[gcb1]

no. no. no. the judge's trust talk was a falacy time waster.

- give me your bank password so i can get the $5 you own me.

- why dont i give you a check for $5?

- so i have to trust your check is good but you cant trust me with your bank password?

see? it is just crazy talk to push him around. the judge knows here his/her obedience rests. he is not even listening to the defense.

[plorg]

What if it was more like

- You owe me $25

- I only keep my money in bitcoin

- Well, I don't do that bitcoin thing, and I don't really want to set a whole thing just to transfer the money

- OK, I could get it for you in cash, but you'll have to give me a few days

...a few days later

- Uhh...so about that money

- Oh, haven't gotten around to transferring that

- OK, but I could use it. Or, I could borrow your phone and talk to Steve: he'll trade me cash for bitcoin.

- But then you could take all of my bitcoins.

- I'm not going to do that

- But I can't trust you

- Then why should I trust you to pay me?

[scintill76]

Agreed, I feel like Levison lost a lot of credibility and damaged his case by dragging his feet initially. However when the judge said "why should we trust you?" he didn't explicitly tie it into that history. Perhaps in context it was a given. It seemed the opposing attorney immediately after argued that Levison couldn't be trusted, because he'd delayed on prior orders, and the judge agreed.

[darkarmani]

That and the whole power imbalance. He has no recourse if the gov't lies to him, but if he lies or covers up evidence he will be ground beneath the wheels of justice.