OT: For those of you interested in the legal impacts of the Fina emails on Kane case

[Nittany_Roar]

An article that gets into the possible legal implications.

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...l?mcode=1202615580822&slreturn=20150801101027

 

[4INSBU]

An article that gets into the possible legal implications.

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...l?mcode=1202615580822&slreturn=20150801101027

Can someone post the article so we don't have to register on the site

 

[Nittany_Roar]

I'm not having issues. Try this link:

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...on-Avoid-Calling-Key-Witness-in-AG-Kane-Trial

 

[step.eng69]

tried to access the article, I presume you have to be a subscriber to the legalintelligencer


some comments referring to the Supreme hearing:

• 
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  Tony - you are correct. This seems to be just a continuation of the pre-indictment attempts to get AG Kane out. This is scary stuff. Lots of powerful people are in on this cover-up. Kane is going to beat this at trial and they know it.

• Just an Observer
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  Seems to me that the "egregious conduct" was the conduct of attorneys Fina and Costanzo. They used there State computer to view disgusting and racist material at work … on the taxpayers‘ dime. The porn wasn‘t just the "cheeky" stuff and "typical office porn" that some Fina defenders made it out to be. Consider this from Philly Mag:The very first image in the binder — part of an email from Fina to two colleagues — depicts a topless woman on her back, giving oral sex to a man in a dress shirt. It is captioned in the style of a motivational poster: "WILLINGNESS: Bend over backwards to do an exceptional job."The next image? Another woman. Also giving oral sex. "DEVOTION: Making your boss happy is your only job."It‘s not all blowjobs. The next image in the set featured anal sex.Yikes!!!!!! And these guys still have their law licenses??? And Seth Williams thinks it‘s a good idea to keep paying them with taxpayer dollars?

• Pete
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  PA Supreme Court needs no more than that to duck this petition.

• Tony
  Aug 28, 2015
  
  If the suspension has the effect of removing Kane from office, does that not run afoul of the Pennsylvania Constitution‘s directive that only the Legislature may remove an elected official, in this case the Attorney General, through impeachment and trial in the State Senate?

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202735969146/Board-Seeks-Suspension-of-Kanes-Law-License-Sources-Say#ixzz3kVL8A8SG

 

[bjf1984]

tried to access the article, I presume you have to be a subscriber to the legalintelligencer


some comments referring to the Supreme hearing:

• 
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  Tony - you are correct. This seems to be just a continuation of the pre-indictment attempts to get AG Kane out. This is scary stuff. Lots of powerful people are in on this cover-up. Kane is going to beat this at trial and they know it.

• Just an Observer
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  Seems to me that the "egregious conduct" was the conduct of attorneys Fina and Costanzo. They used there State computer to view disgusting and racist material at work … on the taxpayers‘ dime. The porn wasn‘t just the "cheeky" stuff and "typical office porn" that some Fina defenders made it out to be. Consider this from Philly Mag:The very first image in the binder — part of an email from Fina to two colleagues — depicts a topless woman on her back, giving oral sex to a man in a dress shirt. It is captioned in the style of a motivational poster: "WILLINGNESS: Bend over backwards to do an exceptional job."The next image? Another woman. Also giving oral sex. "DEVOTION: Making your boss happy is your only job."It‘s not all blowjobs. The next image in the set featured anal sex.Yikes!!!!!! And these guys still have their law licenses??? And Seth Williams thinks it‘s a good idea to keep paying them with taxpayer dollars?

• Pete
  Aug 29, 2015
  
  PA Supreme Court needs no more than that to duck this petition.

• Tony
  Aug 28, 2015
  
  If the suspension has the effect of removing Kane from office, does that not run afoul of the Pennsylvania Constitution‘s directive that only the Legislature may remove an elected official, in this case the Attorney General, through impeachment and trial in the State Senate?

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202735969146/Board-Seeks-Suspension-of-Kanes-Law-License-Sources-Say#ixzz3kVL8A8SG

This most recent end run by the Fina Boys is a desperate, scumbag attempt to save their sorry asses.

That doesn't mean it may not work (this is Pennsylvania, after all).....but any thinking human being should have no trouble seeing this for what it is.