Attorney Caught Changing Briefs in Federal Court

[AngelFactor]

How's your faith in the judicial system?

ATTORNEY CAUGHT CHANGING BRIEFS IN FEDERAL COURT

In what is destined to become a classic case and urban legend, an attorney was caught changing briefs in federal court after he "inadvertantly" filed three pages of emails that indicated he was allegedly involved with records tampering in a federal court case in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Putting a new twist on the meaning behind self-incrimination, no one would have known that the attorney had allegedly tampered with the court records except three pages of emails that detailed what was done to the court records were attached to a brief filed with the court by the attorney involved. http://www.maximumadvocacy.com/Court_records.html

Filing the emails drew attention to the attorney's conduct otherwise it might have gone unnoticed.

The emails between the attorney’s law firm and federal court employees discuss filing backdated documents, tell how “the other ‘wrong document’ is "gone,” and informs a court employee that “attached is the correct Memorandum which needs to replace the current” document filed on March 8, 2006. The “Dawn-Johnson” emails, as they’ve become known, are dated April 4, 2006.

After gaining an admission in open court, the magistrate judge hearing the employment retaliation case giving rise to the alleged tampering of records said it shouldn't have been done. The magistrate judge indicated he felt the alleged conduct could give rise to “serious sanctions,” then postponed issuing a final ruling.

See the actual court files at: http://www.maximumadvocacy.com/Court_records.html

How's your faith in the judicial system now?
After reviewing this information, do you think the average person can receive a fair hearing in the judicial system?

[saltpoint]

1. At first glance I thought you meant 'underwear.'

And I'm thinkin', Jeez, couldn't he have gone into the Men's Room? How far a walk could it have been, anyway?

[Fridays Child]

2. Did OP make a funny?

Or was that truly the name of an article? I don't see it at the link.

[saltpoint]

4. "briefs" / "boxers" etc.

[AngelFactor]

5. It really happened

[uppityperson]

3. me too, thought it was going to be a funny.

dang.

[TahitiNut]

6. He should wear boxers.

:shrug: I thought everyone knew that.

[aquart]

10. All Republicans should wear briefs.

[TahitiNut]

15. Good idea! We can have Joe Boxer and George Brief.

:evilgrin: Cook them tadpoles!

... or would they prefer Ronnie Brief? :dunce: ... or Commander in Brief? :crazy:

[wtmusic]

7. My faith is stronger

seeing as the perpetrator was nailed and apparently will get punished.

This stuff happens every day of the week, and no one gets a perfectly fair hearing in the judicial system. It's a goal but will never be a reality.

[stillcool]

8. No mistrial?...

Is this case actually proceeding?..

[AngelFactor]

9. Yes. The case is proceding anyway. Does that seem right?

XX

[stillcool]

11. no effing way...

and I also can't believe the responses on this thread:wtf: Any media attention to this?

[AngelFactor]

12. No media, yet.

Did you see the emails in the court documents at the link: http://www.maximumadvocacy.com/Court_records.html ? If the attorney hadn't "inadvertently" filed the emails, there would be no way to prove it. Nice, huh?

[stillcool]

13. yeah....I saw those.....

it sure makes you curious about the other companies they've represented in suits regarding employment practices...

[AngelFactor]

14. One of the largest employment law firms in the country

Isn't that nice to know?