4 ms·

I'm skeptical that they could have deliberately done something wrong just hoping it wouldn't get noticed. This is a very high-profile case; they would be expect

I'm skeptical that they could have deliberately done something wrong just hoping it wouldn't get noticed. This is a very high-profile case; they would be expecting a lot scrutiny.

reitzensteinm 15y ago
Plus the guy can afford the very best of legal counsel. Any holes in the case are sure to get found and exploited.
- DanBC 15y ago
  All his money has been seized. He might not get it back. Some countries separate out the mis-handling of a case form the actual case. "Fruit of the poison tree"[1] doesn't hold in the UK, for example. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)
  - joering2 15y ago
    Google couldnt find anything to prove this to me, but if its true then how the country can properly function (UK) if cops can do whethever the heck they want to as long as they get the "evidence" as a result. no idea.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      Cops can't do whatever they like to get evidence. But evidence is not thrown out because the police used the wrong warrant or whatnot. Maybe the officer doing wrong would face disciplinary procedures (resulting in loss of pension and job) or maybe they'd face criminal trial.
      - joering2 15y ago
        there won't be nothing. Cops whether break law or not don't get in trouble, by the rule. There is exemption but its a statistical noise just to make people feel like there is a justice.
  - reitzensteinm 15y ago
    I was assuming he'd be taking on counsel on a contingency basis - the fee would have to be very high to account for the risk, but I don't see why that wouldn't be workable. Also, it would be pretty hard to seize all the assets of someone worth hundreds of millions.
joering2 15y ago
unfortunately, not necessarily. I think they wouldnt care how high profile the case is. Even it its the mount everest case and it will be clear that X fucked up, knowing how the world of law enforcement works (cops dont tell on each other), there would be no consequences whatsoever. IF media would hung for too long on this issue, they may move X to a different position, temporarily, but rest assure it was definitely worth for cops to take a "risk".
rbanffy 15y ago
I think it's obvious they did it. They needed an interim restraining order but benefited from a foreign restraining order that caught the defendant by surprise. They then raise the issue to imply it was a mistake made in good faith before the defense team can assemble a different story. In any case, the prosecution should never be allowed to benefit from a process blunder that harms the defendant's ability to defend himself. If it's allowed, all sort of abuses will be committed "in good faith" only to be later "corrected" by such a half-hearted apology.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I think the chose that type of warrant on purpose and they were hoping it would be "good enough" to do what they were planning.
jbooth 15y ago
Richard Nixon would like a word with you.

I'm skeptical that they could have deliberately done something wrong just hoping it wouldn't get noticed. This is a very high-profile case; they would be expecting a lot scrutiny.

reitzensteinm 15y ago

Plus the guy can afford the very best of legal counsel. Any holes in the case are sure to get found and exploited.

DanBC 15y ago
All his money has been seized. He might not get it back. Some countries separate out the mis-handling of a case form the actual case. "Fruit of the poison tree"[1] doesn't hold in the UK, for example. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)
- joering2 15y ago
  Google couldnt find anything to prove this to me, but if its true then how the country can properly function (UK) if cops can do whethever the heck they want to as long as they get the "evidence" as a result. no idea.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    Cops can't do whatever they like to get evidence. But evidence is not thrown out because the police used the wrong warrant or whatnot. Maybe the officer doing wrong would face disciplinary procedures (resulting in loss of pension and job) or maybe they'd face criminal trial.
    - joering2 15y ago
      there won't be nothing. Cops whether break law or not don't get in trouble, by the rule. There is exemption but its a statistical noise just to make people feel like there is a justice.
- reitzensteinm 15y ago
  I was assuming he'd be taking on counsel on a contingency basis - the fee would have to be very high to account for the risk, but I don't see why that wouldn't be workable. Also, it would be pretty hard to seize all the assets of someone worth hundreds of millions.

joering2 15y ago

unfortunately, not necessarily. I think they wouldnt care how high profile the case is. Even it its the mount everest case and it will be clear that X fucked up, knowing how the world of law enforcement works (cops dont tell on each other), there would be no consequences whatsoever. IF media would hung for too long on this issue, they may move X to a different position, temporarily, but rest assure it was definitely worth for cops to take a "risk".

rbanffy 15y ago

I think it's obvious they did it. They needed an interim restraining order but benefited from a foreign restraining order that caught the defendant by surprise. They then raise the issue to imply it was a mistake made in good faith before the defense team can assemble a different story. In any case, the prosecution should never be allowed to benefit from a process blunder that harms the defendant's ability to defend himself. If it's allowed, all sort of abuses will be committed "in good faith" only to be later "corrected" by such a half-hearted apology.

nextparadigms 15y ago

I think the chose that type of warrant on purpose and they were hoping it would be "good enough" to do what they were planning.

jbooth 15y ago

Richard Nixon would like a word with you.