Donna Adelson Lawyers get Booted! Judge Slams Rashbaum! Trial Lawyer Breaks it Down!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2024
- Trial Lawyer Martin E. Radner breaks down Judge Everett's order disqualifying Donna Adelson's lawyers.
For donations PayPal brothercounsel99@gmail.com
Click on the link below to check out the sponsor in today's video and remember to use the coupon code I mentioned!
thesuitdepot.c...
Follow me on
X
x.com/brothercounsel
Get your brother counsel swag!
www.etsy.com/s...
Please subscribe! / @brothercounsel ?sub_confirmation=1
#brothercounsel
For inquiries, please email brothercounsel99@gmail.com
It is very reassuring to know I can rely on Brother Counsel's clarifying voice of reason to bring perspective to these situations. Separating the wheat from the chaff is priceless! Thank you!
I love how you take the emotion out of this situation and focus on the law. You are a breath of fresh air. 🙏 sending you healing vibrations 🙏
Thanks!! Im feeling better already!
The go-to YT source for clearheaded legal analysis.
You got it!
Finally someone is reasonable to look at the facts and laws.
What other content creators stated this information incorrectly? I don’t think I’ve seen or heard anyone else make a video about this yet! Thank you!
Martin, I think you should offer Dan Rashbaum some Professional development around ethics and precedent. He will gain some much needed valuable adivce.
No waiver was signed. Roshbaum said he had a verbal waiver.
he admitted that ..I agree BUT .... worse he represented to the court he had A SIGNED WAIVER
@@maryannenizio5074he also told STS while on the show that he had a signed waiver.
I think he told another UA-cam channel during an interview in Jan/Feb this year that he had a written waiver from Charley, but told the court on the day he stood down that he had a verbal waiver. Sounds as though he tripped himself up on his own lie.
this keeps getting flippantly tossed over. he said it vehemently on camera. chose to represent, not represent, etc due to the known conflict. then at the vector "well 'i thought' i had a waiver." a person representing the law sure doesn't seem to be saying or hearing what everyone else clearly has seen and heard. there would have been no logical validity to any verbal anything with this case because it was a strong conflict from the onset. last year. i guess he also told his client 'verbally' not to lie.
@@lyndahalcrow8550 yessss!
Brother counsel I only found your channel yesterday and am really enjoying it!! Love your unbiased and professional opinion on these cases !
As someone who hasn’t studied the law I really appreciate you breaking things down for us 😊
Looking forward to more videos and live streams from you!
Welcome aboard!
What Roshbaum did wrong is that he did not have a signed waiver.
thank you for your objectic and ubiased opinion! ❤
Thank you for explaining this. You only have to figure that Dan rashbaum was playing both sides, via phone calls and prison visits. I’ll bet he was charging each one of the for each hour he spent. He needs to be admonished b the bar.
Charlie Adelson's mother is on trial, there is allegation of a conspiracy between the two of them and therefore there is a high likelihood that Charlie would be called as a witness in her case. It doesn't matter if Georgia told him a few months before the trial. Rashbaum should have expected that would happen and that's why he "falls short".
You say there is a ’high likelihood’ Georgia would call Charlie as a witness, yet Georgia told Judge Everett the state does NOT intend on calling Charlie as a witness - rather they wanted him on the list as rebuttal witness just in case. They were essentially planning for some unforeseen event / defense - and IMO, an unlikely defense. I don’t necessarily disagree with Georgia wanting him ‘in case’ but I disagree that Rashbaum should have anticipated the state would call him as a witness. In my opinion the ‘planned’ defense was going to be Donna was unaware of anything that happened and just did what Charlie told her to do and they did not have to defend Charlie’s role (or potential role in the way they frame it) with that defense - they would not have been defending Charlie in Donna trial. With that defense, it’s very unlikely that the state would have called Charlie and Rashbaum knew that. You can’t say he falls short based on your ‘assumptions’ of what he should be thinking - specifically that he “should have expected they would call Charlie”. In my opinion, based on his understanding of the defense, you can make a stronger argument he knew the state would NOT call Charlie as a witness.
So … Donna’s trial is months away. Awww
Giving Rashbaum the benefit of the doubt rings hollow to me. Rashbaum (a) never should have taken the second case; and (b) should have sewn up the first defendant's waiver. He says he got a waiver at some point. He says so, thats it. Moreover, how is it that he purportedly withdrew at the September 17 hearing then walked right back, sat at the counsel table and continued advising the defendant? He should have walked right out of the courtroom.
I hope you are feeling better! Covid is nothing to mess around with.
Always love your analysis. Thanks!
Thank you once again for your educated information. I really enjoy your coverage.
Thanks for watching!
I think the judge is more upset with himself vs the attorneys! He should have seen this issues coming from miles away!
Also, is there proof that Rashbaum had the signed the document!!
Such good analysis! Shannah Tovah!🎉
This is plain common sense. Rashbaum is the one who should have thought what could happen along the way. He trusted Charlie? Really? He should have said no to the mother. The judge is doing the right thing. To avoid tainting the defense team. Of course Donna Adelson knows anything and everything. She can talk to her new team of lawyers. But that will not be a cause for appeal.
When a case goes to the appellate court. Do you have to obtain new counsel? And what happens to your previous counsel? Are they in the wings?
@Brother Counsel What do you think about Alex Morris meeting with Charlie and his appeals attorney on Saturday before filing the motion that Charlie didn't wave the conflicts??? And Charlie asked Alex Morris if he saw his phone???
I hope you feel better real soon ❤
I was wondring how Morris is conflicted. Thank you for explaining! 😊
2 TIMOTHY CH 3
Pls comment on Morris rebuttal motion.
Should Judge have ordered DR to produce the so-called waiver from Charlie? I don’t trust DR.
The Judge should've researched cases re attorney conflict before we wasted a year. What a cluster.
really enjoy your commentary!
Georgia should have dropped the idea of having Charlie as a witness. Then Donna could have gone ahead with the trial
How does Judge Everett justify not mentioning the prosecution for not having a share in the blame for this?
Because 99% of the blame lies on the defence.
Why is the state to blame? It’s not their job to make defense do their job, it’s the judges.
The state had a right to call Charlie as a witness in rebuttal,the defense tried tying their hands to see if they would drop Charlie and because they refused to back down Dan pulled his card of no waiver,slimy
Dan Rashbaum confirmed in the Sept. 17th hearing tgat Charlie declined signing the waiver. Also, the conflict matter was discussed since he announced he was represwnting Donna.
Great education one gets from Brother Council.
I think Rashbaum should have never agreed to represent Donna Adelson as he already represented Son Charlie.
Rashbaum should have looked into to case law himself before ever attempting to represent Donna.
Can it be the money is so good Dan hated to get off the Gravy Train?
Same goes from attorney Morris, he should have never come on this case.
The young man who they had talk 30 minutes with Donna was Laughable.
The young man looked like he was chomping at the bit to join the Gravy Train.
Thanks for the great Podcast.
Great channel Brother ❤
Much appreciated!
There was never a waiver filed with the court. Charlie’s Appellate Attorney, as an officer of the Court said Charlie never signed a waiver. Charlie never came into court and waived his rights. Even if it was an “oral waiver” he (Mr. Raushbaum) still violated Florida Bar rules. He should never have represented Donna Adelson. Period. Everyone knew this was an issue from the beginning. This makes Tallahassee look terrible. This is not fair to Donna Adelson who will be spending about another year in jail. Mr. Raushbaum who has been doing white collar crimes for years did not do a good job representing his clients charged with violent first degree murder charges. I believe Judge Everett made the correct decision. The Markels now have to wait more than 10 years for complete justice. Donna’s right to counsel is not absolute. It’s partially her fault because she insisted on having Mr. Raushbaum as her Attorney & convinced Charlie to choose him to represent him in this case. Charlie initially had an experienced criminal Attorney. Alex Morris is tainted. This issue would have popped up again if Morris & Comissar remained on the case.
#JusticeForDanM
I’m here because of STS
Welcome!!
Better a delay… than a reversal 😮😮😮
I think that the judge is telling you without telling you.
Hence falling short of ethical obligations jeez. Is the judge required to give the public his findings?
If judge is assuming Morris was in on privileged information between Rashbaum and Charlie how can you be sure that Donna didn't have the same access? She could pass this on to the new lawyer. Can you truly create the ethical wall?
yup. just let her go free at this point
I don't understand why Morris had to be removed.
Tainted.
Does it not really fall back on the judge. The judge should have complete overview. Did the judge not allow this to proceed, even though he knew all along, that there was a possible conflict of interest? Does asking Donna a few questions if She knowingly and intelligently (which wasnt mentioned,)really constitute informed consent, having her (desperate) situation in mind?
Even after the judge had her speak to Independent Counsel for 30 min, it continued.
From the beginning I didnt Agree w Dan representing Donna, he was not stopped and it was convinient to DA & CA, and DR.
Lastly, How about the clients rights? Can the judge after 9 months just pull away the carpet under her, leaving her lawyer less? She has not (yet) been convicted of anything, must now stay maybe another year in jail and spend another fortune. ?
Question - why are you “assuming” he got a waiver for your analysis when Rashbaum actually said on the record at the hearing he did NOT have a signed waiver from Charlie.
He said he had it written out but NOT signed by Charlie and he had a “verbal” waiver.
Does your opinion on Rashbaum’s actions change with that fact?
Get Wendi Fibbers Adelson!
You need some good intro or outro music
Ill work on that!
The 2 stiffs from the state wrecked the case. They’re baffoons. A man sentenced to life without parole and dispatched 2000 miles away has no obligation to testify jack didley. They can’t force such an inmate to do anything. They know that. They’re complete idiots. Ive lost confidence with the prosecutors handling this case. Sieze the case and give it to better prosecutors