Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Man whose lawyers stole $275,000 from him and botched his defense, landing him in jail, not only got released from prison but also got his former attorney's lavish home   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 75
    More: Followup, attorney-in-fact, convicts, Coconut Creek, fifth amendment rights, landing  
•       •       •

13115 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-23 02:21:33 PM  
It's got nothing to do with "restoring the money to the drug dealer" as some here seem to think.

Attorneys have extremely strict ethical duties to their clients, and the Bar takes them very seriously. Those duties include being a zealous advocate for one's client, a duty of candor to the court, a duty to communicate with the client and the court, to perform the duties contracted with the client and not to charge unconscionable fees.

These attorneys violated every rule in the book, and got caught; the fact that their client was "just" a drug dealer is irrelevant. He's still entitled to diligent advocacy, to having all facts of his case communicated to him, and to have reasonable fees charged--which was why the second attorney was at pains to point out the case should only have cost $50K and not nearly $250K. And if a reduced sentence was part of the deal, he should have gotten it.

This was to punish the attorneys, not to recompense the defendant, who served his time and really is only due basic damages. But they want to send a harsh message to cheating, lying, stealing attorneys, and well they should.
 
2014-02-23 02:23:29 PM  

China White Tea: Dr Jack Badofsky: Tchernobog: Dr Jack Badofsky: Tchernobog: Dr Jack Badofsky: Tchernobog: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

Well, you've most assuredly done something illegal in your lifetime.

Gimme you farking wallet.

sure I have, but moving violations are a completely different type of crime than illegally trafficking unmonitored controlled substances that ruin lots of lives (both directly and indirectly).  And, rest assured, when I am caught, the response is the same as yours.  Just that the government is better at following through with their demands.

How's that?  Sure they're different classes of crime, but you're still advocating something illegal as retribution for something illegal.

I bet somebody has said something about two wrongs before.

I'm saying I don't see how this is the uproar that the writer is making out of it.  Guy engages directly in activity that poisons people to the point that they ruin entire families, and he gets a few extra years to think about it.  Are the lawyers scumbags?  Sure.  They should have responded when contacted.  Awarding a house is overly harsh on the lawyer, though.

I'm not sure how, exactly, I can explain theft to you in another way.  The lawyers stole from him.

Maybe you're just dumb.

I'm not sure the money they took from him was really legally acquired, anyway.  I can't explain that to you.  Maybe you're just a sucker for any bleeding-heart story no matter if it puts an an air of innocence on drug smuggling, pedophilia, murder, etc.  Oh no, guy caught smuggling drugs and laundering money was robbed of money that probably wasn't really his anyway.  TBSS.


If the money wasn't seized as part of his drug bust, it was legally "his".  Therefore, it was stolen from him.  Therefore, awarding the house wasn't even remotely overly harsh, and you're dumb.


Yes, because the gov't always takes 100% of Ill-gotten proceeds back, and don't take one cent more, right, Madhoff?  He laundered money, and I bet the law doesn't always get every cent of it back, even though they try to.
 
2014-02-23 02:23:34 PM  
If I'm reading that right, they weren't even licensed to practice law in Florida.  I thought the punishment seemed really punitive for simple malpractice, but going by TFA, there are some very good reasons for it.  These were more con artists than attorneys, and slipping right past the obvious lawyer jokes there, the legal profession places a lot of stock in reputation.  Judges and other attorneys will be the first in line to administer an ass-beating to pricks like these.

/Also, fark autostart videos.
 
2014-02-23 02:28:14 PM  
At the risk of waxing piss pious, I think it's high time that we, as a society, ake a long hard look at what we're willing to do to get our hands on these.
0.tqn.com
 
2014-02-23 02:33:16 PM  
He feels bad taking the house after all that?!? FARK THAT, I'd piss in every room just to mark my territory (and out of spite), and christen every room with every hooker in the area, then videotape it and send it to the lawyers!
 
2014-02-23 02:34:08 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Yes, because the gov't always takes 100% of Ill-gotten proceeds back, and don't take one cent more, right, Madhoff?  He laundered money, and I bet the law doesn't always get every cent of it back, even though they try to.


Where drugs are related, the government is EXTREMELY zealous about seizure, and can quite cheerfully seize assets and  make you prove that they weren't sourced from drug trafficking.That didn't happen here.

Now, I realize we've already established that you're dumb, but try to follow along here.  We have what's known as a "legal system" which defines certain rules that everyone has to play by.  If, in playing within the confines of this set of rules, the government wasn't able to make a case for the seizure of that money, it is  legally his.  The fact that it "probably" came from drug trafficking/money laundering is irrelevant.  The fact that some imbecile on fark is certain it did is irrelevant.  It's  legally his, and therefore, within the confines of the legal system, has to be treated as such.  There is no, "Well, it's legally his, but he's kind of an poopy face butthead so we're not going to treat theft of legally-his-property as if it were actual theft," exception.
 
2014-02-23 02:36:46 PM  

kling_klang_bed: I'd piss in every room just to mark my territory


It's funny the things we value after inventing air conditioning, airplanes and traveling to the moon.
 
2014-02-23 02:49:59 PM  
How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?

Shoot him first.
 
2014-02-23 02:58:49 PM  
My, my. There is a God.
 
2014-02-23 03:04:23 PM  
Better call Saul!
 
2014-02-23 03:07:43 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..


No one was smuggling any narcotics in that article. wasnt sure which one you were reading.
 
2014-02-23 03:07:52 PM  
Any link to a Florida story without a Florida tag should draw a whistle and penalty, IMHO.

/story reminded me of the most recent episode of "Justified"
 
2014-02-23 03:09:33 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..


I would argue that what the lawyers did was worse. Even the worst defendant should be afforded his/her day in court. To deny someone their right to a fair trial, especially if it's your own client, subverts the system for all of us. Yes, this time it's a person who did the crime. What about a person who didn't do it? What if his lawyer rips him off, skips town, and sabotages his defense? If we want to protect the innocent from this kind of abuse, and I certainly want that, then yes, we have to also protect drug smugglers as well.

It's like why I support the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist Church. By protecting their rights, I also protect my First Amendment rights. It sucks that people I don't like get equal protection, but that means people I DO like also get equal protection.

Which is why, in my view, the lawyers are the worse criminals here.
 
2014-02-23 06:16:46 PM  
TedCruz'sCrazyDad: So you are not allowed to steal from drug dealers any more?

i1200.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-23 07:17:41 PM  

I Browse: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: So you are not allowed to steal from drug dealers any more?

[i1200.photobucket.com image 360x259]


Man`s gotta have a code. And biology homework.
 
2014-02-23 07:25:05 PM  

Geoff Peterson: Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..

No one was smuggling any narcotics in that article. wasnt sure which one you were reading.


You need to read the article again.  He was convicted of smuggling cocaine and marijuana along with laundering money.
 
2014-02-23 07:32:39 PM  

China White Tea: Dr Jack Badofsky: Yes, because the gov't always takes 100% of Ill-gotten proceeds back, and don't take one cent more, right, Madhoff?  He laundered money, and I bet the law doesn't always get every cent of it back, even though they try to.

Where drugs are related, the government is EXTREMELY zealous about seizure, and can quite cheerfully seize assets and  make you prove that they weren't sourced from drug trafficking.That didn't happen here.

Now, I realize we've already established that you're dumb, but try to follow along here.  We have what's known as a "legal system" which defines certain rules that everyone has to play by.  If, in playing within the confines of this set of rules, the government wasn't able to make a case for the seizure of that money, it is  legally his.  The fact that it "probably" came from drug trafficking/money laundering is irrelevant.  The fact that some imbecile on fark is certain it did is irrelevant.  It's  legally his, and therefore, within the confines of the legal system, has to be treated as such.  There is no, "Well, it's legally his, but he's kind of an poopy face butthead so we're not going to treat theft of legally-his-property as if it were actual theft," exception.


Zealous as they may be, they can't always catch every single cent of laundered funds, (or, quite possibly, this guy may have a friend on the inside *gasp!*).  The notion that you think that their zeal to catch every single dollar of every single launderer is absolutely ridiculous, and makes you certifiably retarded.  The DEA, and ATF are looking for convictions/arrests.  Again, I don't feel one bit sorry for some two-bit scumbag druggie trying to whine about getting screwed over.  if it was your aunt/uncle/daughter/whatever, you'd be singing a different tune completely, so GFY, moron.  what are the odds this guy winds up in the paper with another trafficking/laundering conviction in the next year?  BS o9n his "turning his life around" bullshiat.  You're the only idiot falling for it.
 
2014-02-23 07:36:35 PM  

soporific: Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..

I would argue that what the lawyers did was worse. Even the worst defendant should be afforded his/her day in court. To deny someone their right to a fair trial, especially if it's your own client, subverts the system for all of us. Yes, this time it's a person who did the crime. What about a person who didn't do it? What if his lawyer rips him off, skips town, and sabotages his defense? If we want to protect the innocent from this kind of abuse, and I certainly want that, then yes, we have to also protect drug smugglers as well.

It's like why I support the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist Church. By protecting their rights, I also protect my First Amendment rights. It sucks that people I don't like get equal protection, but that means people I DO like also get equal protection.

Which is why, in my view, the lawyers are the worse criminals here.


I'm not denying what the lawyers did was bad.  I'm not seeing the sympathy with some piece of garbage thinking he is undriven snow who deserves hugs and kisses.  He's no more friendly than the guy handing out free 8-balls at your local elementary school.
 
2014-02-23 07:51:52 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: soporific: Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..

I would argue that what the lawyers did was worse. Even the worst defendant should be afforded his/her day in court. To deny someone their right to a fair trial, especially if it's your own client, subverts the system for all of us. Yes, this time it's a person who did the crime. What about a person who didn't do it? What if his lawyer rips him off, skips town, and sabotages his defense? If we want to protect the innocent from this kind of abuse, and I certainly want that, then yes, we have to also protect drug smugglers as well.

It's like why I support the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist Church. By protecting their rights, I also protect my First Amendment rights. It sucks that people I don't like get equal protection, but that means people I DO like also get equal protection.

Which is why, in my view, the lawyers are the worse criminals here.

I'm not denying what the lawyers did was bad.  I'm not seeing the sympathy with some piece of garbage thinking he is undriven snow who deserves hugs and kisses.  He's no more friendly than the guy handing out free 8-balls at your local elementary school.


It's not a matter of sympathy.  It's called "equal protection under the law."  You're advocating against it, because you are stupid.
 
2014-02-23 07:55:18 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: BS o9n his "turning his life around" bullshiat.  You're the only idiot falling for it.


No, what we're saying is that  he is entitled to equal protection under the law.  None of your "suspicions" farking matter.  They have no legal or factual importance.  There does not exist - except in your head - a legal status of, "probable scumbag" magically nullifies one's right to equal protection under the law.  Legally, that money was his.  Legally, that money was stolen from him.  Legally, he was entitled to compensation for that theft.
 
2014-02-23 07:57:13 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..


Allegedly! Smuggled Allegedly!

/guilty.
 
2014-02-23 09:26:58 PM  

China White Tea: Dr Jack Badofsky: soporific: Dr Jack Badofsky: Sin_City_Superhero: Dr Jack Badofsky: Hmm.  Why don't I feel bad for a drug smuggler getting the shaft?

'Cause you're a douchenozzle?

Lol, no.  I hate what the lawyers did, but smuggling narcotics isn't any better..

I would argue that what the lawyers did was worse. Even the worst defendant should be afforded his/her day in court. To deny someone their right to a fair trial, especially if it's your own client, subverts the system for all of us. Yes, this time it's a person who did the crime. What about a person who didn't do it? What if his lawyer rips him off, skips town, and sabotages his defense? If we want to protect the innocent from this kind of abuse, and I certainly want that, then yes, we have to also protect drug smugglers as well.

It's like why I support the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist Church. By protecting their rights, I also protect my First Amendment rights. It sucks that people I don't like get equal protection, but that means people I DO like also get equal protection.

Which is why, in my view, the lawyers are the worse criminals here.

I'm not denying what the lawyers did was bad.  I'm not seeing the sympathy with some piece of garbage thinking he is undriven snow who deserves hugs and kisses.  He's no more friendly than the guy handing out free 8-balls at your local elementary school.

It's not a matter of sympathy.  It's called "equal protection under the law."  You're advocating against it, because you are stupid.


Nope. I'm just not a sympathetic schmuck like you.  Too many times, good people are removed from things that are rightfully theirs because of idiotic interpretations of law like you are apparently wont to do with this guy.  The guy was  dumb enought o pay for a flight to Europe for the lawyer.  Gee, a guy playing the system while laundering money should know better, but he didn't.  You are stupid enough to fall for his "OMG I didn't know my rights!" BS story, and fell hook, line, and sinker for it.
 
2014-02-24 07:25:29 AM  
Dr Jack Badofsky:

No one was smuggling any narcotics in that article. wasnt sure which one you were reading.

You need to read the article again.  He was convicted of smuggling cocaine and marijuana along with laundering money.


You need a dictionary.
 
2014-02-24 07:29:31 AM  

Geoff Peterson: Dr Jack Badofsky:

No one was smuggling any narcotics in that article. wasnt sure which one you were reading.

You need to read the article again.  He was convicted of smuggling cocaine and marijuana along with laundering money.

You need a dictionary.


Meh. I  apologize for that. In my mind, a narcotic is usually a depressant or an opiate. Cocaine and marijuana is neither, however, I do find that some have taken to using the term narcotic to describe any illegal drug. I think it's stupid, but several of the dictionaries I just referred you to are doing that, so who am I to argue? I'll take my drubbing like a man, sir.
 
Rat [TotalFark]
2014-02-24 07:51:16 AM  
Did he get a structured settlement?

™ I know a guy
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report