Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: KitJ

Might it be that continuing to fund the lawyers might be part of the deal in order to prevent a mistrial or a delay unwanted by the prosecutor?

I don’t do court or law stuff so no real clue. But that thought did occur.


1,584 posted on 04/19/2019 12:20:41 PM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1582 | View Replies ]


To: Grimmy

At hearings a couple weeks ago, the judge asked for info on the trust that Clare set up to pay all the co-defendants’ lawyers. Not hers, of course, everybody else’s. She retained her own counsel.

The judge had each defendant appear before him while he explained all the implications of using the trust’s lawyers. Those included conflicts of interest, running out of money, etc.

Each defendant affirmed they were okay with the trust lawyers. For example, Mark Geragos represented Bronfman and his daughter is representing Raniere.

The trust was running out of money and with no replenishment, it’s fairly obvious that the lawyers will walk when the cash is gone.

My point was a little sarcastic. I don’t believe she’ll be plumping up the trust with her money. That means Raniere will soon have to switch to court-appointed attorneys.

Main reason for that is he can show he has no money. His name didn’t appear on any NXIVM docs. Oh, and he hasn’t filed any taxes in 20 years.

He’s hosed. As the last guy, there won’t be a deal for him. And without Clare or Nancy, he really doesn’t have any money.


1,597 posted on 04/19/2019 12:36:08 PM PDT by KitJ (Shall not be infringed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1584 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson