ADVERTISEMENT

Cynthia Baldwin cleared.....

Jail time for releasing the Freeh work product and review is 20 to life since so many big shots and the politically connected have much at stake. Our last hope is if there is a ............glitchy computer somewhere (in Harrisburg) that accidentally posts the transcripts of all those interviewed and the 4 million documents that were...........scanned. At least the communications between Cynthia Baldwin and DA's office should be released today since she didn't break any rules.....so what is there to hide for 75 years.
 
Last edited:
Wow!!!! That couldn’t be further from the truth. The exact opposite actually.


“We find that she investigated and properly disclosed the potential conflict in the interests of the individual employees and PSU and that they effectively consented to a joint representation“
 
Wow!!!! That couldn’t be further from the truth. The exact opposite actually.


“We find that she investigated and properly disclosed the potential conflict in the interests of the individual employees and PSU and that they effectively consented to a joint representation“
Well, okay, but did they consent to a hopelessly conflicted joint representation, as well as representation by a dolt?
 
Wow!!!! That couldn’t be further from the truth. The exact opposite actually.


“We find that she investigated and properly disclosed the potential conflict in the interests of the individual employees and PSU and that they effectively consented to a joint representation“


Lol. Tell that to Curley and Schultz, who thought she was their lawyer and then she used the information they told her to testify against them.
 
Not surprising. In our legal ethics class in law school, we would read case studies of ethics complaints. If you were a yet to be lawyer (I.e. law student) and committed some transgression - like even minor plagiarism or cheating - you were done forever. You might as well look to enter another profession. If you were an active member of the bar, you’d almost flat out have to kill someone before being disbarred. The amount of leniency for even bald-faced crooks amazed me.
 
Not surprising. In our legal ethics class in law school, we would read case studies of ethics complaints. If you were a yet to be lawyer (I.e. law student) and committed some transgression - like even minor plagiarism or cheating - you were done forever. You might as well look to enter another profession. If you were an active member of the bar, you’d almost flat out have to kill someone before being disbarred. The amount of leniency for even bald-faced crooks amazed me.
Pennsylvania as many other states legistrators and judicial appointees crooked as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Jail time for releasing the Freeh work product and review is 20 to life since so many big shots and the politically connected have much at stake. Our last hope is if there is a ............glitchy computer somewhere (in Harrisburg) that accidentally posts the transcripts of all those interviewed and the 4 million documents that were...........scanned. At least the communications between Cynthia Baldwin and DA's office should be released today since she didn't break any rules.....so what is there to hide for 75 years.
And Kathleen Kane is in the big house (Isn’t she?) for leaking. LOL.
 
It bears repeating, "What do you call 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea?"
 
“Effectively consented to a joint representation”.

Read that - critically - and tell me, keeping in mind the context (coming from the Judicial disciplinary board :) ) just WTF that means?


It - all of it - is a joke...... and a mocking slap in the face from a “class” that is incapable of even the conception of righteousness, responsibility, or simple right-and-wrong.


And, for the most part, we willingly bend over and say thank you....... both in this particular case, and in a broader sense.

C’est la vie
“Effectively consented to a joint representation”.
Interpretation: "They wiped their asses in adjoining stalls".
 
just read the article:
1) I get the ruling on the potential conflict part
2) she was found to not have advised them that she only represented them as employees, not in their individual capacity (that's a big a freaking deal)
3) the rationale for her testifying against her clients is ridiculous....
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT