Decision Diagnostics Corp (DECN)

[IPwatcher]

but the latter is a much more likely scenario.

I actually agree with you... in light of the recent filing.
I know its quite difficult for counsel in criminal trial to excuse themselves once committed and certainly not for a simple lack of payment. Permission of the court is needed. But its not impossible. For example, if Berman had entered into a binding agreement e.g. to provide a security over which a charge could be placed which guaranteed payment for his lawyer- and subsequently defaulted on this agreement (e.g. dishonestly), that default could be reasonable grounds for his attorney to pull out on financial grounds with the permission of the court.

So my initial hedging (i.e. that the lawyers exit might be 'finance' rather than 'conduct' related)was based on the following analysis:

- Berman had cited personal Financial difficulties in the Sanchez civil case proceedings (and elsewhere.)
_ The court has ordered a financial assessment of Berman - which is a likely prelude to appointment of a public defender, and suggests at least the appearence of strained personal finances. (Of course this could be a bluff.. with a fraudster like Berman, you can never actually be sure!)
- Berman had just lost the Sanchez case to summary judgement with corresponding damages awarded against him. It could be argued that Berman's erstwhile lawyer did not cover himself in glory there, by failing to have the case deferred until after the outcome of the criminal trial had been decided, which he could fairly easily have accomplished. Whether this was at Berman's own instigation or that of his lawyer is not clear, but either way, its egg on face time for someone! Not a good look!
- Berman's lawyers exit co-incided with the unsatisfactory (from Berman's perspective) outcome of the Sanchez case, and this included a monetary judgement against him.
- Berman's lawyer is no longer with the lawfirm that he was working for at the time of engagement and has switched to another firm. His departure from that firm seems to have coincided loosely with the events at issue here. Whether this is pure co-incidence or if not, which event precipitated which is not yet apparent to me and may never be!
- Feigning illness to defer the trial would be a very high risk - in fact reckless - approach that would almost be bound to boomerang back on him. Only a complete idiot or total narcissist would seriously contemplate such an action.
- But then again... Its Berman we are talking about!

I genuinely couldn't decide whether it was finance or misconduct w.r.t malingering that led to the withdrawal of counsel, or something else entirely (e.g. his lawyer getting a new job!). The recent filing makes the malingering a far more credible explanation. But still not a certainty.

But I agree with your assessment:

Berman is toast and he knows it.

This filing proves that they are watching him like a hawk and are wise to any tricks he might try and pull! I really don't rate his chances of outwitting them, based on the filings we have seen to date!