Saturday, April 12, 2014

DHECC - Lionel Sutton files motion for discovery

Here are the filings:

Lionel Sutton Motion for Discovery

Proposed Order

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Discovery

Here's the thing about Sutton's filing as opposed to's framed in a different way and the implications have much more gravitas.  This filing is calling out the ambiguity of the claims office, Freeh, and the Court in their justification as to when it is "ok" to expedite a claim and when it isn't.

It's almost impossible for the Court to deny this information from Sutton after they've suggested he's committed an alleged crime by attempting to expedite a claim.  If the Court doesn't provide him with this material they're basically saying, "Only we get to decide that and you'll learn about it after the fact. the're guilty and we're not!"

This is a big deal.  It may not seem like it but I think this is a defining moment in this Shakespearian drama.   This memo is a last ditch effort by the accused to allow the Court to do the right thing.

I hope the Court recognizes it as such.

Also note that this motion was filed with Judge Shushan just like the Lerner motion was.  I'm really curious to see if Barbier seizes the decision from Shushan like he did with Lerner.

If Barbier cock blocks this motion without explanation....well....


Get yo' game faces on bitchezzz....


Anonymous said...

The memo in support listed above is actually the motion (posted twice).

Jason Brad Berry said...

I fixed it.

Kevin said...

Motion denied by Magistrate Shushan for the same reasons Judge Barbier denied Lerner's "similar" motion.

Are there any objectors or Class Reps reading this blog who are interested in finding out the truth behind all of these expedited claims?

Maybe a genuinely concerned Class Rep should file a motion asking the court to specifically investigate and/or allow discovery on behalf of the class as a whole. Don't the Class Reps have a duty to protect the interests of all the absent class members?

What reason could be concocted to deny that motion?

Anonymous said...

Any reason for denial given?