By One Night In Bangkok
The reason the trust is not being replenished isn’t because Clare or anybody else is running out of money or refusing to pay anybody. It’s because the ONLY way to remove the judge’s judicial scrutiny (regarding lawyer payments) is to not replenish the Trust and to use alternate methods of payment.
The Curcio Hearings are a big nothing burger too.
The Curcio Hearings are a beefless hamburger with nothing but an empty bun and perhaps a bit of ketchup, mustard and lettuce. Not even Grey Poupon either, just cheap yellow mustard. Where’s the beef?
I can already tell you the outcome of those hearings.
FACT: The judge is not gonna remove any attorneys.
FACT: The judge is not gonna reprimand any attorneys.
FACT: The judge is not gonna do anything except ask each defendant, one by one, a bunch of ‘canned’ questions which the defendants have ALREADY been prepped to answer by their own attorneys.
(Even though the judge can craft his own questions, they’re just gonna be canned bullshit along the lines of what Penza submitted)
Guess what?
If the defendants TRULY wanted to ‘cooperate’ and cut a plea deal, they’d march right into Penza’s office and tell her they’re ready to cooperate, regardless of what their own attorneys recommended. They are not toddlers.
The reason Nancy and Lauren won’t cooperate is because Moira Penza hasn’t offered them a fair deal that’s been sweetened with adequate sugar or maple syrup. Penza is offering them deals sweetened only with Splenda and Aspartame right now, with a few ounces of 85% cocoa powder added into the mix. They need MORE.
Try drinking a glass of 85% cocoa powder sweetened only with Splenda and Aspartame. It’s fucken disgusting and will make you spit it back out. It’s bitter as fuck.
These Curcio Hearings are largely a joke since the defendants are NOT gonna request “court-appointed” dunces to represent them. Not in a million years.
FACT: The defendants already know about the conflict. They’re not toddlers.
FACT: They simply DON’T CARE.
FACT: They prefer to be represented by conflicted attorneys RATHER THAN taking a chance on “court-appointed” DUNCES who would likely just feed them into the sausage machine at trial.
The REAL PROBLEM here is Moira Penza’s inability to convince even ONE defendant to flip and cooperate. These Curcio Hearings won’t resolve that.
Nor will a SINGLE attorney be dismissed after these hearings are done.
It’s just a nothing burger. Much ado about nothing.
If the judge had any BALLS, he’d discipline the attorney who got caught showing outright bias towards Clare by refusing to serve his potential client unless she invoked the 5th. That mother fucker was caught red-handed.
However, this judge has NO BALLS and will not do anything to that attorney. Oh, and neither will the BAR Association since lawyers policing lawyers is like thieves policing thieves.
If you’re an attorney then you are — by definition — a person with no ethics or morals. I guess that’s why I dislike Claviger so much. He’s a scumbag attorney who likely represents the scum of the Earth as long as they agree to pay his invoices. Yet he pretends to be holier than thou with us.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Bangcock’s biggest problem is the coat hanger left in his head ; when his mother tried to perform an abortion on herself.
BangCuckle’s metaphors are as limp as his dick.
The biggest thing coming out of the hearings is taking away the defendants ability to be crybabies afterwards saying their attorney’s were conflicted.
Who really gives a frack if anyone wants to pay these attorneys? The DOJ has the evidence and enough people who have not been charged with crimes who where part of Raniere’s Criminal Enterprise to testify.
They dont need the Salzman’s to flip, Russell or Clare Bronfman to flip. In the end it might even be Rainere who turns on his flock and testifies against his sheep. He loves to destroy people and what a better way than to take them all down with him.
Is SO far away
Why are you always pushing for the prosecution to give Nancy and Lauren a sweeter deal? One would tend to think that there is something in it for you.
Because Bangkok is Dennis Burke.
Bangkok probably IS Nancy or Lauren.
The defendants may be older than toddlers, but they have the minds of toddlers. Such is Raniere’s “tech.”
You have no idea what’s been offered. Maybe the DOJ doesn’t need an offer, or maybe, as in the case of little miss ballerina, they turned down an offer to talk.
“If the defendants TRULY wanted to ‘cooperate’ and cut a plea deal, they’d march right into Penza’s office and tell her they’re ready to cooperate, regardless of what their own attorneys recommended. They are not toddlers.”
The defendants have been brain washed for years, even decades in most instances – please educate yourself about how long and hard it is to recover from such mind fuck before opining so dismissively about their current states of mind.
“If you’re an attorney then you are — by definition — a person with no ethics or morals.”
An effective attorney is one that’s capable of SETTING ASIDE his own ethics and morals while mounting a defence, so that he can best represent his clients without prejudice.
To Appeti….Finally somebody gets it.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.
You’re most welcome g – and glad to hear that you’re recovering nicely from your own cult experience!
I’m a bit surprised that Frank continues to promote these opinion pieces that imo seem to be short on value – lacking personal experience or professional knowledge, yet long on insults and hasty conclusions.
Maybe the prosecution doesn’t need to sweeten the deal because they have all they need thus, why offer any deals let alone a good one.
I’m not a legal scholar but I’ve never heard of any prosecutorial team fighting to offer a deal to a defendant they know they have a strong case against.
Should this be seen as a sign that the prosecution is giving the defends “rope & soap” for them to hang themselves with? If I would be a defendant the prosecution is not hot to offer me a deal, I Should Be Worried.
The defendants have the Constitutional Right to be represented by the attorneys of their choice.
The purpose of these Curcio hearings is for the Judge and prosecutors to protect the integrity
of the verdicts so the defendants can not successfully claim on appeal they were inadequately informed of the dangers of being represented by Clare Bronfman’s attorneys.
FACT: The prosecution doesn’t need anyone to flip. They have the defendants by the balls. Hey have ample evidence. People are going to fry.
To Somebody Finally somebody gets it.
Thank you.
Attention Somebody!!!
“Every time you go to trial before a jury it’s a crap shoot”.
In this case, the evidence is so overwhelming that snake eyes will come up for the prosecution every time.