Comments on: The Foggo-Wilkes Leaks http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/ Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:33:55 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17677 bmaz Tue, 08 May 2007 22:45:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17677 <p>Perhaps these are Dusty’s DR lawyers. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3147979&page=1">http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/L…..038;page=1</a></p> Perhaps these are Dusty’s DR lawyers. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/L…..038;page=1

]]> By: Anonymous http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17676 Anonymous Tue, 08 May 2007 21:43:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17676 <p>Thanks cmc. THough you get the feeling that Foggo’s current domestic blisslessness consists of something more than just divorce…</p> <p>Must be the hookers.</p> Thanks cmc. THough you get the feeling that Foggo’s current domestic blisslessness consists of something more than just divorce…

Must be the hookers.

]]> By: cmc http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17675 cmc Tue, 08 May 2007 21:28:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17675 <p>And just fer fun, you can search on FOGGO and EAST COUNTY.<br />Guess he didn’t get along with the first wifey either.</p> And just fer fun, you can search on FOGGO and EAST COUNTY.
Guess he didn’t get along with the first wifey either.

]]> By: cmc http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17674 cmc Tue, 08 May 2007 21:25:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17674 <p>Here is the link<br /><a href="http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=53,128294&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL">http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/port…..ema=PORTAL</a></p> <p>If that doesn’t work, you can search the link below using <br />case type= domestic<br />case location= san diego<br />party type= unknown<br />last name= wilkes</p> <p><a href="http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=53,128294&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL">http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/port…..ema=PORTAL</a></p> Here is the link
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/port…..ema=PORTAL

If that doesn’t work, you can search the link below using
case type= domestic
case location= san diego
party type= unknown
last name= wilkes

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/port…..ema=PORTAL

]]> By: Anonymous http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17673 Anonymous Tue, 08 May 2007 20:32:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17673 <p>cmc</p> <p>Do you have a link to that? I find it interesting they filed around the time Lam was being fired.</p> cmc

Do you have a link to that? I find it interesting they filed around the time Lam was being fired.

]]> By: cmc http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17672 cmc Tue, 08 May 2007 20:25:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17672 <p>The odd thing about the news reports that the indictments were imminent was that it was first reported in the Wall Street Journal and not in the San Diego Union Tribune or North County Times. SDUT broke the Cunningham story- the SD USA said Cunningham would have gotten away with it without the story in the SDUT. So, it seemed really odd that the story of the imminent indictment was leaked to WSJ.</p> <p>Wilkes must have gotten a â€heads up†on the â€imminent indictment†some time before Dec. 11, 2006. On that date, he and his wife file for â€legal separation with UCC.†California is a community property state, and all of Wilkes debts and fines would also be his wife’s responsiblity if they were married. So, to protect some of the assets, they filed for separation. I suppose the plan is Wilke’s wife is entitled to half his stuff before the feds take anything. Cunningham’s wife filed AFTER he was indicted and missed out. </p> The odd thing about the news reports that the indictments were imminent was that it was first reported in the Wall Street Journal and not in the San Diego Union Tribune or North County Times. SDUT broke the Cunningham story- the SD USA said Cunningham would have gotten away with it without the story in the SDUT. So, it seemed really odd that the story of the imminent indictment was leaked to WSJ.

Wilkes must have gotten a â€heads up†on the â€imminent indictment†some time before Dec. 11, 2006. On that date, he and his wife file for â€legal separation with UCC.†California is a community property state, and all of Wilkes debts and fines would also be his wife’s responsiblity if they were married. So, to protect some of the assets, they filed for separation. I suppose the plan is Wilke’s wife is entitled to half his stuff before the feds take anything. Cunningham’s wife filed AFTER he was indicted and missed out.

]]> By: freepatriot http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17671 freepatriot Tue, 08 May 2007 19:21:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17671 <p>I stole this from sojourner’s post</p> <blockquote><p><b>Nothing was ever reported in the media about the various pieces of information.</b></p> </blockquote> <p>well, it wasn’t reported in the press untill mr garigos released it to the press by including it in is brief</p> <p>and there is also ZERO EVIDENCE that anybody in Carol Lam’s office was responsible for the leaks</p> <p>garigos is claiming an injury to his case that never occured, until he himself inflicted the injury, by making the leaks public</p> <p><i>IANAL, but I got some experience at watchin lawyers fuck up a defense</i></p> I stole this from sojourner’s post

Nothing was ever reported in the media about the various pieces of information.

well, it wasn’t reported in the press untill mr garigos released it to the press by including it in is brief

and there is also ZERO EVIDENCE that anybody in Carol Lam’s office was responsible for the leaks

garigos is claiming an injury to his case that never occured, until he himself inflicted the injury, by making the leaks public

IANAL, but I got some experience at watchin lawyers fuck up a defense

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17670 bmaz Tue, 08 May 2007 18:44:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17670 <p>Let me rephrase the above, the are two constitutional challenges to CIPA. One is that it is unconstitutional as applied to your case and facts; Geragos is not even close on this one. The other is that it is inherently unconstitutional on it’s face. That is a much broader argument, and therefore much less likely to be granted. In fact, a trial court just isn’t ever going to go there; you would have to appeal it all the way to the Supremes to have any hope. As stated above, I think there is a plausible argument in this regard; however, I don’t think it would be granted.</p> Let me rephrase the above, the are two constitutional challenges to CIPA. One is that it is unconstitutional as applied to your case and facts; Geragos is not even close on this one. The other is that it is inherently unconstitutional on it’s face. That is a much broader argument, and therefore much less likely to be granted. In fact, a trial court just isn’t ever going to go there; you would have to appeal it all the way to the Supremes to have any hope. As stated above, I think there is a plausible argument in this regard; however, I don’t think it would be granted.

]]> By: Ducktape http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17669 Ducktape Tue, 08 May 2007 18:34:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17669 <p>Has anyone raised the thought that this might be sabotage from the DOJ itself, or from someone in another area of the executive branch tipped off by the DOJ?</p> <p>The drain this whole thing is circling is the Vice President’s office, btw — the naming of Porter Goss and then the Goss elevation of Foggo, the Mitchell Wade & Brent Wilkes relationship and that amazing contract out of the blue for the VP’s office that then paid for the <i>DukeStir</i> … </p> <p>This is like watching a movie where you already <i>really</i> know whodunnit — the suspense is whether or not they’ll be able to get away with it.</p> Has anyone raised the thought that this might be sabotage from the DOJ itself, or from someone in another area of the executive branch tipped off by the DOJ?

The drain this whole thing is circling is the Vice President’s office, btw — the naming of Porter Goss and then the Goss elevation of Foggo, the Mitchell Wade & Brent Wilkes relationship and that amazing contract out of the blue for the VP’s office that then paid for the DukeStir …

This is like watching a movie where you already really know whodunnit — the suspense is whether or not they’ll be able to get away with it.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17668 bmaz Tue, 08 May 2007 18:28:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/05/08/the-foggo-wilkes-leaks/#comment-17668 <p>I agree with Mimikatz that leaks are much more likely to be coming out of DOJ Main; and I’ll throw the CIA in there as a possibility too. I was trying to say that above, but was a little scatterbrained and inarticulate. EW, â€not wanting to go through a background check†is not going to help any argument Geragos could make. In my opinion, you can’t ethically take on this kind of case with that view, because the first thing you want to do is be cleared and start demanding everything under the sun; if you don’t, it gives the govt. to many angles to hide behind. However, you might be surprised to hear, I think there is some merit to a Sixth Amemdment challenge to CIPA; in fact, at one point I had exactly such a motion prepared and ready to go in a case, but the issue was limited and was resolved. Under the Sixth, a defendant has the right to â€confront†witnesses against him. This is known as the â€confrontation clauseâ€, and courts have generally held that it means a defendant has the right to meaningfully see, confront and cross-examine all evidence supporting the charges against him. Since a CIPA ruling can tend to hold certain evidence not be disclosed or presented, this could be seen as violative of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause. This type of argument is VERY fact specific, however, and it, again, does not look like it has been properly set up here. Sure isn’t going to fly if your lawyer won’t even be cleared to where he could see the evidence in the first place.</p> I agree with Mimikatz that leaks are much more likely to be coming out of DOJ Main; and I’ll throw the CIA in there as a possibility too. I was trying to say that above, but was a little scatterbrained and inarticulate. EW, â€not wanting to go through a background check†is not going to help any argument Geragos could make. In my opinion, you can’t ethically take on this kind of case with that view, because the first thing you want to do is be cleared and start demanding everything under the sun; if you don’t, it gives the govt. to many angles to hide behind. However, you might be surprised to hear, I think there is some merit to a Sixth Amemdment challenge to CIPA; in fact, at one point I had exactly such a motion prepared and ready to go in a case, but the issue was limited and was resolved. Under the Sixth, a defendant has the right to â€confront†witnesses against him. This is known as the â€confrontation clauseâ€, and courts have generally held that it means a defendant has the right to meaningfully see, confront and cross-examine all evidence supporting the charges against him. Since a CIPA ruling can tend to hold certain evidence not be disclosed or presented, this could be seen as violative of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause. This type of argument is VERY fact specific, however, and it, again, does not look like it has been properly set up here. Sure isn’t going to fly if your lawyer won’t even be cleared to where he could see the evidence in the first place.

]]>