Replies to post #5973 on Rambus (RMBS)

[lolo]

HiNx seemed to say they didn't understand the defense plan,
and so they couldn't prepare their offense correctly?

It seems rather unseemly to blame the defendant for
cornfusing the plaintiff such that they couldn't even construct a house of cards;
instead, they asked that onlookers imagine what the house would look like,
a virtual house of cards,a fortress in the air.

Arguably this is the first time the bus legal team has actually been battle ready,
complete with world class feints...

How could the plaintiffs have done such a underwhelming job?

Is there some way that a blown evidentiary hearing
could be part of a larger plan by Los Tres?
Nah, just regular old inability to make a case
that would have been elusive at best.
JMO, IANAL
OF

[smd1234]

NUKE,
You misunderstand, I think, why posters are puzzled about the advice of counsel defense.

Posters are confused by Stone's comment in closing, i.e., "RMBS is NOT asserting an advice of counsel defense"

Posters want to know WHY, why RMBS didn't assert an advice of counsel defense, and the answer, best I can tell, is they COULD NOT, b/c DJ's involvement was cut off too early.

JMHO

smd



Posted as a reply to: Msg 821043 by nukejohn

[calbiker]

Advice of Counsel Defense

Rmabus didn't have to drop the "advice of counsel defense", because they never intended to use this as a defense. This was a strategic manuever so that they could get Dan Johnson on the stand to testify.

You're off base. Hynix's original theory was that both Karp and Johnson were co-conspirators in the destruction of docs. Johnson was in danger of loosing his law license and they had expected him to take the 5th on the stand to avoid answering incriminating questions. He avoided that by stating he wasn't Rambus' counsel.

BTW, Stone was not the first to state Johnson was not Rambus' counsel. It was Nissley. The only strategic maneuver was to save Johnson's ass.