Not So Fast

I have a couple updates in the Criminal Case.  First and foremost, the Judge heard the various motions that have been previously discussed on this blog.  The Court published the minutes from that hearing.  In summary, the Judge denied all the motions filed by Dave and Tom and granted the motions filed by the U.S. Attorney.  Here are some excerpts:

• "The Court denies defendant Feuerborn’s oral motion to take deposition of custodian of records."
• "The Court Grants Government’s Motion for Order for Admitting Business Records under
  Declarations of Custodian of Record Pursuant to 902(11) and 803(6)."
• "The Court sets a Pretrial Conference on Monday, January 10, 2011 @ 10:00 a.m."

Another document was filed in response to Neil Evans' request for a continuance in the mater that was previously ruled upon.  It wasn't an answer from the Judge or the U.S. Attorney, but rather the clerk told Neil that he hadn't filed his continuance request correctly.  Shouldn't a seasoned lawyer know how to file documents with the court?  This seems like a baby lawyer mistake.  Here are some excerpts from the clerk:

• "Proposed [Request to Continue] was not submitted as separate attachment missing proposed order."
• "Proposed orders for Judge's approval are to be formally and separately prepared and submitted as a separate attachment to main document."  As an alternative, prepare and e-file formal Notice of Lodging, to which the formal proposed order is submitted as Separate Attachment thereto."
• "In response to this notice the court may order 1) an amended or correct document to be filed 2) the document stricken or 3) take other action as the court deems appropriate."

 Surely all these mistakes aren't a setup to claim deficient representation when they are convicted.

-ESS Investor