE his right to protest that conflict.

Judge Olszewiski may have helped save DA Melnick from being laughed at by the “lay public”. However, District Attorney Jackie Musto-Carroll HAS to feel that her decision to NOT make Melnick Second-In-Command at the Luzerne County DA’s Office was a good decision.

Grant Roy Lee Bergeron and The Blacks Beach Tapes

February 20, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

It is alleged that Grant Roy bitterly complains about Lee Bergeron to Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes on the transcript of The Blacks Beach Tapes.

As I understand the claim from Prosecutors and Grant Roy, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes killed Bryan Kocis after Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart complained to Cuadra and Kerekes about Bryan Kocis.

So, the very next time Grant Roy sees Cuadra and Kerekes in person after The Murder of Bryan Kocis, Roy complains to Cuadra and Kerekes about Lee Bergeron and how Lee Bergeron was “secretly” working on a “backdoor deal” with Bryan Kocis.

When you combine the “allegation” that Grant Roy is recorded bitterly complaining to Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes about Lee Bergeron on The Blacks Beach Tapes with the “allegation” by The Rolling Stone that Grant Roy was diving past Lee Bergeron’s house late at night, you have a “Witness for The State” that should make Defense Attorneys for Cuadra and Kerekes very happy.

I wonder if Lee Bergeron is on The Witness Lists for Cuadra and Kerekes.