She's not denied counsel, she's more than welcome to hire private counsel should she wish, however, what she is denied is wasting any more tax payers dollars.
James Owens Esq has "been retained". Told the judge he's pro bono, told the media Sarah "owes" him, and that her victim's brother is detained for murdering his girlfriend.
And then Owens files a motion to declare Sarah indecent for costs and he states he has agreed to take the case pro Bono. He tells the press he is NOT pro Bono then on 9/4 files a motion with the court claiming he has agreed to represent Boone Pro Bono. What is he up to?
I think some people are confused thinking she lost her right to council/attorney. She lost her right to a free attorney paid for by the state not the right to have an attorney. A lot of people say she lost her right to counsel but they should say lost her right to court appointed counsel. She can hire an attorney & pay for it herself.
So her plan was to get blackout drunk, then get Jorge wasted, then somehow knock Jorge out (one of the hardest things to do let alone while intoxicated), then stuff him into a suitcase (again sloppy drunk moving a 140lb man), then drag him down the stairs and then start recording a video saying how he's abused you unprompted. Finally you go to sleep wake up mess around in bed for 3hrs go downstairs call your ex husband freaking out. Wait until he gets there he looks through her door confirms to her he's dead, then asks him what to do he's reefers her to 911. She then promptly starts lying because she doesn't know what she actually did or what happened smh. But because she's so stupid in terms of common sense, narcissistic and lacks awareness of people's perception of her she assumes no guilt or responsibility. Then she volunteers to talk to the police also bringing a list of questions lol and she again promptly starts lying to the police because she hasn't the slightest clue of what happened to Jorge or how he got in there but she believes she can talk her way out of it. Then the police show her a video of her taunting Jorge in the suitcase. Then she starts freaking out and is totally blindsided because what do you know she didn't remember recording it. Because if she did it'd be deleted or never even recorded in the first place lol. Then she sits in jail for 4 years going through 8 attorney's frustrating everyone along the way during the process. Yeah she's a regular ole stone cold diabolical murder smh lol. Manslaughter 20 year minimum of which 25% will be time served. Extended supervision for remaining sentence no alcohol and must pay 30k in restitution (not including civil liability) and 50k in court cost and fees. Sarah's wasted enough people's time and money, her wasting away in jail serves no one especially Jorges kid's. Heck I'd make her pay off the rest of Jorges child support fees too. I'd rather her working and paying back her debt and if she doesn't jail will be there waiting there for her. I want accountability and financial responsibility this was clearly an accident but this woman has sucked the financial soul and literal energy from everyone she's come into contact with smh. It's time for this chick to pay what she's sponged off for year's
@@hilriekemp Writing all of that was a waste of time. She simply had the suitcase out, got in a festive mood with him, and started drinking. She then suggested he get in the suitcase as a game, and then zipped him up. Who said she was drunk? The killer? I do not believe a killer, especially with the video EVIDENCE! That was premeditated. She did not go upstairs and start drinking and became drunk, and forgot him. Listen to her own words, she wanted him dead.
@@justanotherguy469 are you mental? Lol is this you're 1st day on planet earth smh. Do you know what an alcoholic is or looks like lol. Man you people baffle and amuse me lol all the over emotion, vitriol and hate over a man's death that was assisted by his own hand. And Sarah Boone was fully cognitive when she was slurring her speech and then left the only piece of self incriminating evidence on her phone for god and everyone in the world to see? What a muppet lol
If Ms. Boone has voluntarily fired at least some of her appointed lawyers, then *hasn't* she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to counsel -- at least in the sense that the court means it; I'm not commenting on her mental capacity. She doesn't have a constitutional right to the counsel of her choice... she has a right to SOME counsel, that's legally qualified to represent her in the court where she's being tried. So if she's choosing not to accept the counsel she has been offered, she has chosen not to accept counsel. I've seen that brought up repeatedly in other courts, where defendants demand to fire their court-appointed attorney and have a new one appointed that they like better, and the judge basically tells them, "No -- you don't get to choose your court-appointed attorney. You can either take the one we've assigned you, or you can go pro se, those are your options." So why isn't it the case here? Why would they have given her eight tries in the first place? And once they reach the point where they've stopped offering her new tries, why are they treating this as forfeiting, instead of voluntarily giving up, her right to counsel? It looks to me as if she gave it up voluntarily whenever the court said she didn't have the right to infinite more choices and she said she didn't want her most recent lawyer anyway.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 Thanks! I did do some additional reading about this case (I wanted to see who her 9th lawyer was, having heard that she'd actually found one), and discovered that mostly, her lawyers appear to have chosen to quit rather than her choosing to fire them. I'm not sure if all of them did that, or only most of them... but I can understand a little better why the court was so patient with letting her keep trying new lawyers, if they were technically the ones to leave. Don't get me wrong... it's still high time she's been told, "Nope -- after enough tries that are ended because of your own bad behavior, you don't get to keep trying indefinitely!" But at least there's some difference between willfully firing her lawyers and simply being so horrible a client that her lawyers fire *her* instead. Even if, in the end, the answer to either one needs to be "It's been enough already."
@norarivkis2513 OK, tbf, three or four of the attorneys had conflict of intrest issues. The 7th lawyer, Frank Bankowitz: Sarah started writing the judge and making accusations. I believe most of them are untrue and provably so. Number 8 the lady lawyer: among Sarah's list of complaints about her "not being nice" Sarah accused the lawyer of having lied to her. When the judge asked her specifically what the lawyer had lied about, Sarah didn't say and changed the subject. So although the exact words "you're fired" or "I want to be Pro Se" never left Sarah's mouth, I believe the accusations against her lawyers were serious enough to have a mounted to the same thing. Just in: Sarah just picked up another lawyer so Owens has co-counsel. SKR has a 4 and 1/2 hour long reading of all the letters Sarah has sent the judge if you're interested. ❤
Sarah didn’t fire any of the attorneys. She forced them to have to withdraw for ethical reasons, irreconcilable differences, adversarial relationship etc, etc, etc.
The issue seems to be moot. Sarah Boone now has two lawyers representing her for the trial at no cost to the State of Florida. They answered her "ad" and the case is going forward on October 7, as scheduled..
She has an attorney. The real issue is SB is refusing to work with attorneys in what my opinion, Is to stall the case. Yes this could be an appeal issue but a case needs to be tried before an appeal can come into play. I don't know how often this happens where a defendant refuses to work with an attorney.
Yeah, I saw that. We'll see how long he lasts. I'm giving him a couple of weeks at most. It looks to me like he's an opportunist trying to seek some exposure for taking a "tough" case to generate more business. But, he could just be a guy who feels sorry for the woman (but I hope he's smart enough not to get into a suitcase if she asks). Also, this was my birthday week, and my wife and I have been traveling. Sometimes I set things out to run while I am away from my studio, and sometimes events overtake the videos. Oh well...
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 I think the weight of the situation, and the sheer possibility of being forced back into pro se, should be enough to allow her to be self-contained enough to not let this guy leave. She apparently had a scream fight w/ him even before he took the case, so I think he already knows how to handle the situation. I saw an interview he gave, and to be honest, I was expecting a "Saul Goodman" kinda guy, but my first impression was that he was quite respectful (if not a little naïve perhaps, thinking he'll get paid in the future), and had his heart in the right place. Let's see how it goes out, though.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 I saw the interview he (Sarahs new attorney)did. He really seems to be a bit of an idiot. If you don't believe me, watch the interview. You'll surely understand why I'm saying that about him then.
The right to counsel does not impose an unlimited obligation on the courts. For all the technicalities cited, the judge has to uphold the right of the state to present a case and the defendant to a speedy trial. A speedy trial is equally a constitutional right. A judge has an obligation to balance those rights.
when she appeals over this will it work for her considering the charges and clear evidence that will never change the results of the trial anyway? does she need to prove there is new evidence or just do the constitutional appeal over this? this has been a mess
No it means if you abuse 4 attorneys and spend 4 years mucking around the Court can stop wasting time and money by the State - and the Miranda Rights do only say one not 8!
@@SconesAndTea Pretty much everything about her is inflated in someway or another. I don’t think she’s gonna make a very good Jerry impression. And I think that if she tries the battered spouse defense, it will backfire.
Well given that there has been a motion filed trying to preclude her from using the battered spouse argument with the argument that she claimed Jorge’s death as accidental I tend to agree.
@@andyiswonderful If a defendant can afford to hire a lawyer, the court does not get involved with appointing one. A defendant has the right to proceed without counsel, although it's not a good idea.
Had a bottle of wine is closer to the truth. You keep referring to the eight lawyers, but two or three had conflicts of interest and one of those is counted twice. The one that is counted twice is the Public Defender. The PD was initially appointed, but Boone obtained private counsel the next day. The PD then withdrew without having done anything substantive on the case. A year later, when the private counsel quit, the PD was assigned again. The PD determined that they had represented the victim, so withdrew for conflict of interest, again without having done anything substantive on the case.
Unless I'm mistaken, she had 8 lawyers before becoming pro se: LaBar, Padilla, Forrester, Varet, Consalo, Bankowitz, Hobson, and Cashman. James Owens (with co-counsel Kevin Beck) is #9.
@@yanaKart- Only Padilla, Bankowitz, Hobson, and Cashman did substantive work on her case. That's my point. The Public Defender, who is counred twice, did nothing of substance.
I’ve not watched DB footage. Is it really as astounding as SPBs??? I never thought her jackassery could be matched. (No, really… The blatant perjury!!! It’s truly fascinating to watch the audacity and entitlement.)
he was absolutely belligerent. judge removed him from the courtroom into another empty courtroom a couple of times. Sarah is not belligerent, she is annoying. He was yelling OBJECTION and GROUNDS over and over and over. it was pretty entertaining.
Here is an example of DB's foolishness. As a "sovereign citizen" he said that nobody knew it was Darrell Brooks driving because nobody knew the name Darrell Brooks. So he said to a witness he was "cross examining", he said "How did you know it was Darrell Brooks who ran across your yard" and the man pointed at Darrell Brooks and said "It was you" so Darrell Brooks asked again, he got the same answer. So his defence was that nobody said it was Darrell Brooks driving the vehicle as he drove the vehicle, nor did they know the name Darrell Brooks when he was running away. So he was saying that they can't say it was him if they did not know at the time he was Darrell Brooks.
Sounds like you are a believer in the crap that spews forth daily from CNN. You know, CNN has many times clearly and obviously stated that they don't like Trump so like a Nazi, made false stories against Trump and were used to force this propaganda. Mark Zuckerberg finally came out and said the Biden's administration told him he had to monitor all texts and conversations and posts on Facebook. I want you to think clearly for a bit, if Mark Zuckerberg who owns the largest social media platform is told by the government to not allow certain things to be said and only show certain things, it is the same thing as the Nazis and Communists did. Used the media as a brainwashing tool. So you tell me, how are you now different than the Nazis? Calling Republicans as fascist Nazis while knowing you are, is a tactic in the book Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Here are 13 rules by Saul Alinsky with HIS quotes and tell me how you have not been manipulated into these ideas. Saul Alinsky quotes. 1. ‘Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.’ Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. 2. ‘Never go outside the expertise of your people.’ the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. 3. ‘Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.’ Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. 4. ‘Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.’ You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. 5. ‘*Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon* .’ It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. 6. ‘A good tactic is one your people enjoy.’ If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. 7. ‘A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.’ Man can *sustain militant interest* in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a *ritualistic commitment* , like going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one’s reaction becomes, “Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I’m all for the boycott, but after all, there are other important things in life”-and there it goes. 8. ‘Keep the pressure on. Never let up.’ [Use] different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. 9. ‘The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.’ 10. ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.’ It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action. 11. ‘If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside [positive].’ This is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi’s development of the tactic of passive resistance. 12. ‘The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.’ You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying ‘You’re right-we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’ 13. ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’ the opposition must be singled out as the target and “frozen.”…in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant…passing of the buck. …Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks… If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible. All of these have been tactics and here we have you attacking Trump in a comment section that has nothing to do with Trump, and you blindly say things that are wrong, so following the Democratic Party model, you do exactly as they want you to do. You are not thinking on your own.
What%?!?!?!?!?! Are you Dreaming?!?!?!?!? Looking for. Comfort?!?!?!?!?!?! Judge --- Sarah. Is asking for. Bacon and eggs and a toast. And orange. Juice For breakfast. And a steak for. Lunch and dinner with Wine!!!!!!!!!!!! , ,
I couldn't listen past 0:34. If you know so little about this case that you are presenting a pathological liar's false narrative as if it's fact, it isn't worth listening to.....
He is talking about the legality of the judge's decision, not whether or not Sarah is a liar or a murderer. We all know she was, but his focus is on one thing that the title says, can the judge legally do that ruling. The answer is yes. He said it is yes. He is not wanting your opinion on Sarah Boone personally. He is explaining court rules, laws and procedures.
@@johaquila Of course I know what supposedly means, but listen to the way JimCan'tSwim presents this same case. The way he does it is how this deliberate murder case should be presented. There is a problem that occurs when the media and RU-vidrs present a murder case by repeating the murderer's pathological lies as if this is what actually occurred. When a lie is repeated over and over, people begin to believe it. There are many people who believe that Sarah and Jorge were actually playing when they were in fact fighting, that Jorge actually put himself into the suitcase when Sarah put him in it, and that Sarah didn't INTENT to murder this man when her intent all along was to end his life.
