Their defense should be that Apple must prove malice of forethought. They should be putting it upon Apple to prove they (Gawker/Gizmodo) had knowledge what they were paying for exclusive right to was stolen property.
There are already a few things that make the warrant questionable, such as Apple had already regained possession of their property after Gizmodo proved it was actually Apple property and not a knock of by going the extra step of disassembling it.
The additional fact that the authorities had knowledge and have admitted to interviewing the party that had possession of the iPhone before said party sold it to Gawker and Gawker handed it over to Gizmodo to both verify its authenticity and report their findings.
IOW, they acted as reporters would.
The onus is on Apple. They quietly reported their item stolen and work under the assumption everyone involved with it would therefore know it was stolen, then utilized their influence to enact gestapo tactics of raiding a, for all intents and purposes, reporter's home to get.......what? They had everything Gizmodo had and they should have instead gone after the parent company, Gawker.
There was no reason to raid Jason Chen's home after they received back their property and at that point it should have either progressed to either a criminal investigation, charging Gawker with purchasing stolen property, Jason Chen with momentary possession of stolen property, and the perpetrator with the actual act of stealing said property, or a civil suit.
They have actually destroyed any case they had against Gizmodo or Gawker before it even happened by going for a theatrical show of force rather than following criminal procedure.
Let the flaming and name calling begin.......
Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing...
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
hmm some interesting finding that rebukes the case where gizmodo will return the property to apple once they are done operating it.
Quote:
Engadget editor Josh Topolsky, whose blog was offered the iPhone after Gizmodo already agreed to acquire it, said no law enforcement officials have contacted his organization.
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
I love how others choose to edit facts for their own purposes. It was already stated in this forum that
One: R.E.A.C.T. is a federal and state task force.
Two: The investigation, search and seizure was done AT THE BEHEST OF APPLE when they "quietly" reported the iPhone stolen.
Three: Apple is a member of the board of R.E.A.C.T. and therefore has an undue amount of influence in their actions.
Thanks for playing, try again.
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
hmm some interesting finding that rebukes the case where gizmodo will return the property to apple once they are done operating it.
Quote:
Engadget editor Josh Topolsky, whose blog was offered the iPhone after Gizmodo already agreed to acquire it, said no law enforcement officials have contacted his organization.
Note that Engadget “published information gained by others in unsavory ways” — they ran a photograph and a description of the phone (including revealing the front-facing camera) two days before Gizmodo. The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo. They’re not in any trouble at all. Gizmodo isn’t in trouble for spoiling Apple’s secret; they’re in trouble for breaking the law.
That also means Endgadget had access to the perpetrators, which would make them guilty of conspiracy.
By your reasoning, there would be no shield law for journalists ... access, possession, and intent are substantively and legally distinct in each companies' actions (as I understand it, but would prefer not to debate it).
By your reasoning, there would be no shield law for journalists ... access, possession, and intent are substantively and legally distinct in each companies' actions (as I understand it, but would prefer not to debate it).
Why not? That's already been decided by EVERYONE in THIS forum, hasn't it?
I wonder, is the Slate considered Journalism? They were the first bloggers to actually achieve syndication via Microsoft....but no, that can't be.....they're a BLOG.
There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property.
The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide who is a reporter and who isn't by whim and preference.
Somehow everyone on Fox News is considered a journalist. God knows how or why, so I see no reason why Jason Chen cannot be considered one as well.
Either Chen gets the same protection as anyone else in his profession, or they are all guilty of the same thing.
And believe me, "they" would love it if journalists had no protections, and "they" could have them only report what "they" wanted reported.
The united states is 54 out of 100 in press freedoms.
54.
So much for the land of the free.....
Now if no one has any more ludicrous questions or statements, I am off to bed.
I love how others choose to edit facts for their own purposes. It was already stated in this forum that
One: R.E.A.C.T. is a federal and state task force.
Two: The investigation, search and seizure was done AT THE BEHEST OF APPLE when they "quietly" reported the iPhone stolen.
Three: Apple is a member of the board of R.E.A.C.T. and therefore has an undue amount of influence in their actions.
Thanks for playing, try again.
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
I didn't gloss over that fact but I will expound if you insist.
The cops came to his house to inquire about the phone. This is called a criminal investigation not a set up. Why/how could they arrest him for selling stolen merchandise if he hadn't sold it yet? You seem to be the one editing facts, that's twice now. They also apparently didn't have enough evidence, yet, to arrest him for theft.
You would probably do better to go with your conspiracy theory( "quietly reporting", undue influence etc.) as that has no facts and therefore nothing for me to dispute.
I didn't gloss over that fact but I will expound if you insist.
The cops came to his house to inquire about the phone. This is called a criminal investigation not a set up. Why/how could they arrest him for selling stolen merchandise if he hadn't sold it yet? You seem to be the one editing facts, that's twice now. They also apparently didn't have enough evidence, yet, to arrest him for theft.
You would probably do better to go with your conspiracy theory( "quietly reporting", undue influence etc.) as that has no facts and therefore nothing for me to dispute.
Admission of possession.
Admission of guilt.
A confession.
What every investigator dreams of.
Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
....
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
They still had knowledge and made a story of said knowledge. That amounts to conspiracy.
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
And to borrow from another post I made above this one:
"There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property."
Reporters and police both utilize paid informants and buy exclusivity all of the time.
The only distinction is if you consider Jason Chen a reporter or not.
It's a comment, not an argument. I'm not an attorney, criminal nor otherwise. I'll leave further comment to those who are.
I don't mean this to be confrontational, but you DID represent yourself as though you were based on the wording of your "comment", which doesn't classify as a comment based upon said wording.
Usually attorneys and judges would be reading legal opinions, and therefore your "comment" can be construed as such.
The other entities that would be reading legal opinions would be law students, students of criminal procedure and justice, wrongfully convicted felons, and congressmen (specifically due to most legal opinions and online libraries being a pay for use service.)
I don't mean this to be confrontational, but you DID represent yourself as though you were based on the wording of your "comment", which doesn't classify as a comment based on said wording.
Usually attorneys and judges would be reading opinions, and therefore your "comment" can be construed as such.
I understand your interpretation of my comment. But, it is a misunderstanding. Periodically, I read a consilia to understand the rationale and legal principles for a ruling. Aside from that, an unpleasant encounter with a divorce attorney, and a few hours in a Tijuana jail as a teenager, is the extent of my armchair legal résumé.
I understand your interpretation of my comment. But, it is a misunderstanding. Periodically, I read a consilia to understand the rationale and legal principles for a ruling. Aside from that, an unpleasant encounter with a divorce attorney, and a few hours in a Tijuana jail as a teenager, is the content of my armchair legal résumé.
Point taken. I don't envy you the divorce or the jail. Somehow I think the jail was a vacation in comparison to the divorce.
I've had occasion to work with several attorney's in my short lifetime and also have two close friends that are.
They are both of the opinion this case may be thrown out due to how it was handled, but only if Gizmodo has perceptive and talented counsel. If not, they both say Chen is screwed.
Point taken. I don't envy you the divorce or the jail. Somehow I think the jail was a vacation ...
...
The result (three hours in a Tijuana jail with 20 prostitutes as adjoining cellmates and two Hell's Angels as actual cellmates) of a youthful indiscretion, it is best remembered, with the shaking of my head, as ... an adventure.
Comments
Gizmodo must have extremely stupid attorneys.
Their defense should be that Apple must prove malice of forethought. They should be putting it upon Apple to prove they (Gawker/Gizmodo) had knowledge what they were paying for exclusive right to was stolen property.
There are already a few things that make the warrant questionable, such as Apple had already regained possession of their property after Gizmodo proved it was actually Apple property and not a knock of by going the extra step of disassembling it.
The additional fact that the authorities had knowledge and have admitted to interviewing the party that had possession of the iPhone before said party sold it to Gawker and Gawker handed it over to Gizmodo to both verify its authenticity and report their findings.
IOW, they acted as reporters would.
The onus is on Apple. They quietly reported their item stolen and work under the assumption everyone involved with it would therefore know it was stolen, then utilized their influence to enact gestapo tactics of raiding a, for all intents and purposes, reporter's home to get.......what? They had everything Gizmodo had and they should have instead gone after the parent company, Gawker.
There was no reason to raid Jason Chen's home after they received back their property and at that point it should have either progressed to either a criminal investigation, charging Gawker with purchasing stolen property, Jason Chen with momentary possession of stolen property, and the perpetrator with the actual act of stealing said property, or a civil suit.
They have actually destroyed any case they had against Gizmodo or Gawker before it even happened by going for a theatrical show of force rather than following criminal procedure.
Let the flaming and name calling begin.......
Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing...
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
Engadget editor Josh Topolsky, whose blog was offered the iPhone after Gizmodo already agreed to acquire it, said no law enforcement officials have contacted his organization.
source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/19518...culation.html/
Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing...
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
I love how others choose to edit facts for their own purposes. It was already stated in this forum that
One: R.E.A.C.T. is a federal and state task force.
Two: The investigation, search and seizure was done AT THE BEHEST OF APPLE when they "quietly" reported the iPhone stolen.
Three: Apple is a member of the board of R.E.A.C.T. and therefore has an undue amount of influence in their actions.
Thanks for playing, try again.
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
hmm some interesting finding that rebukes the case where gizmodo will return the property to apple once they are done operating it.
source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/19518...culation.html/
Engadget published pictures of the phone BEFORE gizmodo.
hmm some interesting finding that rebukes the case where gizmodo will return the property to apple once they are done operating it.
Quote:
Engadget editor Josh Topolsky, whose blog was offered the iPhone after Gizmodo already agreed to acquire it, said no law enforcement officials have contacted his organization.
source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/19518...culation.html/
Gruber contrasted Gizmodo and Engadget saying:
Note that Engadget “published information gained by others in unsavory ways” — they ran a photograph and a description of the phone (including revealing the front-facing camera) two days before Gizmodo. The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo. They’re not in any trouble at all. Gizmodo isn’t in trouble for spoiling Apple’s secret; they’re in trouble for breaking the law.
Gruber contrasted Gizmodo and Engadget saying:
That also means Endgadget had access to the perpetrators, which would make them guilty of conspiracy.
That also means Endgadget had access to the perpetrators, which would make them guilty of conspiracy.
By your reasoning, there would be no shield law for journalists ... access, possession, and intent are substantively and legally distinct in each companies' actions (as I understand it, but would prefer not to debate it).
By your reasoning, there would be no shield law for journalists ... access, possession, and intent are substantively and legally distinct in each companies' actions (as I understand it, but would prefer not to debate it).
Why not? That's already been decided by EVERYONE in THIS forum, hasn't it?
I wonder, is the Slate considered Journalism? They were the first bloggers to actually achieve syndication via Microsoft....but no, that can't be.....they're a BLOG.
There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property.
The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide who is a reporter and who isn't by whim and preference.
Somehow everyone on Fox News is considered a journalist. God knows how or why, so I see no reason why Jason Chen cannot be considered one as well.
Either Chen gets the same protection as anyone else in his profession, or they are all guilty of the same thing.
And believe me, "they" would love it if journalists had no protections, and "they" could have them only report what "they" wanted reported.
The united states is 54 out of 100 in press freedoms.
54.
So much for the land of the free.....
Now if no one has any more ludicrous questions or statements, I am off to bed.
I love how others choose to edit facts for their own purposes. It was already stated in this forum that
One: R.E.A.C.T. is a federal and state task force.
Two: The investigation, search and seizure was done AT THE BEHEST OF APPLE when they "quietly" reported the iPhone stolen.
Three: Apple is a member of the board of R.E.A.C.T. and therefore has an undue amount of influence in their actions.
Thanks for playing, try again.
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
I didn't gloss over that fact but I will expound if you insist.
The cops came to his house to inquire about the phone. This is called a criminal investigation not a set up. Why/how could they arrest him for selling stolen merchandise if he hadn't sold it yet? You seem to be the one editing facts, that's twice now. They also apparently didn't have enough evidence, yet, to arrest him for theft.
You would probably do better to go with your conspiracy theory( "quietly reporting", undue influence etc.) as that has no facts and therefore nothing for me to dispute.
I didn't gloss over that fact but I will expound if you insist.
The cops came to his house to inquire about the phone. This is called a criminal investigation not a set up. Why/how could they arrest him for selling stolen merchandise if he hadn't sold it yet? You seem to be the one editing facts, that's twice now. They also apparently didn't have enough evidence, yet, to arrest him for theft.
You would probably do better to go with your conspiracy theory( "quietly reporting", undue influence etc.) as that has no facts and therefore nothing for me to dispute.
Admission of possession.
Admission of guilt.
A confession.
What every investigator dreams of.
Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
...
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
....
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
They still had knowledge and made a story of said knowledge. That amounts to conspiracy.
They're just lucky no one goes to their site.
Not attempting to answer for him, and I'm not informed in criminal procedure, but referring back to the Gruber link, "The photo and description came from the sources who took the phone from the bar and eventually sold it to Gizmodo."
The distinction is that Engadget apparently did not take possession of the phone. That, soliciting, payment, possession, disassembling, time lapse, etc. are the difference between Engadget and Gizmodo's actions. One is legal (access to the perps protected by the shield law) and the other is illegal [fill in the felony charges in question speculating on probable cause].
And to borrow from another post I made above this one:
"There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property."
Reporters and police both utilize paid informants and buy exclusivity all of the time.
The only distinction is if you consider Jason Chen a reporter or not.
They still had knowledge and made a story of said knowledge. That amounts to conspiracy.
...
I haven't read any legal opinion to date that suggests that conclusion.
I haven't read any legal opinion to date that suggests that conclusion.
That is a failed argument. If you are a criminal attorney you know the application of conspiracy and that it can be liberal or precise.
That is a failed argument. If you are a criminal attorney you know the application of conspiracy and that it can be liberal or precise.
It's a comment, not an argument. I'm not an attorney, criminal nor otherwise. I'll leave further comment to those who are.
It's a comment, not an argument. I'm not an attorney, criminal nor otherwise. I'll leave further comment to those who are.
I don't mean this to be confrontational, but you DID represent yourself as though you were based on the wording of your "comment", which doesn't classify as a comment based upon said wording.
Usually attorneys and judges would be reading legal opinions, and therefore your "comment" can be construed as such.
The other entities that would be reading legal opinions would be law students, students of criminal procedure and justice, wrongfully convicted felons, and congressmen (specifically due to most legal opinions and online libraries being a pay for use service.)
I don't mean this to be confrontational, but you DID represent yourself as though you were based on the wording of your "comment", which doesn't classify as a comment based on said wording.
Usually attorneys and judges would be reading opinions, and therefore your "comment" can be construed as such.
I understand your interpretation of my comment. But, it is a misunderstanding. Periodically, I read a consilia to understand the rationale and legal principles for a ruling. Aside from that, an unpleasant encounter with a divorce attorney, and a few hours in a Tijuana jail as a teenager, is the extent of my armchair legal résumé.
I understand your interpretation of my comment. But, it is a misunderstanding. Periodically, I read a consilia to understand the rationale and legal principles for a ruling. Aside from that, an unpleasant encounter with a divorce attorney, and a few hours in a Tijuana jail as a teenager, is the content of my armchair legal résumé.
Point taken. I don't envy you the divorce or the jail. Somehow I think the jail was a vacation in comparison to the divorce.
I've had occasion to work with several attorney's in my short lifetime and also have two close friends that are.
They are both of the opinion this case may be thrown out due to how it was handled, but only if Gizmodo has perceptive and talented counsel. If not, they both say Chen is screwed.
Point taken. I don't envy you the divorce or the jail. Somehow I think the jail was a vacation ...
...
The result (three hours in a Tijuana jail with 20 prostitutes as adjoining cellmates and two Hell's Angels as actual cellmates) of a youthful indiscretion, it is best remembered, with the shaking of my head, as ... an adventure.
May Mr. Chen not be so richly rewarded in-kind.