The attorney who LOST a 3-0 decision, wants to re-try the case in his filings in the Benedict Cosentino case. Attorney Frank Lawrence does what EVERY LOSER does, file for a rehearing. in his filings linked here it appears that he's trying to argue the case again. I admit I'm not a lawyer, but I started watching legal shows as a kid, maybe the Defenders or Perry Mason. I'm pretty sure you can't win an appeal hearing with this.
"OH, wait you're HONORS, I forgot to argue this at trial" doesn't seem to be a winner. It makes one think that even Pechanga's John Macarro, who couldn't pass the CA bar, would know that. WHO's PAYING THESE GUYS? They had an opportunity to give evidence ... AT TRIAL.
It seems these attorneys for Casino tribes are telling their clients, who HARM OTHERS, "all we have to do in court is say, "TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY" and it's a WINNER. Except, Lawrence and Pechanga got a 3-0 SMACKDOWN on appeal, one that took about a YEAR to determine.
Now, Lawrence is using Public Law 280, sovereignty, the kitchen sink and getting other corrupt tribes like PALA to join in.
Frank, bubby, the TRIBE wasn't sued, it was individuals. NOW, you throw this crap in your brief:
On remand, the Commission will make a record refuting plaintiff’s allegations that will more than satisfy the improper standards set forth in the Opinion, even if they are not amended after rehearing. Plaintiff’s criminal record, prior adverse licensing determinations by other regulatory entities, financial irresponsibility and instability, failure to abide by the terms of his license, and 37 refusal to provide information
So we are clear, Pechanga's attorney is going to bring in "plaintiff's criminal record", prior adverse licensing determination, financial irresponsibility... blah, blah, blah" Frank, bubby, you mean the stuff that was there when Pechanga HIRED him, the stuff they knew about, the stuff that still allowed him a license? The stuff that was their when they FIRED/eliminated Stella Fuller? The stuff that was there when PECHANGA APOLOGIZED and rescinded their revocation of Cosentino's license? THAT stuff? Stop, Frank, it makes you look silly.
As we stand, near as I can determine it, the court won't want an AMICUS BRIEF either. If they aren't going to grant a rehearing, WHY would they want a brief to look at? So BIA's Amy Dutschke's niece wants to be heard? SO what? GO AWAY. If Pala had something to say, why didn't they say it when the case was closed...uh...LAST YEAR?
Dear tribal attorneys...ain't requests for depublication supposed to go to the SUPREME COURT? (Owen Marshall, Ally McBeal, Damages, Matlock, /snark)
Tribal people, this is what your councils are PAYING FOR?
They want to go in and reargue that tribal officers have tribal immunity and depublish the opinion so no one can refer to it.
Throw that shit at the wall and see if it sticks frank!
The only thing the attorneys care about at his point is getting paid. I bet they told their bonehead clients, Pechanga, that this was just standard operating procedure. While all the time knowing this would create a new billing cycle for a few hundred more grand.
The questions that should be answered is why are we back in court? They always try and justify saying someone wants more, the truth is the council in control wants more that why they are in court. TRUTH
Didn't the disenroll try using public law 280 and pechanga got it ruled that it does not apply now they want it to apply.
You do know there are two sets of laws, one for the rich and one for the poor. Its always been that way, and I do not see it changing in the near future.
They want their cake and eat it too,do you notice they file court crap whenever one of them is in trouble for stealing?
Post a Comment