09-09-2025, 02:45 AM
No you are incorrect. Judici shows docket entries—not courtroom reality.
Yes, the record notes “time chargeable to the defendant,” but that was procedural. Discovery was still ongoing, and the reset date was written with flexibility—specifically so an earlier hearing could be set if counsel had completed review. That’s not obstruction. That’s standard litigation practice.
And let’s be clear: the delays you’re pointing to were tied to my attorney’s schedule, including his work on another high-profile case. That’s not me “agreeing to every delay”—that’s the court accommodating counsel’s workload. It doesn’t waive my rights, and it doesn’t excuse the year-long delay on my suppression motion, which remains unheard.
If you’re reading Judici like its gospel, you’re missing the nuance. It’s a docket log, not a transcript. It doesn’t show what was argued, what was conceded, or what was left unresolved. So, if you’re going to cite it, at least understand what it doesn’t say.
Yes, the record notes “time chargeable to the defendant,” but that was procedural. Discovery was still ongoing, and the reset date was written with flexibility—specifically so an earlier hearing could be set if counsel had completed review. That’s not obstruction. That’s standard litigation practice.
And let’s be clear: the delays you’re pointing to were tied to my attorney’s schedule, including his work on another high-profile case. That’s not me “agreeing to every delay”—that’s the court accommodating counsel’s workload. It doesn’t waive my rights, and it doesn’t excuse the year-long delay on my suppression motion, which remains unheard.
If you’re reading Judici like its gospel, you’re missing the nuance. It’s a docket log, not a transcript. It doesn’t show what was argued, what was conceded, or what was left unresolved. So, if you’re going to cite it, at least understand what it doesn’t say.