Comments for In defense of Judge Rubin Part 2 at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.theind.com Wed, 22 May 2013 12:28:14 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12732-in-defense-of-judge-rubin-part-2#comment-27617 It seems to me that all of the 3 folks that came to the judges defense had judicial realations in the present and in the past. I would call this "sucking up to DA JUDGE!" The only defense he might need (and I say MIGHT, with a big M) is a defense attorney! - Michael A. Moss Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:58:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12732-in-defense-of-judge-rubin-part-2#comment-27616 The author of the story did not miss the $64,000 question. From the story: There was never a defense attorney or probation officer present in the sessions. And I also asked Finley if co-conspirator #1 was ever in the judge's chambers (because we can all agree there is no situation in which that would be appropriate): Finley’s office would not comment about whether co-conspirator #1 (Williamson) was ever in the judge’s chambers when these sessions were held. And you're right that there is no requirement they have an attorney. But surely the judge should have been a little suspicious that NONE of them had an attorney but someone was obviously giving them "legal" advice. Like you point out, how would they otherwise have known about the 894 program? - Leslie Turk Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:41:56 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12732-in-defense-of-judge-rubin-part-2#comment-27615 Dear Editor, I will not be as verbose or eloquent as the three champions of Judge Rubin. Their defense of the good judge and explaination of the 894 process was crystal clear and I can not argue that. But here is the $64,000.00 question that was missed by the author of the article and was not noted by the three who wrote a response to it: Didn't it seem odd to anyone that out of all of these cases that Judge Rubin presided over there wasn't a single lawyer present reprensenting any of the defendants? I know that a person can represent his or her self in these cases but I wouldn't think your average lay person would even know what an Article 894 was let alone have the insider knowledge of the requirements for the pretrial diversion. I refuse to believe that and I think anyone that would is either naive or full of it. There's the rub! - David M. Bruce Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:15:18 +0100