3:10 PM update – the weekend is open, so the comments are closed. I don’t have time to block/delete all the hate. Go out and have a nice weekend. Touch grass.
ORIGINAL POST —
Got guests this weekend, so I’m signing off early. No more videos.
But some light reading for those who care:
Honestly though — I’d really like someone help me understand WHY the CJC is fighting so hard to hide this stuff? Don’t you think I deserve to know the truth? Don’t YOU want to know the truth?
Look — if Mata’s response HELPS her, I want to know. If it HURTS her, I really want to know. So why play games like this?
Anyway, this is clearly just a weird political time we are living in. You either think the Epstein files matter, or you don’t. You either care about the truth, or you don’t.
FOR ONCE, I am going to leave the comment section open. The ONLY stuff I want to see are arguments for or against the CJC’s position. Anything else will be removed.
Have a nice weekend.
JOC Commission on Judicial Conduct Objection to Subpoena PDJ2026-9010 conformed
For all we know Mata has had a very personal experience with planned parenthood in which she tried to access services on a Sunday and could not. It would make sense that this is protected if that’s how she knew it could be closed. Does that mean it was correct for her to put that into her motion and attribute it to Samantha dean? no, but it’s possible she made an error (something you’ve said time and time again people are allowed to do in filings) and misattributed it.
“FOR ONCE, I am going to leave the comment section open. The ONLY stuff I want to see are arguments for or against the CJC’s position. Anything else will be removed.”
RULES FOR THEE AND NOT FOR ME. You are so Trumpian, despite what you tell yourself to convince yourself you’re not constantly contradicting everything you say and do. You can say personal, disgusting, misogynistic and HORRIBLE things to anyone, but don’t have enough pride/cajones to answer anyone’s valid questions? coward
Valid questions are welcome all day long. Insults, not. Having said that, I should remove your comment since you violated the rules, but I’ll leave this one here for now.
just as you violated the bar’s rules. how are YOU allowed to call Megan Fox overweight, say absolutely ABHORRENT and demented comments about Omar & Dave’s wives and children? karma is coming
What the hell? I never said anything about Megan Fox’s weight? I don’t like her hair, but I don’t know that I have ever seen her in a standing position.
I’ve also never said anything about Dave’s wife other than she seemed “nice” (from what little I know). As for Omar, I can’t recall even mentioning his wife. I mean, Omar is one seriously disreputable guy, but I don’t know anything about his wife, so why would I even mention her?
You’re spiteful and vindictive, maybe that’s why they don’t want you to have mountains of info about Judge Julie and you seem to have a vendeta against her, all cause she ruled against you. However, both sides have entered their motions and the court will decide. I don’t care either way cause I think you’re totally stuffed regardless.
I was hoping for an Ep. 3 review
I am having a difficult time understanding why you have such disgust for Judge Mata. You seem to be holding on to one piece of the ruling instead of focusing on those pieces that landed your client with 14 felony charges. If you were able to prove what you think Judge Mata did or didn’t do, what happens next? It’s just such a small piece of this case…
Much too narrow a view. If Mata had followed the law, the case would have ended on December 28, 2023. There would have been no hearing on June 10, 2024, and no need for anyone to be criminally charged….at least not for things that happened after December 28, 2023.
A biased judge is not a “small piece of the case”. It is literally one of the few things that require an automatic reversal without any need to show prejudice. A judge who has formed a bias can never, ever decide a case fairly. And under Arizona law, a judge who breaks the rules and considers ANY outside evidence (with one narrow exception) is automatically disqualified from making ANY decisions on the case. It is literally that serious.
Don’t take my word for it. Go read the case cited by the Court of Appeals on this issue – State v. Emanuel, 159
Ariz. 464 (App. 1989). That case involved a judge who simply talked to people (outside of court) regarding a criminal defendant prior to sentencing. The judge actually said some of the info he got from talking to other people was “favorable” to the defendant. The Court of Appeals ruled the judge violated the law by considering ANY evidence received outside of court. The Court of Appeals said that when this happens, the judge is subject to automatic disqualification (called recusal), and the defendant is entitled to a new hearing before a new judge.
The Court of Appeals ignored that rule in our case, which was improper, but the law still says what it says. ANY independent investigation by a judge is always improper, and it entitles the aggrieved party to a complete do-over. So yes, that option is STILL available. We just need the docs to remove any doubt about what happened.
Where is the proof of her being biased. And not just feelings – hard proof.
I’m guessing it’s because you tend to release things you aren’t supposed to on your blog and then retaliate when someone disagrees with you. I’m not a judge, so just a hunch.
how well has, “99.000% of people are wrong about the law and i’m the ONLY one who is right about it” worked out for ya david
Obviously the outcome of the case wasn’t good. But just wait – it may not be over. If the CJC produces proof that Mata acted unlawfully, we can go back and ask to have her judgment tossed. Mata has recused herself from the case, so that issue would be decided by a different judge. In fact, if I get to make that argument (and I may not), I will argue the matter should be transferred to a different county so that a Maricopa County judge doesn’t get to decide whether one of their colleagues acted improperly.
but how can we trust someone who views their clients obvious FRAUD as “minor misstatements” and focuses on a detail you can’t prove Mata didn’t know beforehand. I know all the CVS Pharmacy’s in my city’s hours and i don’t need to google those… your logic isn’t logic-ing and i think this is your last stitch to hold onto ANY sort of control. if you just would have used some restraint and respected others, maybe you wouldn’t be in as big of a whole you are now. the trouble with the law, your career etc. i hope you look inward and try to make changes instead of blaming everyone else like your bestie trump.
you’re hyperfocusing on one thing you THINK Mata did wrong… (no proof of it, classic david), bc you don’t want to address all the violations YOU did for your criminal client. and you NEVER stick to your word, so why should we believe ANYTHING you say. From saying “this is my last video” for the last 1000000000 blog entries to you saying, “i’ll explain everything soon, but not now”- and never ever even explaining anything- you are, at best, lazy, or truly incompetent. keep gaslighting yourself by saying that you are the only right one, when the law disagrees. bc i have empathy, it makes me sad that someone threw away their law career & dignity for someone like laura, who, has already thrown you under the bus, despite what you tell yourself.
“no proof of it”…
Uh, I strongly disagree. But even if you were right, why would you have any objection to me finally seeing the proof you claim doesn’t exist?
I’m genuinely curious, how does Mata’s response help you against your charges? The charges are related to the disparaging, inappropriate and unprofessional comments against Mata that you don’t deny you made. Isn’t it less about the truth of the comments and more about the language you used that violated the professional rules of lawyers? Respectfully, it seems like you’re going down a side quest that doesn’t meaningfully address the language of the complaint.
The bar claims I lied about Mata, specifically with respect to the claims I made about her in the CJC complaint. I have said a billion times, I believe what I said was factually accurate. But the CJC claims to have looked at the evidence and concluded nothing bad happened. I don’t actually think that’s what they did….their dismissal notice said they did not think the evidence was “clear and convincing”. But what evidence did they consider? And what if Mata gave them a story that wasn’t true, but they just took her word for it? We have no idea if the CJC reached the right conclusion unless we know what their conclusion was based on. The bottom line is that Mata either did what I claimed or she didn’t. If you don’t think hearing her side is necessary to understanding the truth, then I can’t say much more to help you.
Pingback: Some VERY Ominous News….Maybe? 🌩️ – Gingras Law Office, PLLC