BrunoTheJDBkiller Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Thanks to all who view my thread, I have never sought help here before, but I would like some opinions concerning this situation. It is theoretical of course. Ahem. Sure. Okay, here goes. Bruno gets involved in a bad mortgage and has to sue the mortgage broker and her partner the closing attorney who helped her in her scheme. He also files against the original mortgage company, you know, the guy with the nice tan. Somewhere along the line, Bruno receives an email from someone else who was involved with this same attorney. It was a different matter, not a mortgage. The attorney engaged in malpractice against this someone, who failed to file a bar complaint in time. His bad, no case. HOWEVER he has revealed that he has two witnesses willing to go to court who will swear that they smoked pot with this attorney numerous times during the time frame when Bruno's mortgage was written. He will also testify himself that he observed her doing this in his own home with his ex wife. My question is this, how do I get these witnesses admitted? This goes towards a door they opened in their pleadings where they cited good moral behavior is required for a bar license. All opinions welcomed. Thanks,Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usagi555 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Thanks to all who view my thread, I have never sought help here before, but I would like some opinions concerning this situation. It is theoretical of course. Ahem. Sure. Okay, here goes. Bruno gets involved in a bad mortgage and has to sue the mortgage broker and her partner the closing attorney who helped her in her scheme. He also files against the original mortgage company, you know, the guy with the nice tan. Somewhere along the line, Bruno receives an email from someone else who was involved with this same attorney. It was a different matter, not a mortgage. The attorney engaged in malpractice against this someone, who failed to file a bar complaint in time. His bad, no case. HOWEVER he has revealed that he has two witnesses willing to go to court who will swear that they smoked pot with this attorney numerous times during the time frame when Bruno's mortgage was written. He will also testify himself that he observed her doing this in his own home with his ex wife. My question is this, how do I get these witnesses admitted? This goes towards a door they opened in their pleadings where they cited good moral behavior is required for a bar license. All opinions welcomed. Thanks,BrunoI cannot actually answer your question, however, while illegal, is smoking pot immoral? You will have to make the argument that it is, and I'm betting that there are no convictions for smoking weed for you to fall back on for this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentWA Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Ah, but illegal acts ARE defined by at least my states bar as contrary to good moral character of a bar member or potential bar member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentWA Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 To elaborate on your question though, you are always able to call other people to provide testimony to discredit a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My~Cuz~n~Vinny~ Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Yo Bruno.....may could be he didn't inhale. ...of course he didn't have sexual relations with that woman either. Monica Lewinski.He may have snuck down to the seedy side a town to score a couple Lids for his favorite girly? Possession of herb and hiring sex is illegal. I'd put a tail on this bobcat and see where he hangs. In my State, video evidence does not have to be by consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecar Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Cannabis smoking involves inhaling vapors released by heating the flowers and subtending leaves and stems of the Cannabis sativa and Indica plants, known as marijuana,A quote from that party "coltfan1972 are you sure that was a cigarette?":ROFLMAO2: Edited August 23, 2012 by racecar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecar Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadragon Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 also moral turpritude for attorney has to be brought to the attention of the bar. without a bar action your claims are not going to hold much weight. Especially if the judge smokes weed also.I think stick to the illegal mortgage acts and leave these others alone. Better to not commit sanctionable and slanderous actions in court. It could backfire if the court leans towards you and you get down and dirty in the mud with the pigs, then the court could just say ruling for them next case.if you don't have photos it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecar Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/documents/RulesOfProfessionalConduct.pdfhttp://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/documents/PARDE-current.pdfDisciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Disciplinary Reporter SearchDisciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Disciplinary CounselDisciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - In the NewsDisciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Public Disciplinary Actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 What is the evidence being offered to prove?Is it relevant to the case at bar or will it merely serve to confuse the issues?After reading FRE 404 and 405, do you still believe the evidence is admissible? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunoTheJDBkiller Posted August 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Since this is a state case, I don't think the federal rules apply. I had the same thoughts as Seadragon originally, still do. I'm not sure about the relevance issue. However, anything that can cast doubt on the mental processes and mental stability of an attorney could go towards foundation. This is someone who committed numerous violations in this case and was reprimanded by the bar for those violations. They opened the door in their pleadings, they stated requirements for the bar "good moral conduct" as a qualification for an expert witness who is not a lawyer and is not applying for a law license. Same should apply to that defendant, who is an attorney. Here is someone who willingly participated in numerous mortgage closings in this case and aided and abetted someone she conducted NUMEROUS closings for. No lawyer who was conscious and able to read would have done what this lawyer did unless there was an ulterior motive. Perhaps a drug problem would explain the lack of sound judgment, or who knows, "I need the money" to buy pot. Smoking pot is not illegal, true, But you can't smoke it unless you buy it or grow it, which are both illegal in most cases. At any rate, I defy any lawyer to testify that they smoke pot in open court with no repercussions. That destroys their credibility. I just want to know if I can produce these three witnesses at trial the way Tom Cruise did in A Few Good Men, or at the very least, let the other side know I'm calling them. Let them worry about why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentWA Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 As I said before, if this person is providing witness testimony then they are fair game to be discredited before a jury. Illegal acts are going to go a long way in discrediting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunoTheJDBkiller Posted August 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 True, but don't you think this works the same way as criminal; trials such as Sammy Gravano testifying against John Gotti? If you want somebody to testify as to immoral / illegal activity, you aren't going to call your local pastor, you're going to call somebody who has intimate knowledge. The conduct alleged is not illegal per se. It does, however, cast a huge amount of doubt in the mind of any jury if this can be determined to be so. Three eye witnesses is a powerful thing to overcome. Sure, I smoked pot (the witness says) but I smoked it repeatedly with a member of the bar or witnessed same. I am not a member of the bar. I am not held to the same standard as the lawyer is. I just know that if they had something on me that matched up, they'd use it in a second. I was grilled extensively in a depo about everything, even if I had ever been convicted of a crime. Turnabout is fair play. I know I'm viewing this from a biased perspective, which I try not to do, I want the plain cold hard truth and I know I'll get it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts