[drierice]

So with this judge’s logic, that “ample opportunity existed for discovery” without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.

[Non-Sequitur]

So with this judge’s logic, that “ample opportunity existed for discovery” without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.

Did the the prosecution go to the judge and say, "Your Honor, we don't have squat in the way of evidence. But it you'll allow us to haul Bernie into court then we're pretty sure we'll get what we need from the defense during discovery?"

[autumnraine]

So with this judge’s logic, that “ample opportunity existed for discovery” without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.
~~

Yes, I wondered the same thing. Is this setting a precedent? (is that how it’s spelled? not a legal scholar)

I mean if he is LEGALLY saying that as long as someone can get away with it, they are allowed?

Every case of fraud in the country should be filing a defense with this case as an example.

“Your honor, my client should not be convicted for practicing medicine without a license. The plaintiff had plenty of time to research private medical college transcripts to see if this man who claimed he was licensed was or not and she didn’t do it in time. Therefore this lawsuit of fraud should be dismissed. It’s her fault she is missing her spleen!”