[phaus]

>This is false.

No its not. You are moving the goalposts. Obviously people can hire whatever lawyer they can afford and potentially change lawyers if they have a valid grievance that a judge agrees is a reason to allow it. They can also opt to attempt to defend themselves. In either case, the judge would probably tell you that its an incredibly stupid decision that you should reconsider in a very kind attempt to prevent you from ruining your life.

There's a significant difference between "I can make my lawyer do whatever I want them to do because the law says they have to" and "I can get a new lawyer if my current lawyer doesn't agree with me."

[VWWHFSfQ]

If a public defender demonstrates a pattern of failing to provide adequate representation then they can be reprimanded by the court which carries both a legal and ethical consequence. So the point about the attorney not being legally or ethically required to represent the client as they wish is simply false.

[phaus]

>failing to provide adequate representation

This means they have to put an honest and significant effort into defending you to the best of their ability. They are responsible for the quality of their work, which is why they don't generally let the clients dictate the details of how they work or the overall strategy because the clients don't know what the fuck they are doing in virtually all cases where a lawyer isn't on trial.

You keep trying to change the situations you are talking about and then pretend that they are the same.

[jasonv]

Isn’t this post popular because it’s not really seen here as a real defense? Or, if it’s real for her, it should be real for others. Meaning, it’s exceptional.. meaning, not likely to be a successful tactic by a PD.

[phaus]

It should be a real defense for mentally ill people that have conditions that make them somehow less culpable for their actions, regardless of wealth.

I wouldn't be surprised if Holmes is a sociopath, she perpetually has a classic crazy person bug-eyed look that you only get from being constantly on coke, being a fanatical religious nut, or from being severely mentally ill. Additionally, in public she purposefully talks 100% of the time in a laughably fake deep voice that she thinks makes her sound more masculine and powerful. There's a podcast where she accidentally broke character for a couple of seconds and sounded like a normal woman. The rest of the time she sounds like Kylo Ren. That's supposedly another thing that sociopaths do.

Its crazy that so many smart people fell for her con. She was obviously a creepy, random lunatic trying really hard to pull off a Steve Jobs act. As a layperson it seemed pretty obvious that the technology she claimed to have invented was probably impossible. Shame on anyone that's actually in the medical industry that bought into it.

And then there's her criminal actions, the lying, and the complete lack of remorse.

Unfortunately for her pretty much no civilized society thinks that sociopaths shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. So unless she convinces people she has an unrelated mental illness (which is what the article makes it sound like she's trying to do), its not going to be a good defense.