Tweet
-
-
-
The 1961 date is correct since that's the date brought up at the hearing, unless they revised it right after the 25 year old prosecutor stumbled out of court.
I'm in a pretty good mood tonight, so thought I'd throw this in. Within the first 10 minutes of this hearing, the judge asked Doby Gillis: "Who are you claiming to be the recipient of the wager?"
The prosecutor stood there like a deer in headlights, paused for a good 30 seconds or so and says. "I COULD be Mr. Cohen, the defendant.
The judge responded: "COULD BE? I want to know WHO the recipient was and what evidence you have that is was Mr. Cohen."
The prosecutor this time looked like he was going to choke, looks down at his assistant or whoever it was with him, and 45 seconds or more passes, he responds: "I BELIEVE the recipients COULD be the defendant".
The judge nearly flew off his bench at this point. "What evidence do you have to proclude?"
The judge never got his answer and just moved on with the hearing. The prosecution was so ill-prepared, I have never seen anything like it. This guy looked like he was fresh from taking the bar the night before. And this was just one of a number of blunders and pauses, none of which Brafman exhibited.Comment
-
One more thing, the judge relied heavily on that Wire Act. That was the basis of his line of thinking.
The government attempted to make this as difficult a case as possible for many reasons, one of which they know the jury will find it very difficult to convict somebody like Jay. That will be a conscious decision on their part. The government wants to keep him quiet for that reason. This is no big goon we are talking about here with a long rap sheet. I personally would not know how to live with myself if I knew I sentenced this person to a few years in prison for something like THIS. That's what the government is afraid of as well they should be.
I love the way whenever Jay's attorney was questioned by the judge, the prosecutor would look at his assistant and roll his eyes. I caught him three times doing this. Little Doby Gillis led me to believe that the government is treating this case with kid gloves and they sent one of their newest recruits. It really looked as though he was practicing for mock court. Just some observations I made while attending.Comment
-
Dan,
Thanks for your kind words. No "headaches or stomach cramps" here. I feel great, I will not let this whole matter bother me. That's what they want.
A famous man once said, "There is nothing in the world more important than freedom. It is worth fighting for; it is worth going to jail for. I would rather live in abject poverty with my convictions than live a life of inordinate riches with the lack of self respect."
I'm quoting from memory so I might be a little off but who can guess who said it??
My lawyer's name is Ben Brafman of the firm Brafman and Ross in NYC.Comment
-
Jay,
First of all, I think you know that just about the entire industry is behind you .
How you have held up and focused through such a long time period is to be admired,
I will personally be there when your trial begins and wish you the best, my friend...
I truly have no doubt that you will prevail!
KenComment
-
-
I thought it was a quote from his attorney.
Believe me, INEXPERIENCED is NOT the word! The prosecutor got an F in the first 20 minutes. He improved only slightly the second half of the case and I'll give him a generous C-. Very poorly prepared to the point of embarassment. I wondered the same thing you do: Just how serious ARE they taking this case?
Comment
-
Attorney's fees? If he is proved innocent, then doesn't the gov't have to cover ALL his legal fees?Comment
-
hmm, belive that US is a lawyer's dream Cons, everybody pays the lawyersComment
-
Yeah...the government can barely afford to pay it's own attorneys (attorneys who work for the government usually are among the lowest paid when you compare with those who work at some of the biggest and even mid-tier firms in a place like Manhattan or most other large cities).
Actually WE are paying for this. The government should be owing US for this waste of taxpayers money!Comment
-
How about Billy Walters? The government has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in two futile efforts to convict him of something illegal. Billy did nothing wrong. All he did was win millions of dollars betting. I seriously doubt if anyone ever complained about Billy. He represents 0% danger to the public. In fact, rather than being a menace to the public, he is a true philanthropist.
It is all about money. Greedy, opportunistic government agencies have indiscriminately used tax dollars in their failed efforts to procure a chunk of Billy's loot for their own coffers.Comment
-
JC,
Your courage to stand up for freedom has been an inspiration. Your quote reminds me of words spoken by the great American patriot and revolutionary Sam Adams:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
***
Sting, Thanks for publishing your court watching observations. I will forward them to the Las Vegas Review Journal's great Libertarian editorialist Vin Suprynowicz. He has written many a blistering attack on government intervention in peaceful gambling activity and might find your court reporting useful. For example, on 12/9/99 (available at http://www.lvrj.com) Vin wrote a stinging rebuke of the Nevada Attorney General's office for harassing Billy Walters and attempting to steal one of his golf courses.
Comment
-
First off – best of luck to Jay on your heroic fight. Without people like you, we would have no freedoms at all. I hope the industry backs you up with the kind of support you need to wage a long legal battle.
I am curious as to what act the government points to and says “that was illegal”. I am a bit light on the fact here so help me out if you would. Also where is the trial being held?
On double jeopardy: Exists in only a theoretical sense and has been reduced to constitutional surplus. They can try you in Federal Court, State Courts and mix & match charges to get more than one shot. Nothing would stop the State from trying Jay if they so desired.
Recent Case Law suggests that ignorance of the law IS sometimes an excuse. Consult your local attorney.
Jury Nullification is a powerful tool – so powerful in fact that the defense is not allowed to mention it. What nonsense is this? The American Legal System of course.
The politicians in this country are so crooked that when they die you will have to screw them into the ground. Have all the Lotto, Keno and scratch-offs you want – provided you get them from the state. Take that same $20 and bet on a sporting event (outside the confines of a Vegas Sports Book) and you are a criminal. What crap!
For all the promise this country has, we are a nation of hypocrites. The only freedoms you have here are the freedoms that you are strong enough to take. That means physically, economically, or legally. The thin veil between our republic form of government and fascism is now threadbare.
Last – It was so cold here today, I actually saw an attorney with his hand in his own pocket.
As always - Good Luck,
Sonny
As Always - Good Luck,
SonnyComment
-
JC
That quote sounds like Ralph Waldo Emerson upon being jailed for civil disobedience. Or was it Henry David Thoreau?
I get those cats mixed up.
Good luck....Dot
============================================
" how dare them portray us as ignorant, insensitive, uncaring thugs"....Dot
Comment
-
The disobediant civilian would be Thoreau. Emerson was a poet of romantic acclaim. I think the aforementioned quote comes from one of my heroes......Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution,founder of the University of Virginia,third President of the US, who firmly agreed in LESS GOVERNMENT and more personal liberties...."TJ,where did we go so wrong?Comment
Comment