News Focus
News Focus
icon url

mrfence

10/23/10 3:35 PM

#15401 RE: Bull_Dolphin #15400

The interesting thing is that the motions are being put forth by USA and not Matt if I'm interpreting them correctly. I'm no expert on legalease either but motion to seal by USA indicates the plantiff/prosecutions motion is my understanding.

I think you got the jist of it but I'm not sure who's firing the attorney. It could mean the guilty plea gets pulled. Then there is a new trial or not? The motion is pending the disposition of the charges which leaves a lot of room to speculate about the motivation of prosecution. Weird/interesting.

icon url

janice shell

10/23/10 4:24 PM

#15403 RE: Bull_Dolphin #15400

No, the motion to get rid of Amador was filed by the prosecution. It is, however, possible that Matt agreed to it.
icon url

jarta

10/23/10 6:03 PM

#15406 RE: Bull_Dolphin #15400

The Government filed 2 motions.

1. A motion to disqualify Amador from further representing Matt Brown.

2. A motion to seal the proceedings concerning the motion to disqualify Amador as counsel.

The motion to seal the proceedings was granted. Therefore, there will be no way to find out the reason for filing the motion to disqualify, the contents of any briefs or any argument and even, maybe, the reasons for any ruling on the motion to disqualify until the file is unsealed. ... eom