Skip to content
 
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.

(Daily Dot)   The man who represents himself has a fool for a client   (dailydot.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Oct 2020 at 8:03 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



50 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-26 5:34:19 PM  
Jacob Wohl, Jack Burkman admit to robocall scheme while defending selves in civil suit

Sorry Dude (The Simpsons)
Youtube uIecyRCIFkI
 
2020-10-26 5:46:53 PM  
Those two, defending themselves? That right there is fractal foolishness.
 
2020-10-26 6:54:32 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 7:35:58 PM  
Don't worry--these two have an intricate plan to hold a press conference in a Wawa bathroom where they will both admit to all accusations while trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.
 
2020-10-26 8:07:58 PM  
static1.squarespace.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 8:09:57 PM  
Apparently that Mercer money doesn't extend to attorney fees.
 
2020-10-26 8:10:19 PM  
How are they not in prison?
 
2020-10-26 8:10:56 PM  

PainInTheASP: trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.


I guess I can fap to that.
 
2020-10-26 8:12:13 PM  

PainInTheASP: Don't worry--these two have an intricate plan to hold a press conference in a Wawa bathroom where they will both admit to all accusations while trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.


Sir.....this is a Wawa.
 
2020-10-26 8:12:46 PM  
There is the very real possibility that any attorney that these two nitwits hire is as stupid, and incompetent as they are.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 8:13:04 PM  
I still think this is long form performance art.  No one is this stupid.  Nope, don't believe it.  Come on now, guys, time for the big payoff.
 
2020-10-26 8:13:08 PM  
In reference to nothing; what remains of The Human Potential movement has been really damaging to the lives of a lot of assholes who develop a magical level of overconfidence.
 
2020-10-26 8:16:23 PM  

alitaki: PainInTheASP: trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.

I guess I can fap to that.


Sir.....this is a Wawa
 
2020-10-26 8:16:38 PM  
I guess the lawyers that are willing to defend them are probably charging way more than they can afford to have their names associated with these two
 
2020-10-26 8:16:40 PM  
I'd love to know how many attorneys they talked to would have been excited to take the case but for unspecified scheduling conflicts and the like.
 
2020-10-26 8:17:58 PM  
The man who represents himself has a fool for a client...

...or has no money to hire a lawyer.

They may be going this route because they're broke.
 
2020-10-26 8:19:04 PM  
FTFA: Wohl and Burkman are also facing felony charges in Michigan for the robocall and are out on $100,000 bail each

Fark user imageView Full Size


https://twitter.com/ZTPetrizzo/status​/​1316774302709055488


"Well, let me make myself clear to all parties concerned here, particularly the defendants. If you violate my bond in any form or fashion I am going to jail you, and I'm going to keep you there for as long as I possibly can. Do you understand me, gentlemen?"
 
2020-10-26 8:19:08 PM  

iheartscotch: How are they not in prison?


White privilege
Male privilege
Rich privilege
Republican privilege

All the privileges, really.
 
2020-10-26 8:19:31 PM  

petec: alitaki: PainInTheASP: trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.

I guess I can fap to that.

Sir.....this is a Wawa


You're not exactly making a discouraging point you know....
 
2020-10-26 8:19:44 PM  
These two are basically everyone who works for the GOP and the so-called "conservative" movement. Wohl and Burkman are just the dumb ones who make their lies and fraud too obvious with their incompetence.
 
2020-10-26 8:20:26 PM  
Why can't this be televised...I'd cook up a bag of popcorn to watch those two dunces get sent through the judicial ringer.
 
2020-10-26 8:21:29 PM  

iheartscotch: How are they not in prison?


Because they're out on bail.
If you read to the end of the article you find out they probably just gave their criminal case prosecutors valuable material to use against them in court.
 
2020-10-26 8:21:51 PM  
They need to up the bail on the grounds that his documented travel to Belarus and Tel Aviv makes him a flight risk.
 
2020-10-26 8:21:55 PM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: I still think this is long form performance art.  No one is this stupid.  Nope, don't believe it.  Come on now, guys, time for the big payoff.


neither of them are Andy Kaufman levels of entertainment, and I really didn't find him that funny
 
2020-10-26 8:23:08 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 8:23:39 PM  
"Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present.
"


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?
 
2020-10-26 8:24:09 PM  
To be honest, anyone who represents Wohl has a fool for a client.
 
2020-10-26 8:25:07 PM  

alitaki: petec: alitaki: PainInTheASP: trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of being Elvira.

I guess I can fap to that.

Sir.....this is a Wawa

You're not exactly making a discouraging point you know....


I guess I need to stop by a Wawa more often
 
2020-10-26 8:27:41 PM  
Time for a lyrics update:

♪♫ He don' need rep-|-re-sen-ta-tion. | | ♫♪
♫♪ He don't think no | thoughts at all. | | ♪♫
♪♫ Just | dark sar-cas-m | in his head-room. | | ♪♫
♫♪ Ja-cob, leave those | phones a-lone. | | ♫♪
♫♪ | | Hey! | Ja-cob! Leave those phones -|-lone. | | ♪♫
♪♫ All-in-all, you're just a-|-noth-er brick-head named | "Wohl." | | ♫♪
♫♪ All-in-all, you're just a-|-noth-er d!ck-head named | "Wohl." | | ♪♫
 
2020-10-26 8:27:46 PM  
They think they're clever enough to get out of this and are finally going to prison for their antics.
 
2020-10-26 8:28:32 PM  

New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?



You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.
 
2020-10-26 8:29:42 PM  
I've only heard the word "finessed" in this sort of context used by an incel to describe how he thinks women con men out of money.

That tracks here.
 
2020-10-26 8:30:55 PM  

New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


If I understand correctly, this court appearance was for a civil case. Yes, anything said under oath can be introduced in the criminal case, but this being civil, no right to an attorney/public defender.

My best guess is that the lawyer they named is their criminal attorney. He probably agreed to represent them in the civil case if a retainer was put up. And it hasn't yet been. No Mr. Green, no representation on the civil case.

Just a guess.
 
2020-10-26 8:31:12 PM  

FrancoFile: New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.


Aha.  Missed the civil suit part, got it mixed up with the Michigan thing they're currently out on bail for.
 
2020-10-26 8:33:03 PM  

joen00b: They think they're clever enough to get out of this and are finally going to prison for their antics.


This is a civil case, so just dollars

But due to their incompetence, they've given testimony that, as the saying goes, can and will be used against them, when the criminal cases come around on the calendar.
 
2020-10-26 8:33:46 PM  

TommyDeuce: Those two, defending themselves? That right there is fractal foolishness.


They're not defending themselves - Wohl is defending Burkman and Burkman is defending Wohl.
Peanut Butter Chex, mate.
 
2020-10-26 8:33:56 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/oblig
 
2020-10-26 8:33:56 PM  

New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


This one is a civil case.  No public defender involved.

There are some organizations that will provide pro bono representation for civil cases, but off the top of my head I can't think of any that are dedicated to vigorously defending your right to engage in false political robocalls.

Well, maybe if Trump were halfway competent, he'd actually help his friends once in a while.  Or somebody like Peter Thiel, who does know how the legal system works and wouldn't even notice the monetary cost.  But he probably took one look at these two clownsticks and said to himself, "nah, even I have standards."
 
2020-10-26 8:35:08 PM  

New Rising Sun: is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves. Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


If so, let's hope there is an "in the public interest" exception where "comedy gold provided" outweighs other considerations.
 
2020-10-26 8:40:51 PM  

FrancoFile: New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.


This is a criminal case, not a civil.
 
2020-10-26 8:42:23 PM  

New Rising Sun: FrancoFile: New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.

Aha.  Missed the civil suit part, got it mixed up with the Michigan thing they're currently out on bail for.


Wait, these guys are defendants in two cases simultaneously?
 
2020-10-26 8:43:22 PM  

dericwater: FrancoFile: New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.

This is a criminal case, not a civil.


The Michigan thing is a criminal case.  This hearing was for a civil case.  It says so right in the URL, headline, and opening paragraph of TFA.
 
2020-10-26 8:54:06 PM  

dericwater: New Rising Sun: FrancoFile: New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


You can't be forced out of pro se unless there's a finding of incompetence.

And civil cases don't have public defenders.

Aha.  Missed the civil suit part, got it mixed up with the Michigan thing they're currently out on bail for.

Wait, these guys are defendants in two cases simultaneously?


So far.  The Michigan charges are from robocalls they made in August.    They've done a number of other things since then (and before, too) that could easily result in more indictments.
 
2020-10-26 9:00:27 PM  
She read the transcript back to the court, where the last line of the call is, "don't be finessed into giving your private information to the man, stay home"

I think I found their script reviewer:

i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 9:28:52 PM  
With all the crap these two have been pulling for years, consequence free until now, they both deserve to die in prison.
 
2020-10-26 9:40:37 PM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: I still think this is long form performance art.  No one is this stupid.  Nope, don't believe it.  Come on now, guys, time for the big payoff.


Which one is really Andy Kaufman?
 
2020-10-26 10:21:39 PM  
Jeese, and here I was thinking they were smart.  I mean, they gave such professional looking press conferences.
 
2020-10-26 10:31:14 PM  
Personally, I think these two are just "scamps" having a dig at the ol', stodgy "Man".  Their zany antics will surely result in a "Tut Tut!" from the judge, won over (despite himself) by their "hijinks".  When they go to "The Big House", I'm sure they'll regale all the "Cons" with their winsome brand of "humor" while they're being "bug****d."
 
2020-10-26 11:15:29 PM  
Poverty becomes them.
 
2020-10-27 11:00:35 AM  

New Rising Sun: "Wohl texted the Daily Dot and informed this reporter he would be represented by a New York City-based lawyer. (That lawyer, David Schwartz, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Dot.)
In court this morning, which the Daily Dot was present for, the duo further claimed that Schwartz would represent them. But at the time of the hearing, no counsel was present."


I wonder what behind-the-scenes dialog is happening between those camps.  Is it a case of Wohl thinking that merely getting a consultation about the background on his case amounts to this guy being "his" attorney, or did the attorney actually agree to represent him and Wohl is like "great! I'll totally pay you back in MAGA exposure" and the lawyer responding 'lol, no, that'll be $500/hr', leaving Wohl to keep of the facade of 'having a lawyer' until he can find the local MAGA Lionel Hutz to represent him.


Also, given that these guys had a hard time answering basic questions from the judge, is there some sort of thing the court can do that basically says "you guys are not fit to provide even a remotely competent defense for yourselves.  Therefore, you must use a lawyer or a public defender" ?


Please. They asked who his lawyer is and he said David Schwartz of New York, knowing there are at least 50 New York lawyers named David Schwartz and the Daily Dot doesn't pay enough to call all of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.