Discussion
  • Read More
    MattJordan Sargent
    9/10/15 2:11pm

    “Chahal had managed to escape felony charges despite being caught on camera striking his girlfriend over 100 times, according to prosecutors.”

    To this I wonder, “How?”. Seriously. Like, what’s that old saying about how you can indict a ham sandwich, its so easy, unless of course the prosecution throws the case. I mean, if he’d been indicted and then was acquitted I could at least have some faith that the system at least tried but they have video evidence of the crime and they apparently couldn't even get him to trial?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      EvanrudeJohnsonMatt
      9/10/15 2:17pm

      There was a ruling that the video evidence could not be used. So the fact that there was evidence makes this extremely frustrating, however, the practical point is that evidence would be irrelevant in a court proceeding.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SoroptimistopotamusMatt
      9/10/15 2:26pm

      Wait you’re saying Willie Brown is corrupt??? This has only been a known factvin San Francisco SINCE 1972.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    opiumsmabytchJordan Sargent
    9/10/15 2:07pm

    The security video taken from his apartment that prosecutors say showed him kicking and punching his girlfriend was ruled inadmissible

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SillyMe8opiumsmabytch
      9/10/15 2:58pm

      I’m still not clear on why this was ruled inadmissible. Anyone want to help me out? I don’t do legalese very well.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      opiumsmabytchSillyMe8
      9/10/15 3:03pm

      I don’t either really but I semi-understand that evidence acquired without proper warrant or in an unlawful manner can be inadmissible regardless of how well it proves or disproves guilt. No idea how the video was obtained. It’s just maddening in situations like this. How can you watch a video of someone beating the shit out his girlfriend and go “oh that doesn’t count” without hating yourself.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReburnsABurningReturnsJordan Sargent
    9/10/15 2:10pm

    From the linked Gawker article:

    The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn’t buy it.

    What an immensely frustrating scenario.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobNYCReburnsABurningReturns
      9/10/15 3:10pm

      You know, that’s when someone needs to leak that shit on the internet. It’s really hard to pretend it doesn’t exist if it’s all over the place.

      Of course on the flip side, that’s highly unfair to the actual victim and she doesn’t deserve having it on display for everyone to see.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsRobNYC
      9/10/15 3:22pm

      Yeah, it’s true. In a perfect world, the cops would have had a warrant.

      But yeah, what do you do if you come into possession of that? An ethical person might try to ask the victim what they would like, but most hackers don’t fit that bill very well.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    amtJordan Sargent
    9/10/15 2:16pm

    “Wow. That’s pricey, but probably worth it if he can make it happen. I suspect he will pull out all the stops to get this done.”

    If you want a cheaper alternative, you can always not beat up women. Me and countless millions have managed to save hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees by doing this and not being women beating POS’s.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jerry-NetherlandJordan Sargent
      9/10/15 2:30pm

      This corporate logo/motto is so creepy, it sounds more like the tagline for a new horror film:

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        veskaJerry-Netherland
        9/10/15 8:55pm

        That’s the creepiest thing I’ve read this week, and I just finished Elizabeth Smart’s autobiography.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      LeNoceurJordan Sargent
      9/10/15 2:28pm

      I don’t know about California specifically, but in many jurisdictions it is unethical for a lawyer to charge a contingent or variable fee in a criminal case that is dependent on the degree of success— “$1 million if I can get you off completely, $500K if you end up serving less than 5 years, $100K for anything else” for example. Not saying that’s what happened in this case—it actually appears, despite the email, that what happened was he paid a $250K retainer that was billed against hourly, hence the refund, and that the $1 million may have been an estimate of the costs of taking the case to trial.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        finnyd420LeNoceur
        9/10/15 2:53pm

        They didn’t want Brown working as a trial lawyer but rather more like a lobbyist. A lobbyist that was to corrupt the judical process in favor of his client. Twist some arms, use his power, whatever it takes to protect Chahal.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Jerry-NetherlandLeNoceur
        9/10/15 3:34pm

        Willie Brown wasn’t acting as Chahal’s attorney, he was being paid to influence the case by Chahal’s co-board member, Westly, and did it, evidently; corruption at its purest. Brown’s action seems to be specifically criminal (though he’ll never be prosecuted); Westly is planning to run for Governor in 2018 - and should be disqualified.

        Meanwhile, Chahal can’t seem to control himself - he’s also at risk of having his probation revoked for repeatedly kicking another girlfriend.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      EvanrudeJohnsonJordan Sargent
      9/10/15 2:27pm

      Silicon Valley Banded Together To Protect Abusive CEO Before Company’s IPO

      This heading appears to me to be pretty misleading, Silicon Valley didn’t really band together, it was just one company and its legal reps teaming up with one of the most powerful big wigs in the state Democratic party to help this dirtbag.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        sdgdfgdfhJordan Sargent
        9/10/15 2:00pm

        Daily reminder that tech company IPOs are designed to recoup VC costs at the expense of public investors. Don’t. invest.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          OMG!PONIES!Jordan Sargent
          9/10/15 3:30pm

          There used to be a time when moneyed interests would only protect white men.

          That Silicon Valley is willing to make backroom deals to cover up illicit and unsavory behavior on behalf of POC shows real progress.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            filmgirlJordan Sargent
            9/10/15 2:42pm

            In my early 20s in SF I used to see Willie Brown at the night clubs surrounded by young women. He was gross.

            Reply
            <
            • Read More
              neralaafilmgirl
              9/11/15 12:08am

              Gavin Newsome hit on me at a bar years ago (his bar, I was 21 at the time I have photos too! ha ha!) We all know SF politics and its politicians are corrupt as fuck. Ed Lee. Need we say anymore?

              Reply
              <