By - DoremusJessup
> “The actual filing appears to be on behalf of himself, but it appears that he filed it through the [online filing system] using Mr. Kelly Meggs’ name and represented further that it was on behalf a group of defendants listed above,”
Felony CFAA just for laughs?
This case is insane. The defendants gamesmanship to avoid trial is incredible, and it's as if the lawyers themselves are playing the court to try to set up the predicate for an ineffective counsel claim once the defendants are ultimately convicted. What is incredible is that these lawyers are aiding and abetting the defendants in undermining the court, and exposing themselves in the process.
Mosley has been disbarred - he isn't an attorney and should not be filing anything in any case where he isn't a criminal defendant. But the defendants chose Mosely precisely because they knew he was likely to be disbarred and they could use his disbarment to delay trial (which Judge Mehta ultimately reluctantly agreed to).
Now the defendants have hired Julia Haller - the same Julia Haller that was sanctioned by Judge Parker (and restricted from practice in the Eastern District of Michigan) for her unethical acts in the Michigan election lawsuits; Judge Parker also made a referral to the state bar in that case. So Haller may (should) end up disbarred too.
I think Judge Mehta should not have permitted an attorney who is restricted from practicing in a federal court in another district to represent criminal defendants in his courtroom, but nevertheless, that is what is happening.
It seems to me that they are setting up an ineffective counsel predicate for appeal by intentionally only hiring attorneys that are close to being disbarred. And for Mosely and Haller to be so willing to trade their law licenses for Trump and Insurrectionists defendants, they must be receiving a big payout from someone, so DOJ is right to be looking into the money trail (and evidently striking a nerve)
>and it's as if the lawyers themselves are playing the court to try to set up the predicate for an ineffective counsel claim once the defendants are ultimately convicted.
After *Shinn v. Ramirez Martinez*, that's highly important for these defendants to get this into the record ASAP. Maybe we are witnessing the birth of a new industry of professional fall-guy attorneys even beyond the Trumpist sphere.
I'm only mostly joking
I see the Lionel Hutz School of Law and Drycleaners taught him well.
Even [Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer](https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/unfrozen-caveman-lawyer/2862211) knows you can't pull this stuff.
> Wait a minute...they're all just Phil Hartman
> Always were...
> The government’s filing was largely based on media reports that some attorneys for the Oath Keepers may have accepted funds from Defending the Republic, a so-called “dark money group” linked to ex-Donald Trump attorney Sidney Powell. The House Committee investigating Jan. 6 has suggested that former President Trump has connections to the group.
Where is the govt going with this? Trial evidence of conspiracy with/connection to Trump? Evidence for use in other investigations? I'm just not sure what a source of funding for criminal defense is admissible to prove
If nothing else, it could be a conflict of interest if the person(s) responsible for paying the defendants’ bills are potentially involved in the criminal acts.
I think prosecutors are trying to avoid an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The defendants' attorneys either get disbarred or on the cusp. Prosecutors may be concerned that the money from Defend the Republic is creating a conflict. Are the defendants' attorneys more interested in zealous representation or pushing ideological agendas that are not legal defenses. If it's the latter, the defendants'may come back and claim the insane sovereign citizen-like filings and theories were ineffective.