3putt

Risto is feisty tonight

You are correct. Guhle has the advantage of having been raised in the North American game. :flirt:

I think he gets his 9, Murray works the phones with Hockey Canada and he leaves for WJC camp, his Raiders get bounced in the 1st round and he suits up for a playoff run with the Amerks, gets a little rest and is in prospects camp in July. Not a bad year for an 18 yo. Oh and it worked for Rasmus.

I think you are expecting something that is not coming from Samson. He will never have the flash of Eichel, but his game the other night feeding open guys, keeping possession in the o zone, back checking and picking up the trailer is something we need more of. He will not become flashier in the A and this is still a rebuild. We have seen improvement, but I Watched the Hawks with their retooled roster, and a rejuvenated kings squad that tells me we are not contenders yet and will need to take sum lumps while they learn how to win consistently. Reinhart will improve more against NHL players than he will in the A imho.

I think Larson needs more than 4 th line minutes. I would have him C Samson and Gionta McCabe with 23 minutes and Rudy 22. That's not what I expected.

Larson makes this team in a meaningful role.

This will be a situational line. You gotta have some experience when you go up against other top lines. I have no doubt they will a pp unit of some sort.

Baptiste has wheels

Please

DB said 5 days to practice as of yesterday

I think they are giving Guhle as much preseason time as possible because to give him 9 games would require putting someone who may be part of the bigger picture through waivers. DB already said he is going back.

Little Egg people are stupid.

Let it go? Did we let it go when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I read earlier that they are voting on making it 1000 man penis' or was it peni? Maybe 11 can help a SSer out.

I hope I did not create the impression the discourse with Aud was adversarial. We disagree on the interpretation of limited facts.

I think the horse has taken enough whacks.

I am almost sorry that you will be wearing a turdburger jersey around the Peg. It's borderline inhumane. :flirt:

I believe my original reply, admittedly obtuse, stated that the relationship and scope of representation needs to be carefully crafted. This is to alleviate the issue of having to sever a part of the representation later or as in this case terminating it altogether. Joint rep agreements are reliant upon all parties having mutually aligned interests. These need to be aligned at the start. In this case, the accuser has an interest in due process, the other members do not. They may desire it for the daughter but they have no stake. There was an inherent conflict in doing anything at the behest of anyone other than the accuser. Not all conflicts are waivable. And those waivers beget additional concerns. Once the interests failed to align and as in this case conflict (Mom maybe facing obstruction charges or filing a false statement with police) the attorney must sever the joint relationship or terminate all involvement. You contend that the accuser has an interest in the criminal proceeding other than her constitutional right to due process and I disagree absent a reversal of Linda R.S v Richard B (1973). Any action taken sua sponte put the accusers best interests at stake. I do not have the agreement to review. Notwithstanding, he made a bad decision to intrude upon the traditional domain of the prosecutor. He could have made an ally, but instead, through circumstance, impugned the credibility of key witnesses in the investigation namely the mother. I think that is clear. We disagree on any private interest and the wisdom of representing families in instances like this. I enjoy your engagement and think this is an interesting topic, but it has now transcended an interpretive reading to an opinion on my part. There may not be anything further to gain.

The accuser's family could have been worried about self incrimination, defamation, or a myriad of other matters. Personal counsel is not unheard. of in such situations. Advising on the process and sharing experience is often money well spent. Actively advocating a position such as evidence tampering changes the scope of an advisory relationship. If he subsequently discovered that to be unfounded he can no longer advocate it. At that point his mere association is problematic. Query: Suppose he is questioned about facts concerning the bad by the prosecution. Keeping in mind attorney client privilege, does he disclose conversations between himself and Mom if he is representing the family? Does he disclose conversations with mom when he is representing the accuser if said information could be a detriment to the accuser's case? Does he disclose information about the accuser if the relationship is between MOm and attorney? All of these are situations which the Ethics Rules attempt to discourage due to the inherent conflict they MAY create. I do not know the facts of the representation and perhaps you do, but exclude what you know of the attorney's personal situation and look at the hypothetical man. The drafters try and cover as much ground without exception for individual circumstance. Again, I believe he was acting in an honorable and ethical manner unless proven otherwise and I believe he thought he was acting in the best interest's of the accuser. But that one misstep is hard to sweep under the rug and would have been best handled by turning over all evidence to the prosecutor and let them investigate. I no longer sue anyone. I advise.

Do you represent clients in legal matters? EDIT: Not trying to be snarky just curious if we are talking about the same profession and thus the same professional ethical concerns.

I don't think we are disagreeing on the fundamentals, but as the saying goes, change the facts change the law. I am quite sure the eventual relationship would have been Eoannou representing her in a tort case, but without an actual case, there is no possible compensation and hence a conflict. Your insurance example is a good one but those are contracts. part of what you pay for is representation up to the extent of the policy coverage. The moment it is estimated that the damages could exceed that coverage, you are normally put on notice to retain counsel. The carrier will represent you but it is only obligated to pay the coverage amount. The crime victims rights are a different situation. Most if not all the statutes preclude the convicted from benefiting monetarily from the crime. Book rights etc. are used to compensate victims and to give victims some say in whether the stories can be commercialized. I am unfamiliar with USC case you mentioned but will look it up.

I think this is highly unlikely. He will play in the nhl and GMTM will tell anyone who says, "there are better players in Rochester, why is he here?" .."Because I said so". This is a developmental year. Reinhart, will not appeal to the uninitiated, but will end up with good fancy stats. He makes the players he plays with better.

See NYS Rule 1.16. It is not limited to representation before a tribunal. The accuser has no "interests" in the criminal case. That's my point. The interests are the peoples. The accuser is merely a witness. If the accuser filed a civil action contemporaneously, then she would have interests in the civil action, which are subordinate to those of the people in a criminal case. The structure of the agreements you mention are where the devil lies. An agreement between x and y for y to represent z creates a financial conflict for y if his counsel may cause x to refuse to pay. Absent a civil action where a contingency arrangement would eliminate any consideration of x's input, it is a conflict. That is why I said the scope and detail of the representation is important.

Sorry for the delay, and I do not know if this is still germane, but I think he was conflicted, professionally, on a few different levels. Ethics, at its root is the avoidance of conflict and diligent representation of your client's interests within the boundaries of the law. All attorneys are officers of the court by deputization, i.e. admission to the bar. One cannot advance a representation that one knows either lacks merit, is a blatant misuse of the court's resources or would require the attorney to violate the law or court rules. But the real issue I see here is one of potential conflict between "clients". As to your inquiry about representation absent a formal appearance, there is precedent for establishing an attorney client relationship under those circumstances. As a matter of fact it is the classic fact pattern asked of all taking the bar exam and the warning given to all young attorneys that an attorney client relationship is established based on the client's reasonable perception that an attorney is rendering them advice and that the discussions between them will be confidential and privileged. Thus at a party when asked specific questions pertaining specific fact patterns I politely decline to answer and qualify any answers with "hypothetically", or "that is interesting, you should probably consult personal counsel." This is long winded response to what i felt was a conflict from the start. The accuser's counsel has no import on a criminal proceeding. They may advise or explain issues to a client, but the matter is society, i.e. the people vs, a defendant. The people are represented by the prosecutor. The accuser is merely a witness, albeit an important one in most cases. Private counsel does not do anything other than advise. Her attorney could have been retained by parents or other guardian, legal or ad litem, in which case a conflict can arise unless the scope of the representation is clearly defined. If her attorney felt that he was unable to carry out the scope of that obligation without somehow disadvantaging his client or obstructing a criminal investigation he is obligated to terminate the representation. The minute the attorney raised any issue as to the leaks, evidence or otherwise, he was perilously stepping on ground normally reserved for the people's representative. Unless there was a civil action filed in the meantime, there was very little to be gained from engaging in the discourse that came to light.

Wait a minute, weren't you grounded for criticizing Kane? Is this an attempt to cut your time?