Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[bugeater17]

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You’re just imagining scenarios now. You don’t know whether they would interpret it as a benefit. People were talking about someone being his lawyer for free. Yes there are pro bono cases but I can’t see this as being the type of case a bunch of lawyers would be lining up to do for free if he weren’t a football player.

 

It is the NCAA’s business if he’s getting an improper benefit, because it’s against their rules. 

You’re wrong, this is actually a case lawyers would be interested in taking pro bono because of the inequality and injustice in the law. Prosecuting Mo the same as a person who produces, films, and distributes child porn is not just. Further, because of the newness of the revenge porn statute compared to other crimes on the books it gives an attorney the chance to get her/his feet wet on this issue and then claim to be the proverbial expert on the issue. 

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

You’re wrong, this is actually a case lawyers would be interested in taking pro bono because of the inequality and injustice in the law. Prosecuting Mo the same as a person who produces, films, and distributes child porn is not just. Further, because of the newness of the revenge porn statute compared to other crimes on the books it gives an attorney the chance to get her/his feet wet on this issue and then claim to be the proverbial expert on the issue. 

 

 

What % of people accused of revenge porn do you think get free lawyers?

[Gage County]

7 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

You’re wrong, this is actually a case lawyers would be interested in taking pro bono because of the inequality and injustice in the law. Prosecuting Mo the same as a person who produces, films, and distributes child porn is not just. Further, because of the newness of the revenge porn statute compared to other crimes on the books it gives an attorney the chance to get her/his feet wet on this issue and then claim to be the proverbial expert on the issue. 

 

MW isn't charges with revenge porn, he is charges with felony possession of a video of a person under 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, and a misdemeanor charge is sharing a recording without the person’s consent. 

 

I think this is the relevant section, but I could be wrong:

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 311.1

(a) Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses, prepares, publishes, produces, develops, duplicates, or prints any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, with intent to distribute or to exhibit to, or to exchange with, others, or who offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to, or exchanges with, others, any obscene matter, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct, as defined in Section 311.4, shall be punished either by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by the fine and imprisonment.

 

[bugeater17]

 

14 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

What % of people accused of revenge porn do you think get free lawyers?

 

What % of people accused of revenge porn have their case as publicized as Mo’s case?

[bugeater17]

2 minutes ago, Gage County said:

 

MW isn't charges with revenge porn, he is charges with felony possession of a video of a person under 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, and a misdemeanor charge is sharing a recording without the person’s consent. 

 

I think this is the relevant section, but I could be wrong:

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 311.1

(a) Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses, prepares, publishes, produces, develops, duplicates, or prints any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, with intent to distribute or to exhibit to, or to exchange with, others, or who offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to, or exchanges with, others, any obscene matter, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct, as defined in Section 311.4, shall be punished either by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by the fine and imprisonment.

 

You just quoted the statute for the felony charge... but what is misdemeanor charge you mention known as? 

[Gage County]

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

You just quoted the statute for the felony charge... but what is misdemeanor charge you mention known as? 

 

I'm gonna leave this one up to you to research.

[bugeater17]

8 minutes ago, Gage County said:

 

I'm gonna leave this one up to you to research.

It’s commonly known as the revenge porn law. 

[Gage County]

Ok, I'll prove you wrong

[Moiraine]

31 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

What % of people accused of revenge porn have their case as publicized as Mo’s case?

 

 

What does that have to do with my question, and why don't you answer my question?

But to comment on your question, the fact people know about Washington's case is an advantage for him in getting a free lawyer (except possibly for NCAA rules) that he wouldn't otherwise have without football, which is exactly the point I was trying to make. The NCAA isn't stopping him from getting something he would have had if he wasn't a football player, unless there's a highly likely chance he could get good, free representation if he was a complete unknown. Maybe there is a highly likely chance, but that's why I asked you what % of people get free representation for revenge porn cases.

[bugeater17]

14 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

What does that have to do with my question, and why don't you answer my question?

But to comment on your question, the fact people know about Washington's case is an advantage for him in getting a free lawyer (except possibly for NCAA rules) that he wouldn't otherwise have without football, which is exactly the point I was trying to make. The NCAA isn't stopping him from getting something he would have had if he wasn't a football player, unless there's a highly likely chance he could get good, free representation if he was a complete unknown. Maybe there is a highly likely chance, but that's why I asked you what % of people get free representation for revenge porn cases.

Your strawman argument should tip you off to the logical fallacy of your post -  but your post also misses the point of my response, which was in regards to your statement that this is not a case that lawyers would take pro bono. Large firms love these types of cases, as do some small practitioners, for the reasons I list above.

[Gage County]

23 minutes ago, Gage County said:

Ok, I'll prove you wrong

 

San Jose Mercury News says, "a misdemeanor count of distributing a private sexual video to cause emotional distress, a violation of what is commonly known as California’s “revenge porn” law."

 

Good thing I'm hungry...

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

Your strawman argument should tip you off to the logical fallacy of your post -  but your post also misses the point of my response, which was in regards to your statement that this is not a case that lawyers would take pro bono. Large firms love these types of cases, as do some small practitioners, for the reasons I list above.

 

I didn't miss the point at all, and I asked you what % of people accused of revenge porn get free lawyers, and you still haven't answered that. If the answer is 5%, Washington isn't losing his ability to get free representation due to the NCAA, because it would have been highly unlikely he would have gotten it if he wasn't a football player.

 

In order to argue the NCAA is having a negative effect on Washington's ability to get pro bono representation (due to it being an impermissible benefit), one needs to show that someone whose case is unknown could easily get pro bono representation. The NCAA/football is the main reason anyone knows who Maurice Washington is or that his case exists. He would not have the benefit of having the case known were it not for the NCAA, so we can't assume he would have the same benefit of pro bono representation were he an unknown, unless it's the case that there is a high % of unknown people accused of revenge porn getting free lawyers.

[JoeSakic2019]

1 hour ago, bugeater17 said:

 

 

What % of people accused of revenge porn have their case as publicized as Mo’s case?

Im guessing in California nobody knows about Mo Washingtons case.

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, JoeSakic2019 said:

Im guessing in California nobody knows about Mo Washingtons case.

 

 

There are lots of Nebraska fans in California, and if a lawyer suddenly decided to take on his case for free, it'd probably be because they know who he is due to football.

[bugeater17]

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

I didn't miss the point at all, and I asked you what % of people accused of revenge porn get free lawyers, and you still haven't answered that. If the answer is 5%, Washington isn't losing his ability to get free representation due to the NCAA, because it would have been highly unlikely he would have gotten it if he wasn't a football player.

 

In order to argue the NCAA is having a negative effect on Washington's ability to get pro bono representation (due to it being an impermissible benefit), one needs to show that someone whose case is unknown could easily get pro bono representation. The NCAA/football is the main reason anyone knows who Maurice Washington is or that his case exists. He would not have the benefit of having the case known were it not for the NCAA, so we can't assume he would have the same benefit of pro bono representation were he an unknown, unless it's the case that there is a high % of unknown people accused of revenge porn getting free lawyers.

 

Do you really think your question is a valid question? I mean come on, you ask it because there is no way of proving the response. I could say 90% and neither you nor I would be able to prove the other wrong. Is that really what your after? 

 

And yes, you do miss the point of my post. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. But since you continue to miss the point of my post I will repeat once again. You stated lawyers wouldn’t take this case pro bono. You in fact are wrong because it is 1) unjust to charge Mo the same as an actual producer of child porn - so social advocates would have interest; and 2) it is a highly publicized case that deals with a fairly new law - large law firms would love to sign it up and assign to a new associate to handle - the partner then takes credit if successful and gains other clients in the future because he is then deemed an “expert” on this law.