Wilkes to use attorney for the indigent at trial.
By on Aug 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Wilkes to use attorney for the indigent at trial.
Contractor Brent Wilkes, who was charged with “fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars in government contracts” in the Duke Cunningham scandal, “will have an attorney paid for by taxpayers.” Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office protested that Wilkes should not be allowed to have an attorney that represents the indigent, “noting that the defense contractor is believed to have greatly profited from his alleged crimes.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Very Republican of him.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amHmmm… and how much will an attorney like that know about a complicated fraud case? Just asking. The lawyer in question might be an excellent defender, but still, if I were Mr. Wilkes, I’d be spending some money on a more experienced legal team.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:46 amcute.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:47 amExcellent! Knowing the competency of Public Defenders, we should expect a long, long prison term. :)
August 21st, 2007 at 11:51 amThe “have’s” and the “have more’s” feeding at the public trough. It’s the right-wing way.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:56 amwe should expect a long, long prison term. :)
Comment by nostrafarious — August 21, 2007 @ 11:51 am
My point, exactly, ESPECIALLY if the attorney in question was a Republican appointee. Hopefully, a Regent grad! :-D!!!
August 21st, 2007 at 11:57 amThis would be effing hilarious if it wasn’t our tax dollars going to pay for this scumbucket’s defense.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amWilkes lawyer was Mark Geragos (who defended Scott Peterson and, for a while, Michael Jackson). Geragos was removed from the case last month after Geragos refused to undergo a background check that would allow him to see classified information in preparation for trial.
Now, if Wilkes can afford Geragos, why does he need a tax payer provided attorney?
The article does say the law allows Judge Burns to revisit his decision and he also could later order Wilkes to reimburse the government for the lawyer.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amahh special treatment for the privileged again. Indigent? This guy was involved in war profittering in obtaining huge defense contracts. How in the heck is this guy now considered poor? The same ones that bemoan social services and nonprofits then twist it for their own self interest when they need it most.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amMan standing at busy intersection, holding cardboard sign:
“Please help, need money for Brent Wilkes Defense Fund”
August 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pmMy point, exactly, ESPECIALLY if the attorney in question was a Republican appointee. Hopefully, a Regent grad! :-D!!!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 21, 2007 @ 11:57 am
August 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pmActually with the high case load and low pay of public defenders that would be considered too much like REAL work for a Regent Grad. It would actually require those people to come into contact with a very diverse clientele that would completely crush all their stereotypes.
I’d love to get a look at the SWORN application for public defender.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pmJerry Lewis & Duncan Hunter may have something to say about this…
or not.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pmIt would actually require those people to come into contact with a very diverse clientele that would completely crush all their stereotypes.
Comment by chad — August 21, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Good point.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pmHurry, Brent! The Dukester is lonely in that bare, cold cell. hehe
August 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pmMaybe it’s a liquidity problem? Did he tie up ALL his money in the Caymans?
August 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pmHey, I just cant wait to see how V V, Jason and m12 will cover for this responsible righty ramrod of morality and family values!
Okay, I’m betting they wont.
BWAH!!
August 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pmGood point.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 21, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmThanks I have them every now and then.
My wife was actually a juvenile public defender and just about everyone she dealt with was a democrat as it is hard to get personally involved with all your cases and not have some empathy for what circumstances that brought them to this point. Stereotypes usually take the worst possible view of culture and spread it over everyone. Seeing the world in absolutes is very limiting to people who see such diversity within culture.
Well maybe he got his salad tossed and is somewhat intogents.
Oh my bad, they said ‘indigent’
Silly me.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pmMy wife was actually a juvenile public defender and just about everyone she dealt with was a democrat
Eh? I don’t know many juveniles that give a hoot about politics. Is that on a form somewhere?
August 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pmWhat’s that old saying? A liberal is conservative who just got arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged…
August 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmVery Republican of him.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 21, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Yeah, that whole personal responsibility thing Republicans like to talk about.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pmHe is tying his own noose. Everyone knows people with public defenders are always convicted and always do time.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pmcould later order Wilkes to reimburse the government for the lawyer.
I
August 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pmI wonder if the government accepts luxury yachts in payment?
August 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pmI wonder if the government accepts luxury yachts in payment?
Comment by RUCerious — August 21, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Seeing how badly the Bush Admin is taking on water these days, I suspect they’re interested in anything that can float.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pmwhere are all the trolls who were so upset with taxpayers’ money being spent on healthcare for children?
August 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pmI thought the trolls could defend anything done by the Republicans. I guess not.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm**snort**
Has anyone been able to comment on the thread above? Every time I try, I get nulled out.
Oh the irony…..
August 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pmI sure hope he doesn’t get one of those drunk public defenders that sleeps through trials. or not.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pmeveryone is entitled to a defense. If this moron wants to roll the dice with a public defender, God bless him.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pmWhat?
August 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pmNo fellow defense contractors coming to aid one of their own?
As is his right – a right that should never be denied… I just wonder if this is to set stage for an appeal on the grounds that the attorney inadaquetly represented him.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pmMaybe Scooter has some money left over
August 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pmfrom his defense fund Brent can borrow.
he’s just sticking to time-honored conservative principles: rob from the poor and give to the rich
August 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pmMaybe he should ask The Honorable Duke Cunninghams lawyer for advice. (or maybe the Honorable Mark Foley’s)
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:32 amLuckily, this group has barely any membership and most vets are totally behind Bush and the war. Freshly, TP dares post an article about a Republican misspeaking or making a verbal flub, yet the Demoncrats feature many more prominent imbeciles on their side. For instance, consider Reid who says the war is lost; Dick Durbin who compares Gitmo with Soviet gulags; Mulatto Obama for saying he’d bomb the ally Pakistan while leaving Iraq to terrorists; and Bill Richardson for blaming gays for being responsible for choosing to be gay.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pmIraq/Afghanistan Veterans of America is a front group for major anti-war rhetoric, though they deceptively hide behind the veneer of being a group that supports vets.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pmThis group is a menacing group that hides its anti-war agenda behind the gentle facade of “supporting” vets;
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pmwhat they mean by “support” is to undercut the war by focusing
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pmon army suicides and
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 pmIraq/Afghanistan Veterans of America is a front group for major anti-war rhetoric, though they deceptively hide behind the veneer of being a group that supports vets. This group is a menacing group that hides its anti-war agenda behind the gentle facade of “supporting” vets; what they mean by “support” is to undercut the war by focusing on army suicides and complaining about the alleged lack of healthcare to vets. Luckily, this group has barely any membership and most vets are totally behind Bush and the war. Freshly, TP dares post an article about a Republican misspeaking or making a verbal flub, yet the Demoncrats feature many more prominent imbeciles on their side. For instance, consider Reid who says the war is lost; Dick Durbin who compares Gitmo with Soviet gulags; Mulatto Obama for saying he’d bomb the ally Pakistan while leaving Iraq to terrorists; and Bill Richardson for blaming gays for being responsible for choosing to be gay.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pmIraq/Afghanistan Veterans of America is run and founded by vets, you retard. This is a far cry from right wing “concerned women” and “concerned people of color” front groups who have nothing but old white guys on thier
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 amboard of directors