3 ms·

It is everyone he knew relevant to proving his innocence. Is he allowed a defense at all, or should this just be done Chinese style?

detaro 4y ago
How is "you need to involve legal counsel and keep conversations on the record if you want to talk to people to prepare your defense" the "chinese style"? And if he needs company records etc, he can request them without privately messaging former employees.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  Whose council needs to be cc’d on the communications? How do you contact people other than WhatsApp or Signal when people are all international and had their email accounts cancelled.
  - detaro 4y ago
    Is "I only have their phone numbers, how could someone who is not me ever find a way of contacting them" a serious question?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    "In the presence of counsel" doesn't mean they're cc'd on electronic messages. If the people he wants to talk to are overseas, SBF can give his counsel their contact details, and have them arrange for a local lawyer to be on the spot.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
Some cursory research indicates nothing particularly unusual about restricting the defendant's contact with witnesses.
denton-scratch 4y ago
He can talk to anyone he likes - in the presence of counsel. He's not allowed to slither around on Signal intimidating or bribing potential witnesses. I'm really surprised he's not in jug!
sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
This reminds me a lot of the pattern Darrell Brooks Jr. used frequently while representing himself in the well publicized trial last year. To summarize the pattern: Brooks: "I want to do <thing>" Judge: "You can't do <thing>, because <we're not at that phase yet | we're past that phase | that's not actually a thing you can do in court>" Brooks: "So I can't defend myself?" Brooks' response expands a specific constraint into being completely restrained from defending himself. Your statement seems to be applying the same logic. I don't think that logic is particularly sound. A defendant being unwilling to follow court process and procedure is in no way the court restricting that defendant's right to defend themselves.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Sounds similar to Alex Jones's antics in court.

detaro 4y ago

How is "you need to involve legal counsel and keep conversations on the record if you want to talk to people to prepare your defense" the "chinese style"? And if he needs company records etc, he can request them without privately messaging former employees.

jcampbell1 4y ago
Whose council needs to be cc’d on the communications? How do you contact people other than WhatsApp or Signal when people are all international and had their email accounts cancelled.
- detaro 4y ago
  Is "I only have their phone numbers, how could someone who is not me ever find a way of contacting them" a serious question?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  "In the presence of counsel" doesn't mean they're cc'd on electronic messages. If the people he wants to talk to are overseas, SBF can give his counsel their contact details, and have them arrange for a local lawyer to be on the spot.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

Some cursory research indicates nothing particularly unusual about restricting the defendant's contact with witnesses.

denton-scratch 4y ago

He can talk to anyone he likes - in the presence of counsel. He's not allowed to slither around on Signal intimidating or bribing potential witnesses. I'm really surprised he's not in jug!

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago

This reminds me a lot of the pattern Darrell Brooks Jr. used frequently while representing himself in the well publicized trial last year. To summarize the pattern: Brooks: "I want to do <thing>" Judge: "You can't do <thing>, because <we're not at that phase yet | we're past that phase | that's not actually a thing you can do in court>" Brooks: "So I can't defend myself?" Brooks' response expands a specific constraint into being completely restrained from defending himself. Your statement seems to be applying the same logic. I don't think that logic is particularly sound. A defendant being unwilling to follow court process and procedure is in no way the court restricting that defendant's right to defend themselves.

AlexandrB 4y ago
Sounds similar to Alex Jones's antics in court.