Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bballcoach

Battisti tried ruining case against driver who killed Harper Stantz

Recommended Posts

A big rumor going around the west side of Binghamton.  According to neighbors who talked to police officers, Paul Battisti rushed to the police station to instruct the driver who killed Harper Stantz and injured Britney Laserinko not to cooperate with police or take the blood test. And Battisti apparently isn't even the attorney defending the killer. This entire thing stinks, and there's hundreds of west siders who are livid.

Anyone who was undecided...…. KORCHAK FOR DA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard jokes about this but wasn't aware it was about this case. If true, I'd be interested to know if he was covering for other local attorneys with schedule conflicts or just paddy-wagon-chasing.

Battisti's camp has had to censor his social media extensively to hide how much of the community has a beef with him - something he won't be able to do as District Attorney without exposing taxpayers to Section 1983 lawsuits.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from a scumbag lawyer? Especially one who advertised in the past to defend these types of losers with the tag line "if you have a phone, you have an lawyer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lawyer gave spot-on legal advice to a person charged (or about to be charged) with a crime. That deserves praise, not criticism.

Every person has a right to legal counsel. It is one of the most important stones in the foundation of our country. And it's a lawyer's job to do it. I get that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but it's part of the job, and a very important one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OTR said:

A lawyer gave spot-on legal advice to a person charged (or about to be charged) with a crime. That deserves praise, not criticism.

Every person has a right to legal counsel. It is one of the most important stones in the foundation of our country. And it's a lawyer's job to do it. I get that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but it's part of the job, and a very important one at that.

It’s the job of a defense attorney, but not someone actively running for District Attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree fully about a persons right to legal counsel, the idea that Battisti would “rush to the police station” etc. (if even true) certainly would make some of us question his motivation for doing so. 

The scumbag who hit those girls deserves no sympathy in my book. None. And he certainly doesn’t deserve someone to actively “look out for him”, or rush to his side offering legal counsel. 

He deserves to be left to his own accord, in his drug induced stupor, to figure it out. Meanwhile, the police should be allowed to extract every bit of evidence possible to be used against him in a court of law.

He has the right to legal counsel.

But he deserves everything he’s got coming. And then some.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No OTR, that does NOT deserve praise!

I get what you're saying about everyone has the right to legal counsel.....No question.

BUT, this guy is running for the DAs office and the first thought that comes to his mind when this happens is to go help the person that just literally mowed down two beautiful young girls.

SERIOUSLY?

Again, I get your point, but the optics on this for Battisti are absolutely HORRENDOUS!!!

So, therefore I have to agree with Seamus...………………………….Scumbag!

And that label is nothing unfamiliar to Battisti...………………..he wears it well!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want, but I don't think it's a good idea to take the  guy who defended  (attempted to justify in court) the actions of (not so) little Joe Zikuski III, and elevate him to a position with such responsibilities as those involved with the Office of the DA.  This dude is Matt Ryan 2.0.

He has not shown public safety to be priority, and seems more concerned with lining his pockets instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Property & Casualty said:

Say what you want, but I don't think it's a good idea to take the  guy who defended  (attempted to justify in court) the actions of (not so) little Joe Zikuski III, and elevate him to a position with such responsibilities as those involved with the Office of the DA.

There may be plenty of reasons to not elect the guy, but "I'm not fond of some of his former customers" isn't a particularly strong one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Battisti involve himself in any new cases right now? If god forbid he is elected he would have a conflict with any case he’s involved with now, and all his former clients.  All of these cases would be assigned to special prosecutors and cost the county money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OTR said:

There may be plenty of reasons to not elect the guy, but "I'm not fond of some of his former customers" isn't a particularly strong one.

You’re wrongly assuming that I dislike the now deceased Mr Zikuski.  That is not the case at all.  I just don’t think it wise to take someone who has accepted money to defend the indefensible, and make them the DA.  It would be like taking former Public Defender Matt Ryan and making him DA.  I’ve got to question whether someone like that would pursue justice, or give us more Jussie Smollet type criminal coddling BS.  That’s my opinion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OTR said:

There may be plenty of reasons to not elect the guy, but "I'm not fond of some of his former customers" isn't a particularly strong one.

The issue, OTR, isn't that a local attorney was trying to give this guy effective counsel, but that - if true - it's another story that fills in the reputation that's dogged Battisti for years.

An otherwise upstanding attorney acting as a zealous representative is one interpretation. A remora who zealously attaches itself to anything it thinks it can suck a dollar out of, then hangs people out to dry when it's taken all it can skim out of the situation, is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, OTR said:

There may be plenty of reasons to not elect the guy, but "I'm not fond of some of his former customers" isn't a particularly strong one.

 

What's that saying about the company you keep says a lot about a person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 12:02 PM, OTR said:

A lawyer gave spot-on legal advice to a person charged (or about to be charged) with a crime. That deserves praise, not criticism.

Every person has a right to legal counsel. It is one of the most important stones in the foundation of our country. And it's a lawyer's job to do it. I get that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but it's part of the job, and a very important one at that.

I have to agree with OTR on this one. Having worked with both prosecutors and public defenders, both are equally important to the fair and proper administration of justice.  Believe me, public defenders don't always like their clients at all and don't always believe their stories, but it is their job to provide adequate representation.

Saying that a public defender or defense attorney should not run for DA is equally wrong...if anything, having worked the other side might be an advantage ;)

That being said, Korchak is to my mind the obvious best choice, by far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, M_Sable said:

I have to agree with OTR on this one. Having worked with both prosecutors and public defenders, both are equally important to the fair and proper administration of justice.  Believe me, public defenders don't always like their clients at all and don't always believe their stories, but it is their job to provide adequate representation.

Saying that a public defender or defense attorney should not run for DA is equally wrong...if anything, having worked the other side might be an advantage ;)

That being said, Korchak is to my mind the obvious best choice, by far.

 

 

I've also worked with both sides.  And having a guy running for DA, with a primary election a couple months away, run down to a police station, to tell a scumbag who killed a young girl with his car not to cooperate, infuriates me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Property & Casualty said:

You’re wrongly assuming that I dislike the now deceased Mr Zikuski.  That is not the case at all.  I just don’t think it wise to take someone who has accepted money to defend the indefensible, and make them the DA.  It would be like taking former Public Defender Matt Ryan and making him DA.  I’ve got to question whether someone like that would pursue justice, or give us more Jussie Smollet type criminal coddling BS.  That’s my opinion.

Heh... no, I am not assuming that you liked, disliked, or even knew Zikuski. I was pointing out the irrationality of your position by trying to highlight the emotional element of it.

As I said earlier, there have been plenty of reasons posted on this forum that may be very good reasons to not elect this guy. But the fact that he did his job correctly isn't one of them.

23 hours ago, Bingoloid said:

The issue, OTR, isn't that a local attorney was trying to give this guy effective counsel, but that - if true - it's another story that fills in the reputation that's dogged Battisti for years.

An otherwise upstanding attorney acting as a zealous representative is one interpretation. A remora who zealously attaches itself to anything it thinks it can suck a dollar out of, then hangs people out to dry when it's taken all it can skim out of the situation, is another.

I totally understand what you guys are saying, and why you feel the way you do. But it is nonetheless irrational and illogical. You're grasping at anything that might objectively justify your position, and it's not working. Look at your post here: "It's not that he did a good job as a lawyer, it's that it looks like he was trying to drum up business!" Ummmmm... seems like maybe you didn't think that one through either. I'm guessing you still shop at <grocery store X> despite the fact that they advertise their business and make sales designed to draw you in to the store... a.k.a. drumming up business.

(That said, this whole thing doesn't sound like drumming up business. It sounds like Battisti knew someone who knew the scumbag, and a favor was called in - "can you get down to the jail and give my son some legal advice" kind of thing. Save me the post of feigned offense at this, it's an equally irrational approach).

You guys have lots of solid points against Battisti. This thread ain't one of them. In fact, it is really harming the credibility of the other points that have been made. Makes folks here look like a bunch of petty people with an axe to grind instead of involved citizens with reasonable concerns. You want Battisti elected? Keep this thread at the top of the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OTR said:

I'm guessing you still shop at <grocery store X> despite the fact that they advertise their business and make sales designed to draw you in to the store... a.k.a. drumming up business.

That would depend on what else I know about the grocery store running the ads, wouldn't it?

Bear in mind, I didn't bring it up, and I don't disagree with anything you're saying - including that it's a reach. I do, however, empathize with why people are grossed out.

Personally, my opinion is that Battisti is precisely the caliber of attorney Wilcox should be stuck with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/27/2019 at 11:05 PM, Property & Casualty said:

Say what you want, but I don't think it's a good idea to take the  guy who defended  (attempted to justify in court) the actions of (not so) little Joe Zikuski III, and elevate him to a position with such responsibilities as those involved with the Office of the DA.  This dude is Matt Ryan 2.0.

He has not shown public safety to be priority, and seems more concerned with lining his pockets instead.  

 

On 3/28/2019 at 1:17 AM, OTR said:

There may be plenty of reasons to not elect the guy, but "I'm not fond of some of his former customers" isn't a particularly strong one.

 

On 3/28/2019 at 12:24 PM, Property & Casualty said:

You’re wrongly assuming that I dislike the now deceased Mr Zikuski.  That is not the case at all.  I just don’t think it wise to take someone who has accepted money to defend the indefensible, and make them the DA.  It would be like taking former Public Defender Matt Ryan and making him DA.  I’ve got to question whether someone like that would pursue justice, or give us more Jussie Smollet type criminal coddling BS.  That’s my opinion.   

 

9 hours ago, OTR said:

Heh... no, I am not assuming that you liked, disliked, or even knew Zikuski.  I was pointing out the irrationality of your position by trying to highlight the emotional element of it.

Given that Mr Zikuski is the only one that I mentioned, which of Battisti's former customers are you assuming "I'm not fond of..."?  

 What is the emotional element of my response that you are referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 6:58 AM, Ted Williams said:

 

I've also worked with both sides.  And having a guy running for DA, with a primary election a couple months away, run down to a police station, to tell a scumbag who killed a young girl with his car not to cooperate, infuriates me.  

Agreed. There is a discussion about the rule of law, and an entirely separate discussion about suitability for office. Fair 'nuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, M_Sable said:

Agreed. There is a discussion about the rule of law, and an entirely separate discussion about suitability for office. Fair 'nuff?

perfectly said.... A lawyer has to do what a lawyer does, not that I agree..  I can never understand how a lawyer sleeps at night after he get gets a defendant off for a serious crime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, a taxpayer said:

perfectly said.... A lawyer has to do what a lawyer does, not that I agree..  I can never understand how a lawyer sleeps at night after he get gets a defendant off for a serious crime...

What's worse than a bus full of lawyers going over a cliff?

An empty seat ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 10:08 PM, Property & Casualty said:

Given that Mr Zikuski is the only one that I mentioned, which of Battisti's former customers are you assuming "I'm not fond of..."?  

 What is the emotional element of my response that you are referring to?

The part where you discard logic and rationality. The part where you deign a lawyer unfit for office because he represented shady people. You know, that thing that lawyers do.

If you were looking at it rationally, you wouldn't consider the identities of a lawyer's former customers to have any bearing on whether or not he is fit for some other position. His performance for those customers, sure - but not the customers themselves. What you are doing is reacting with emotion. His former customers really offend you, or tick you off, or whatever, and you have associated those feelings with Battisti, and you are using that association as justification for why he should not be elected.

That isn't a logical, rational approach. It's an irrational, emotional approach. There's nothing wrong with having such an approach, but let's not pretend it's anything other than emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Battisti's former clients, I'll just leave this right here.

deabay.png.33f994f85ebf03f4b68851cef9d3c8f6.png

Then there was this lad: https://casetext.com/case/mcintyre-v-battisti

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Battisti was generally unresponsive to his needs, refusing to meet with him - while he was incarcerated and in-person while he was released - or to return his phone calls, and failing to prepare any defense on plaintiff's behalf. Dkt. No. 1 at 5, 7, 17-19, 22. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Battisti's inattentiveness was motivated by retaliatory animus due to the fact that plaintiff still owed defendant money for representing him in connection the charges arising from Docket No. 2012-118808.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's and endorsement (for the other guy) that I can get behind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×