Wednesday, December 24, 2014

HOLIDAY HIJINKS! January 6, 2015 Motion Hearing Set In Bradley Lawyer Switcheroo Scheme; Will Mark Satawa Replace Both Court-Appointed Attorneys? And Will The Judge Require Bradley To Explain Under Oath Where He's Suddenly Acquired The Money To Pay For His New Mouthpiece?

BREAKING NEWS! Indigent Roy Bradley seeks to replace both court-appointed attorneys! 

Legal monkey wrench could delay Steve Ingersoll's upcoming federal fraud trial...what a surprise!

It's not over yet, folks!

US District Judge Thomas L. Ludington has ordered Elias Escobedo and Richard H. Morgan, Jr., Roy Bradley's court-appointed attorneys, to appear at a motion hearing on January 6, 2015.

Ludington ordered the hearing in response to motions filed by both Escobedo and Morgan on December 23 to withdraw as Bradley's respective legal representatives, paving the way for Southfield attorney Mark Satawa to represent Bradley in both cases.

Prior to his asbestos trial, Bradley testified “under oath” that he was “financially unable to afford counsel”, and submitted a financial affidavit attesting that he could not afford to retain an attorney on his own dime. Ludington’s December 22 order noted that “Mr. Satawa’s stipulation does not explain how, eight months after the (fraud) Indictment was filed, Defendant Bradley can now afford to retain counsel.” 

Hmmm? Miss Fortune's wondering the same thing!

And, if Bradley's suddenly found a pot of cash, he clearly hasn't used it to pay off any of his debts — like nearly $235,000 owed to the IRS!  
Here's the asbestos case legal timeline:

-Escobedo was appointed by the court to represent Bradley in his asbestos removal-related case on May 20, 2014. 

-The federal jury trial began on November 18.

-November 25: Bradley attempted to substitute new counsel, but the request was denied by Ludington. Escobedo continued representating Bradley through the balance of the trial. 

-December 12: Mark A. Satawa’s office informed Escobedo that he had been “retained by Mr. Bradley” and wished to file a “stipulation for substitution of counsel”. Escobedo concurred, and “on information and belief Mr. Satawa’s office submitted the pleading to the Court.”

-December 12: Bradley (through his newly-minted attorney Satawa) filed a “motion to vacate judgment and grant a new trial”. 

-December 22: Ludington issued an order “rejecting stipulation for substitution of counsel and striking unauthorized filings.” 

-December 22: Bradley contacts Escobedo and requests that he file an “instant motion for withdrawal of representation”, paving the way for Satawa to represent him in the asbestos conviction appeal and the upcoming Steven Ingersoll/Bay City Academy bank loan federal fraud case. 

Asserting in his December 23 motion that “there has been a breakdown in the attorney client relationship such that it is in the interest of justice to allow the undersigned counsel to withdraw, and either new counsel be appointed or retained to complete representation of defendant in this matter”, Escobedo revealed he was so hot to ditch Bradley as a client that he'd “left a voicemail for Assistant United States Attorney Janet Parker seeking concurrence with the relief requested”.

Escobedo's call was not returned by Parker prior to his motion filing. 


In his December 23 motion to withdraw as counsel in Bradley's Ingersoll-related Bay City Academy bank loan fraud case, Morgan revealed that Bradley informed him that he had retained new counsel and subsequently received a letter dated December 22, 2014, by e-mail from Defendant requesting that I withdraw from his case.

Morgan claims in his motion there is a total breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and states that he does not feel that he can adequately and properly represent Bradley.

This thing stinks...like a year-old fruitcake!

No comments:

Post a Comment