Quebecois cocaine cowgirls

[EagerBeaver]

Totally agree. Question, let's say when they discover the amount of drug was much larger near Australia and they decide to alert authorities, they would be in the exact same shit or they would have had some kind of relief?

Cheers,

I don't know anything about Australian law but honestly I doubt they knew their suitcases were stashed until after the fact. Had they tipped off authorities that drugs had been stashed in their luggage who knows what would have happened. Law enforcement is not required to believe stories being told by two girls who have nowhere near the assets to be on a $22,000 cruise. If I was on the case I would have thought they were full of shit.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Pictures indicate that the drugs filled the entire suitcase. How can anyone think they were duped by the quantity. Its not a few keys stuffed in the lining.

We don't know where the drugs came on the ship. It's a lock they came on somewhere after the departure and I tend to think the suitcases were stashed as they approached port. They may have come on in Columbia. Or any other port of call. They then were later transferred into the the luggage to be offloaded. There was a plan to get them off the ship which was never executed because they got busted by K9s that came aboard.

 

[BookerL]

Hello all and EB

You are assuming the press knows everything the prosecutor knows.

Speculating with what was made public up to now,I am not in the secrets are you ?

However there is nothing in this file, up to now that suggest that there was any intel

By experience I would say the prosecutor ,Le ,defense lawyer ,and the arrested people have often different perception of the same event if not always .

We don't know that. All investigative materials are not in the court file. Surveillance videos and other evidence are not in the Court file. A seasoned attorney will look at a court file and know what is not there that needs to be seen. Furthermore, what should be of most interest to the Cartel is who tipped off the authorities. The press reports I read strongly suggested that the tip came from the Canadian authorities and they in turn may have been tipped off by a rat within the organization, for all that we know. If a high priced local attorney is retained with a seasoned PI already on retainer (or on staff at the bigger law firms), he will talk to who got that tip and do a trace all the way back to the informant.

You are assuming that the organization wants to keep that market open ,Drug trafficking is possible elsewhere for the same Quebecers .Contrary to a civil case where a organization might be slap by injunction or ex parte bank account seizure etc.... ,a arrest will make everyone nervous and make them fear jail time for them also

Your speculation here is great, if the Godfather wants to keep this market open ,information that we do not have

You make it sound like the Quebec cartel has plants in the Australian LE.

You make it sound like criminal organization has no direct contact with LE?

If they did, the bust might not have happened, as the mules would have been tipped off, or at worst it would have gone down differently with an attempt to ditch or transport the drugs off the ship. As you said they were caught off guard. My guess is they don't have jack shit as far as a contact or a plant within Australian LE

.From what was made public most likely

For all that we know, this was a test run with sacrificial mules.

This is still a possibility

If so, you either learn something from it, or you learn shit, and repeat the same $30 million mistake or mistakes again and again until you give up. If you have a good pair of eyes on the ground, i.e., a seasoned criminal defense attorney, chances are you will gather information that will prevent the mistake from happening again. The high priced attorney is being hired to investigate the investigation, to attack it as flawed if possible, but above all and most importantly, to explain how the investigation went down and provide information on what operational issues need to be corrected so it does not happen again.

Drug trafficking isn't legal, as such even if they can correct the mistake that where made ,nothing prevents them from making others ,further more ,nothing prevents a Burn .

We are not talking of correcting mistakes for other occasions by having a better contract ,to dot the I 's and cross the t's in the event of other civil suits .

Hiring a high profile lawyer would also provide more information to LE ,do they really need that ?

Keep in mind these are all legitimate objectives for a criminal defense attorney who is breaking no laws by gathering information and LE strategy, even if the Cartel then uses that information to attempt a second go round at getting that cocaine in to Australia. The Cartel and the second round mules would be the lawbreakers. In these situations the reasons for getting the Intel is not discussed, and is obvious so it doesn't need to be.

What are you saying here a criminal lawyer can explain to is client on how to commit a better crime and he is not breaking the law ? Ouf
Lets not forget ,we are talking about drug trafficking EB ,not collect more insurance in trial with a panel of jurors





Cheers




Booker

 

[EagerBeaver]

Hiring a high profile lawyer would also provide more information to LE ,do they really need that ?

How? Who pays the retainer is confidential information and sometimes clients have retainers paid by 3rd parties. A straw man would undoubtedly be used.

What are you saying here a criminal lawyer can explain to is client on how to commit a better crime and he is not breaking the law?

A Client pays the attorney for a result, but he also pays the attorney to educate the Client. Sometimes you cannot get the result the Client wants and if you are not educating about why, the Client isn't getting his or her money's worth. It was always made clear to me that Clients MUST be educated about the process.

In this situation the result is much less important than the education. I would assume the Client, in this situation, is not concerned with the result but rather with learning how the mistake happened and avoiding its repetition. That's what the attorney is being paid for. You guide the Client through the process. An Australian, high priced criminal defense attorney is needed to do this. Sometimes a moderately priced attorney can do the same job but in that instance may not have the intel network and a PD will have virtually no meaningful intelligence at all.

 

[BookerL]

Hello EB

How? Who pays the retainer is confidential information and sometimes clients have retainers paid by 3rd parties. A straw man would undoubtedly be used.

A high profile knows that ways of communication(telephone ,text messaging ,emails etc) are often subjectof illegal wiretap/better phrasing would be without a warrant .LE Gaining leads
A straw man would be put under surveillance.
Further more in a criminal enterprise ,you are not looking to add more people who knows something that may send you to jail ,but reduce that amount of people .
The other problem in this case ,the distance between Quebec and Australia and exchange of infos

A Client pays the attorney for a result, but he also pays the attorney to educate the Client. Sometimes you cannot get the result the Client wants and if you are not educating about why, the Client isn't getting his or her money's worth. It was always made clear to me that Clients MUST be educated about the process.

A trial is public everything that is used as evidence becomes available ,the Godfather can be educated by the results

In this situation the result is much less important than the education. I would assume the Client, in this situation, is not concerned with the result but rather learning how the mistake happened and avoiding its repetition.

I agree that he isn't/they aren't concern with the result ,the mistake or mistakes ,many of them are already apparent and others will become apparent further along the way

Those are true in civil matters ,a criminal lawyer cannot directly educate is client on how to commit a better crime .If he does he isn't immune on being charge .

Drug trafficking isn't legal, as such even if they can correct the mistake that where made ,nothing prevents them from making others ,further more ,nothing prevents a Burn .

We are not talking of correcting mistakes for other occasions by having a better contract ,to dot the I 's and cross the t's in the event of other civil suits .

Hiring a high profile lawyer would also provide more information to LE ,do they really need that ?



What are you saying here a criminal lawyer can explain to is client on how to commit a better crime and he is not breaking the law ? Ouf
Lets not forget ,we are talking about drug trafficking EB ,not collect more insurance in trial with a panel of jurors

 

[EagerBeaver]

Those are true in civil matters ,a criminal lawyer cannot directly educate is client on how to commit a better crime .If he does he isn't immune on being charge .

I think you are missing the point. You are not educating the client on how to commit a better crime. You are educating him about the law enforcement process which enabled his mules to be caught. It is entirely up to the Client whether he chooses to use that information to commit another crime. You never tell a client to commit a crime. You give the client information and it is up the client how they use the information. The information I am talking about is the LE intelligence gathering process through which the mules were tracked and caught. That is the information the client needs. How the client uses it is totally up to the Client. The Client may use it to not attempt further crime and he may use it to attempt further crime. Not the concern of the attorney either way until he is needed again.

Booker you never heard the song Free Will by Rush? I thought you were Canadian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

There are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That's far too fleet

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
here are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate

 

[BookerL]

Hello EB

I think you are missing the point. You are not educating the client on how to commit a better crime. You are educating him about the law enforcement process which enabled his mules to be caught.

I can certainly see that it is in your comfort zone,each lawyers can accept or refuse to represent clients

Fourth time the charm ,we are talking specifically of this event, and there is more important situation to attend then a High profile lawyer in Australia ..

A trial is public everything that is used as evidence becomes available ,the Godfather can be educated by the results

Without having the fear to put other persons in the know

It is entirely up to the Client whether he chooses to use that information to commit another crime.

So the criminal lawyer that knows for sure that is client will use the information to commit a better crime ,will be entirely comfortable with it ?

You never tell a client to commit a crime. You give the client information and it is up the client how they use the information. The information I am talking about is the LE intelligence gathering process through which the mules were tracked and caught. That is the information the client needs. How the client uses it is totally up to the Client. The Client may use it to not attempt further crime and he may use it to attempt further crime. Not the concern of the attorney either way until he is needed again.

You are saying its the only to have that precious intel

The information I am talking about is the LE intelligence gathering process through which the mules were tracked and caught

Do remember its this specific case ,a arrest of that type has tendency to make people involve nervous they do have other problems to think about

Drug trafficking isn't legal, as such even if they can correct the mistake that where made ,nothing prevents them from making others ,further more ,nothing prevents a Burn .

This is my post which the conversation started

If there was a Godfather they would not be high priced lawyer or lawyers ,the objective of a criminal organization when they assigned lawyers is so the person arrested will accept a guilty plea ,not acquittal of them ,the other advantage is that then have access to evidence while paying the lawyers .

In this case, would that be a necessity?

The point is still, will there be a High price lawyer hired by a straw man in Australia to gather intel because the

3 stunods

can't understand what they did wrong !lol and with that intel make more attempts at Drug trafficking in Australia .

Normally when a lawyer is assign by the organization it is immediate not 2 or more months later





Cheers




Booker

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

I am sticking with my " setup and more got through somewhere else " theory.
200 lbs is not a huge amount to go into a country that has tough laws about drugs, possible that 10 times that went through somewhere else.
The bust does not sound right, too many unanswered questions.

 

[Passionné]

Hello EB

So the criminal lawyer that knows for sure that is client will use the information to commit a better crime ,will be entirely comfortable with it ?

Cheers

Booker

I'm not sure how far it's legally required for the client to be informed about the process of intel that led to arrest. I'd guess much of it is exposed because of the necessity to make sure the process was legal. In that way the idea it helps the client is unavoidable. However, I'm sure the lawyer usually knows the temperament/tendency of the client. While the lawyer may be compelled by law to provide every element required for defense of the client I don't how a human being with broader personal ethics can propose that the requirements of the law he must follow gives his conscience some kind of holly protection, some kind of self-absolution from any responsibility for what further criminal or odious actions the client may commit.

No doubt there are lawyers who choose not to defend certain clients because of their conscience. And though a lawyer is not representing a certain moral or ethics when compelled by the court to defend an unsavory or unrepentant client, it's far from unreasonable to say a lawyer is representing his morals and ethics at least in part when he makes a CHOICE to represent such clients. The idea that either way ethics are absolved by legal duty no matter what is relative to individual conscience not an absolute condition...at least where there's a choice to defend or not.

Here's a very good article on these matters on the conundrum of representing repugnant clients.

http://www.americanbar.org/newslett.../gp_solo_magazine_index/repugnantclients.html



Cheers

 

[BookerL]

Hello

Here's a very good article on these matters on the conundrum of representing repugnant clients.
http://www.americanbar.org/newslett.../gp_solo_magazine_index/repugnantclients.html

In Canada lawyers can withdraw from a criminal case with the authorization of the court.

http://www.tribunaux.qc.ca/c-superieure/regle-pratique/criminelle/02-dispositions_generales.html

Toutefois, dans les quatorze jours qui précèdent l'ouverture de la session ou au cours de celle-ci, l'avocat qui désire cesser d'occuper doit obtenir l'autorisation du tribunal après avoir fait signifier une requête exposant ses motifs, avec avis d'un jour franc à l'accusé, au greffier et à la Couronne.

Google translate
Motion to cease representing in criminal court

However, within fourteen days before the opening of the session or during it, the attorney who wishes to cease must obtain permission from the court after having served a motion stating its reasons, with opinion one clear day to the accused, the clerk and the Crown.

I actually know someone that is lawyer withdrew from the case after she learn ,that he attempted to strangle is ex girlfriend .

http://www.duhaime.org/LawMag/LawArticle-1571/Getting-Off-The-Record-The-Lawyers-Oft-Catch-22.aspx

"Situations where a lawyer would be entitled to withdraw, although not under a positive duty to do so, will generally arise only where there has been a serious loss of confidence between lawyer and client. Such a loss of confidence goes to the very basis of the relationship. Thus, the lawyer who is deceived by the client will have justifiable cause for withdrawal. Again, the refusal of the client to accept and act upon the lawyer’s advice on a significant point might indicate such a loss of confidence. At the same time, the lawyer should not use the threat of withdrawal as a device to force the client into making a hasty decision on a difficult question.

Cheers




Booker

 

[A12B]

Guys, weren't they supposed to enter a plea in the last court appearance and wasn't that the reason of the court date ? Or they came in and said Hi to the judge and bugged off ? Confusing when far away with the news ... .

 

[Passionné]

Hello

Google translate
Motion to cease representing in criminal court


I actually know someone that is lawyer withdrew from the case after she learn ,that he attempted to strangle is ex girlfriend .

http://www.duhaime.org/LawMag/LawArticle-1571/Getting-Off-The-Record-The-Lawyers-Oft-Catch-22.aspx

Cheers

Booker

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p..._declining_or_terminating_representation.html

It's an interesting subject to read about. After several readings from different states it's clear that even if an attorney is court appointed there are numerous reasons an attorney can withdraw from representing a client after filing a motion to get court consent. It can be done by both the attorney or client request as outlined in whatever rules are set. But the gist of it is if a client is the kind that may do something outside the legality of the process or goes against attorney advice in ways that damage the attorney's ability to defend the client the attorney can withdraw.

The idea that it's just business defending any client and a duty an attorney is compelled to provide regardless of what client they have or regardless of circumstances is not true. But reasons for withdrawal are firmly defined and controlled. At times though attorney withdrawal may be even MANDATORY if the client puts the attorney in a position of violating the legal process.

Strangling is obviously an extreme reason to for a lawyer to withdraw. Withdrawal can also be justified if the client simply suggests legal impropriety or makes any such behavior.

So no attorney can say...I'm the lawyer I have no choice but to defend regardless of my client's behavior.

 

[transatlantic]

At Sydney airport, all passenger luggage are x-rayed at customs regardless of whether you have something to declare or not. Don't know if they do the same at the cruise port but I would imagine so. How these three came to the conclusion they could get around x-ray and K9 is beyond me especially with the quantity they are smuggling.

 

[EagerBeaver]

A lot of commentary from a couple guys who never practiced law in a civil or criminal court. I have done both for 20 plus years no ethics complaints or grievance complaints against me by clients ever and one grievance by a Public Defender 20 years ago which was dismissed because he didn't understand his own case.

All the clients I have fired in my life I fired because they engaged in actions in the attorney client relationship which in my mind made them disloyal or untrustworthy. I never fired a client because of his admitted behavior.

About 20 years ago I defended a pedophile in a civil case filed by his victim. I didn't choose the client he chose my firm and I was assigned to defend him. I didn't like him or his behavior but it was over and done with and he paid me for a defense so he got a defense. I would do the same again if the client paid me and I felt I could trust him on the commitments in the attorney client relationship.

There is no requirement that you like or approve of your client's behavior in order to take a case. We are professional advocates paid to advocate. If the same client went to a surgeon would the surgeon refuse to operate because he disapproves of the patient's past behavior? It would arguably violate his Hippocratic Oath. Either you are a professional at what you do or you leave the career. Virtually every attorney I know worth his or her salt and practicing the same way for many years operates with the same attitude. Those who take things personally or have conscience agendas are quickly eaten up and leave the practice of law.

The drug mules in this case or the Cartel, if they paid a requested retainer I doubt any attorney would turn this away.

The attorneys who consistently represent the greatest scum clients are public defenders. They are assigned the cases and have no choice in the matter. I have never heard of or seen them refuse an assignment for reasons other than a conflict of interest. "I don't like what the client did" doesn't cut it. Working as a PD is also the best experience any fledgling attorney can get on all levels and I wish I had started in that office.

 

[EagerBeaver]

On another note I recommend watching the TV series Better Caul Saul. In season 1 he does special public defender work and is forced to defend reprehensible clients at a per diem rate of $700 per trial. During one trial he admits to a jury that his clients were "knuckleheads", but that is all they were guilty of. It's extremely funny and a closing argument like that is sometimes the best you can do.

 

[BookerL]

A lot of commentary from a couple guys who never practiced law in a civil or criminal court. I have done both for 20 plus years no ethics complaints or grievance complaints against me by clients ever and one grievance by a Public Defender 20 years ago which was dismissed because he didn't understand his own case..

Hello EB

This case isn't about you about what you did or didn't do .
The mules are from Quebec the lead on this are from Quebec that is what was revealed in the articles ,logically they would consult a Quebec criminal lawyer you can argue what you want but the rule of practice of the Superior Court of Quebec criminal division are clear and you have a Big 0 experience with them ,
http://www.tribunaux.qc.ca/c-superie...generales.html
and everyone can read on this Board ,well hopefully !lol


One more thing EB I do understand your threshold as a person
you made it abundatly clear

I think you are missing the point. You are not educating the client on how to commit a better crime. You are educating him about the law enforcement process which enabled his mules to be caught. It is entirely up to the Client whether he chooses to use that information to commit another crime. You never tell a client to commit a crime. You give the client information and it is up the client how they use the information. The information I am talking about is the LE intelligence gathering process through which the mules were tracked and caught. That is the information the client needs. How the client uses it is totally up to the Client. The Client may use it to not attempt further crime and he may use it to attempt further crime. Not the concern of the attorney either way until he is needed again.

Cheers



Booker

 

[EagerBeaver]

Yeah and that Quebec lawyer has a Big 0 in experience in Australian law!

I was discussing ethical issues generally and was commenting on the post by Merlot

 

[BookerL]

Yeah and that Quebec lawyer has a Big 0 in experience in Australian law!

I agree with you EB .But the people involve are Quebecois


However by personal experience ,since they are Quebecois ,there first way to reach a Australian is through a reputable Quebec Criminal LAwyer ,fly him in ,which is something I did myself a few times,not with Australian lawyer however !lol


Cheers




Booker

 

[EagerBeaver]

Guys, weren't they supposed to enter a plea in the last court appearance and wasn't that the reason of the court date ? Or they came in and said Hi to the judge and bugged off ? Confusing when far away with the news ... .

I searched for some Australian news articles which would presumably describe Court procedure a little more informatively but couldn't find any. The most informative was this piece from the Toronto paper that basically just contains recycled quotes from Roberge's ex BF trashing her as a superficial gold-digger, combined with the boilerplate stuff already issued by Reuters:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/2...in-australian-court-on-drug-smuggling-charges

Surprised there hasn't been much in the Aussie press that I can find and also surprised that none of the bigger Canadian newspapers dispatched anyone to maybe do a human interest story on these three drug mules now languishing in prison. It's horrible how incomplete these news stories are. Although BookerL provides speculation to the contrary, we have no information on whether these mules have retained or been assigned counsel, one way or the other. We do not even know if they have are using any attorneys (I assume each would have a different attorney due to potential conflicts).

What is dominating headlines in Australia is the Cyanide Coffee Murder Trial which led to an Australian woman being convicted in her friend's murder in an Indonesian court:

http://www.news.com.au/national/cri...e/news-story/87c849d0961ff8e7c4a96f9c2d54bc50

 

[jalimon]

I searched for some Australian news articles which would presumably describe Court procedure a little more informatively but couldn't find any. The most informative was this piece from the Toronto paper that basically just contains recycled quotes from Roberge's ex BF trashing her as a superficial gold-digger, combined with the boilerplate stuff already issued by Reuters:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/2...in-australian-court-on-drug-smuggling-charges

Surprised there hasn't been much in the Aussie press that I can find and also surprised that none of the bigger Canadian newspapers dispatched anyone to maybe do a human interest story on these three drug mules now languishing in prison. It's horrible how incomplete these news stories are. Although BookerL provides speculation to the contrary, we have no information on whether these mules have retained or been assigned counsel, one way or the other. We do not even know if they have are using any attorneys (I assume each would have a different attorney due to potential conflicts).

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2016/10/25/003-melina-isabelle-cocaine-australie.shtml

This article state that they each have their own lawyer, and a different one from who represented them after their arrest.

In case like this I guess it's a necessity to have 2 laywers, one from your country which hire/lead a local lawyer to lead the case.

One interesting point, the 2 girls were friends but absolutely no one of their friends, employers, family, etc.. knew about this existance of that Andre Tamine...

Cheers,