Reem Odeh withdraws from Drew Peterson defense

Attorney Reem Odeh

After months of rumors and following a formal split from her law partner in August, attorney Reem Odeh filed a request today to be removed from the defense of Drew Peterson for the murder of his wife Kathleen Savio.  She cited “irreconcilable differences with defense counsel Joel Brodsky” as the reason for her request.

In August, the offices of Brodsky & Odeh officially called it quits, with Joel Brodsky saying that the two attorneys had “grown in different directions”.  But at that time Odeh stated that she would “continue to be a part of the defense team.”

In the weeks prior to the split, rumors were circulating about  Joel Brodsky renewing the lease for their offices in his name only, changing the office phone numbers, changing the locks, and hints of far worse behavior.

In early August, Brodsky’s wife, Elizabeth Brodsky, ran an advertisement via Facebook for, “two offices with amazing view of the lake and millinium park for reasonable rent. The office will be remodeled completely at the end of September.”

On Saturday Ms. Odeh commented on her Facebook wall, “It’s been stressful. I was able to experience first hand how evil people could be towards one another and my patience and temper was really put through a big test.”

Odeh also punned in an update that she was taking care of the “haggage” that had invaded her office, while preparing to move forward with her career “working with real professionals with honesty and integrity”.

As early as January 2008 Odeh had spoken up about disagreeing with the way Brodsky was handling their high-profile client, saying, “I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.” Joel Brodsky later claimed that she was misquoted, but Ms. Odeh never did retract the statement.

Odeh’s withdrawal follows in the footsteps of attorneys Andrew Abood and George Lenard, who withdrew from the Peterson case last April citing “irreconcilable differences” with co-counsel Joel Brodsky.

UPDATE 9/29: Andrew Abood contacted us with a statement about Reem Odeh:

Just a comment about Reem Odeh who seems to be taking some criticism. She is a good, honest and decent person. She is great mother. At a young age she has a unique quality about her — she is a rainmaker. She is able to generate a lot of business because clients have confidence in her and her abilities. A lot of law firms find lawyers that can sit in an office and punch out the billable hours, but finding a lawyer like Reem that can actually generate clients is a rare quality and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to practice law with her and I appreciate the comments that she made about me to Joe Hosey.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed:
<a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

128 thoughts on “Reem Odeh withdraws from Drew Peterson defense

  1. Third attorney withdraws from Peterson’s defense
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    Sep 27, 2010 10:20PM

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson has lost another lady.

    Reem Odeh, the only woman among the eight lawyers to defend Peterson against charges he murdered his third wife, has quit the case.

    But it’s not Peterson’s fault, Odeh said. She blamed her exit on Joel Brodsky, the longest serving of Peterson’s attorneys.

    Odeh’s motion to withdraw from the case, which she filed Monday morning, cites “irreconcilable differences with defense counsel Joel Brodsky.” Odeh declined to go into detail about the differences and said she fears Brodsky will retaliate if she speaks ill of him. She would not discuss what she suspects Brodsky will do to her but said she “wishes him luck” in his future endeavors.

    Brodsky similarly said, “Best of luck,” to the departing Odeh, but disputed that she was actually leaving on her own terms.

    “I guess it’s a case of, ‘You’re fired.’ ‘No I quit,’” Brodsky said.

    Brodsky went on to say it was Peterson himself who ordered Odeh off the case.

    “Drew fired her,” Brodsky said, but could not explain why.

    “You’ll have to ask Drew, and I don’t think he’s available for comment,” he said.

    In addition to the irreconcilable differences, Odeh’s motion to withdraw accused Brodsky of keeping her from visiting Peterson in the county jail. But that didn’t stop her from dropping by to see the disgraced former cop and alleged wife killer Monday to let him know she was cutting him loose as a client. She predicted Peterson would be sad to see her go.

    “I think he’ll be upset,” she said. “He respected my opinion. I got along well with his children. I got very close to them in the past few years.”

    Dissolving partnership

    Odeh and Brodsky were law partners for years before splitting their firm in May. Odeh says things have “been contentious” ever since.

    The month before Odeh and Brodsky dissolved their partnership, the two other attorneys representing Peterson jumped ship. George Lenard of Joliet and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich., also cited irreconcilable differences with Brodsky in their motions to withdraw from the case.

    After Lenard and Abood left, four attorneys from Chicago signed on to defend Peterson.

    Odeh spoke highly of Lenard and Abood, saying, “I think they’re great guys. I think they’re hard workers and I think they’re ethical, competent attorneys.”

    Asked her opinion of Brodsky, Odeh declined to comment.

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/1769382-417/peterson-odeh-brodsky-case-defense.html

  2. Brodsky similarly said, “Best of luck,” to the departing Odeh, but disputed that she was actually leaving on her own terms.

    “I guess it’s a case of, ‘You’re fired.’ ‘No I quit,’” Brodsky said.

    Brodsky went on to say it was Peterson himself who ordered Odeh off the case.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joel Brodsky is so predictable in his nonsense.

    Every time someone leaves and made their intentions known long before they made it official, Joel Brodsky still manages to say they’ve been fired – LOL !

    It appears any lawyer with a sense of integrity is not hanging around long.

    What does that say about the remaining team ??

  3. How does that song go? Another one bites the dust? Thats 3 and counting. At least Reem came to her senses, I just cant belive it took her all this time to figure out what a POS Brodsky is.IMO…better late driving that circus bus of clowns.. We can only hope….Everyone now….LET’S DO THE CHANT!!!

  4. Reem has publicly shown her displeasure how this case was handled as early as January 2008.

    Not only did she have to extricate herself from this case, but dissolve the partnership as well.

    Not wanting to play the violin for her here, but it would have been a big task to extricate herself from someone like Joel Brodsky and all cudos to her for actually achieving this !!

  5. Odeh declined to go into detail about the differences and said she fears Brodsky will retaliate if she speaks ill of him

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If that’s what she fears, she must know a thing or two about Joel Brodsky’s “ethics” and MO !!

    You can’t make this stuff up – LOL !

  6. My chant is going to be that Reem get over her fear and tell the whole story–publicly.

    And, somehow I just don’t believe that it was Peterson that wanted her to disappear, although he is good at making women do that…

  7. I feel bad for Reem Odeh. Isn’t it something that she fears retaliation? Gawd, Peterson and Brodsky are so meant for one another.

    No matter how many attorneys jump ship and attribute it to Brodsky, Peterson is still the one who decides who’s on his defense team. Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I find it crazy unusual that Brodsky would say that Peterson fired Reem Odeh, just as he learned she filed a Motion to Withdraw. If Peterson actually did fire Reem Odeh at an earlier time, I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t have said as much in one of his rambling letters. He called everyone else names that he had no use for. Hell, when you fire an attorney after three years and you’re Drew Peterson, certainly there must be some catchy name calling that comes to mind. Why hold back this one time?

    IMO, those rambling letters, and even the one that he sent to the Tribune praising his reassembled defense team, smacks of Brodsky. Who asked Drew Peterson what his feelings were about his defense team, and why would he even think of sending a written letter of praise to a newspaper? Who does that? If I were in Brodsky’s shoes, and I was getting wind of other attorneys badmouthing me and thinking I’m a nitwit, I’d sure love to see my client send a glowing letter for publication. Only problem is, how does that come up in a conversation? “Hey, Joel, I was thinking I really like your representation, man, and I wish I could see it splashed on the pages of a local newspaper.”

    When I read the passage in the letters sent to Sneed, where it’s mentioned something about Lacy Peterson likely being arrested next for jaywalking, it was obvious that was a remark made by Brodsky after Peterson’s son was suspended for taking possession of his father’s guns. I would like to think that Peterson has a sense of urgency to possibly help his son, but is getting smacked down by the boogie man who can’t even figure out it’s immature and unwise to call a Chief of Police an idiodic moron. Even if that childish nic was the invention of the murder defendant, you’d think his attorney would have enough brains to advise him to curtail the foolishness, especially when it is his son’s lawyer’s matter to address.

    Still, Kathleen and Stacy never had a chance to get out of a Drew Peterson relationship alive, and if justice is really to be served, Joel Brodsky needs to continue to be Drew Peterson’s legal representative. That way, even if an attempt is made to strike down questionable circumstances, he’ll find a way to screw it up. Chalk one up, then, for the good guys.

  8. 1:09-cv-06746 Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
    Honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman, presiding in Courtroom 1219
    September 28, 2010, Tuesday, 9:30 a.m.
    Peterson’s attorney: WalterP. Maksym, Jr.

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s

    Motion To Have Judgment Against Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson

    Set Forth On A Separate Document And Entered

  9. judgin :
    1:09-cv-06746 Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
    Honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman, presiding in Courtroom 1219
    September 28, 2010, Tuesday, 9:30 a.m.
    Peterson’s attorney: WalterP. Maksym, Jr.

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s
    Motion To Have Judgment Against Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson
    Set Forth On A Separate Document And Entered

    I hope Drew will directly feel now what JP Morgan meant by a “material change” in his “financial condition” ;).

  10. Today, I would expect to hear a comment from Peterson, via Brodsky, about this latest defection.

    If Reem Odeh does tend to suffer any backlash from the pie hole of the usually outspoken Joel Brodsky, she should just direct them over here. There’s almost three years of information on this unique individual. Reem Odeh’s versions of the facts needn’t be called into question, when she’s got a loooooong way to go to catch up to the likes of her former partner.

    Spend some time here: http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/drew-and-joels-payola-radio-shakedown/

  11. Comment from Exlaw says that:

    There was a letter type written to her (Reem) supposedly from Drew saying some very nasty things about her, she feels this is just another bunch of crap that is being thrown at her.

    Wonder if Joel will give that letter to Sneed to run?

    Does Drew have access to a PC and printer in his cell? I thought he handwrote the first letter (the one praising his representation). The next few letters were typed though. Is Joel typing these up and what’s to keep him from typing up anything he goddam pleases and saying that it is Drew writing it?

  12. Widebirth says…”Does Drew have access to a PC and printer in his cell? I thought he handwrote the first letter (the one praising his representation). The next few letters were typed though. Is Joel typing these up and what’s to keep him from typing up anything he goddam pleases and saying that it is Drew writing it?”

    Good point. Too bad Brodsky wasn’t able to expand on why Peterson fired Reem Odeh yesterday. I’m sure, though, after intense concentration, he’ll be able to have Peterson telepathically project his reasons to him so he can expound on them in an unflattering and unkind way.

  13. I think at this point Drew really has very few people he feels he can trust and possibly has blind faith in Brodsky. Joel could probably write a letter and get Drew to sign it because Joel tells him it’s in his best interest. IMO.

    BTW, an update from Reem on her FB after a friend commented that they just heard her name on the news:

    Reem Odeh: Haha, I just heard my name too. Just want this nightmare to be over already and just move on with my life. We have to talk soon, I have alot to tell you.

    Tell the world, Reem!

  14. “Drew fired her,” Brodsky said, but could not explain why.
    “You’ll have to ask Drew, and I don’t think he’s available for comment,” he said.

    Really? Drew isn’t available for comment? Ten-page letters to the media and Joel wants us to believe that Drew is somehow unable to communicate from jail?

    This whole thing stinks.

  15. facsmiley :I think at this point Drew really has very few people he feels he can trust and possibly has blind faith in Brodsky. Joel could probably write a letter and get Drew to sign it because Joel tells him it’s in his best interest. IMO.
    BTW, an update from Reem on her FB after a friend commented that they just heard her name on the news:

    Reem Odeh: Haha, I just heard my name too. Just want this nightmare to be over already and just move on with my life. We have to talk soon, I have alot to tell you.

    Tell the world, Reem!

    I’m sure Rheem has lots of dirt she can spread on Brodsky and Peterson, but as an attorney she is still held to confidentiality on anything that could could be construed as being harmful to the case — even if she’s no longer on the team. I believe that confidentiality actually goes with an attorney to the grave.

  16. Granny, confidentiality is an important aspect of a case, yes. Absolutely agreed that Peterson has every right to assume his attorneys will maintain confidentiality concerning his case.

    But, on the other hand, this appears to be outside of that. This is one law partner jacking around another on a personal level. Don’t you think she has a right to defend herself, should the need arise, from any verbal daggers that the other member/s may throw at her, especially after such a drastic split-up? I do. Of course, not against Peterson on a professional or personal level, but this isn’t about him, and she admitted as much. She’s kidding herself if she thinks Brodsky is going to let sleeping dogs lie. If that were the case, he wouldn’t have negotiated their newest lease without involving her, or whatever else it appears he’s done.

  17. I don’t think Reem’s problems had anything to do with confidential information about Drew.

    But as an honorable attorney I think she might be obligated to report certain unethical behaviors on the part of Joel Brodsky to the ARDC. I don’t know the full extent of her complaints, but some of what we’re hearing sounds way beyond “unprofessional”.

    “Under RPC 8.3(a), Illinois lawyers are required to report information, not protected by the attorney-client privilege, to the ARDC concerning certain kinds of lawyer misconduct.”

    https://www.iardc.org/ethics_faq.html#2

  18. I wonder if Reem is able to comment on the information that came to light about Brodsky wanting Lenny to sabotage the garden, and the boat! That would be something good to come out, to show the world what kind of character is defending Drew! What jury would believe a lying, scheming, manipulating, evil atty after that one came out lol

  19. Hmm… I hope that some time will go by and Reem will tell all. She certainly should not feel bullied or be intimidated by Brodsky. Just about everyone has his number!

    Good for her! Getting the hell out while she still can!

    Just realized what I typed above, bullied and intimidated! Guess ‘ole Drew and Brodsky have alot of experience at that. I REALLY hope she does not allow them to do that to her. ;)

  20. Reem Odeh: Haha, I just heard my name too. Just want this nightmare to be over already and just move on with my life. We have to talk soon, I have alot to tell you.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Even though she wants “this nightmare to be over”, it is good for Reem to have her name in the news with reports she has withdrawn from the case, her partnership with Joel Brodsky is over and she has moved to premises of her own.

    That way she will regain the respectability she so lost by having Joel as a partner and being involved in the Drew Peterson case.

    The more she can be seen to be removed from this cesspool the better it is for her career and her personal profile.

  21. Wouldn’t it be something if Reem were the one to end up with a book deal – LOL !

    After all she is the only one with a proper story to tell ……..

  22. Based on very accurate reports, she is incompetent. She has allegedly forges affidavits of divorce and misrepresented herself as a member of federal trial bar. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson , just insisted on having her name on all re filed papers. Her visit with drew today , never happened. Brodsky being an ass aside but one should really look at her ability to so anything other than immigration.

  23. Just wondering:

    If Drew were the one to have “sacked” Reem and wanted her off the case, wouldn’t he have been the one to have filed the motion, rather then letting Reem do that in her own good time ??

  24. Hi All! Long time no post, but I’m always reading you all. :)

    I am glad for Ms. Odeh that she’s leaving Peterson’s defense team, but can’t really muster any sympathy for her. We’ve all talked about the fact everyone’s entitled to a defense, etc., but she chose to get into bed with these jerkazoids – Peterson, Blobsky and the rest. She didn’t try to get off the train after the “Win A Date With Drew” or during the Chrissy mess, or any other hideous moment. She stood by as Blobsky slandered murdered women.

    I don’t believe a bright person didn’t see what kind of murderers and miscreants she was accepting as colleagues.

    Methinks the woman’s gotten up and found she’s got fleas. Quell surprise!

  25. Couldn’t agree with you more, Coffee. As much as Joel should be called out for any unethical practices, Reem gets no Brownie points from me simply by virtue of being used and abused by Brodsky and I can’t muster up much sympathy either.

    She stayed on the case for almost three years, enjoying the fame and business it brought her while being fully aware of the callous and greedy antics her co-counsel was taking part in. If she disagreed so much with the way Drew was being represented she was free to withdraw at any point.

    She likes to paint herself as a friend and advocate of the Peterson children, what did she do to keep their father from trotting them out on national TV to defend him?

    No pity party here. I’m just enjoying watching the whole team melt down. :)

  26. Brutalyfrank :

    Based on very accurate reports, she is incompetent. She has allegedly forges affidavits of divorce and misrepresented herself as a member of federal trial bar. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson , just insisted on having her name on all re filed papers. Her visit with drew today , never happened. Brodsky being an ass aside but one should really look at her ability to so anything other than immigration.

    Those are some very harsh allegations. Whose “accurate reports” are these? Can you explain how you know these things to be true? Otherwise, it looks as if you may just be someone with a personal grudge against Odeh.

    If she shines at immigration law, maybe that’s where she’ll end up. I have a friend who is an immigration attorney–fine profession and very fulfilling.

  27. Wow, Brutal @#33. That’s brutal. If you’re close to the characters in this Peterson case and your comments are accurate, I guess it would explain why Reem Odeh would be nervous about getting called out on things that aren’t flattering to her. On the other hand, IMO, it’s just more of the usual antics that come from the Brodsky camp. Slime, slant and scorn.

    The way that Brodsky has carried on for three years warrants more than referring to him as an “ass”. He plays dirty, and he’s attempted to drop a dime on most everyone that has gotten in his face. Who hasn’t he called the FBI on? He started with the FindStacyPeterson website, and gone from there.

    So, whether what you say is accurate or not, he’s wallowed in the pig slop as much as one can.

  28. Based on very accurate reports, she is incompetent. She has allegedly forges affidavits of divorce and misrepresented herself as a member of federal trial bar. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson , just insisted on having her name on all re filed papers. Her visit with drew today , never happened. Brodsky being an ass aside but one should really look at her ability to so anything other than immigration.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well hmmm, according to the Peterson Publicity machine, Reem was an extremely valuable member of the Peterson Defense Team that did all the back ground work and her ability as a lawyer was only overshadowed by her incredible beauty.

    So that wasn’t true then ??

    Did the Peterson publicity machine tell porkies ??

  29. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How does one witness someone not writing something ??

  30. JAH, I would think it’s to her credit that someone witnessed her not writing any briefs. Although like you, I’m not sure how you do that. ;)

    Some of those were downright awful.

  31. Hey guys, I wanted to say, joel’s history when it comes to his temper has not proven to be resilient. The accusations seem to follow the wrath of Joel. He gets upset, and like a teenage drama queen, tries to ruin the reputation of others not knowing that this only soils his own. This, brutally frank character shows signs of joel’s retaliation. So any further allegations from brutally frank, AKA Joel Alan Brodsky, should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

  32. Hmm, I guess this was filed 9/17.

    AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

    United States District Court
    Northern District of Illinois
    Eastern Division
    JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
    Case Number: 09 C 6746

    Peterson
    v.
    JP Morgan Chase Bank

    Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court enters judgment in favor of defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank

    Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
    Date: 9/17/2010

  33. thetruth :

    Hey guys, I wanted to say, joel’s history when it comes to his temper has not proven to be resilient. The accusations seem to follow the wrath of Joel. He gets upset, and like a teenage drama queen, tries to ruin the reputation of others not knowing that this only soils his own. This, brutally frank character shows signs of joel’s retaliation. So any further allegations from brutally frank, AKA Joel Alan Brodsky, should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

    Oh, I don’t know that you have that right. I’d get a little more creative with my guessing as to the exact identity…

  34. facsmiley :

    Which of Drew’s lawyers will be next to jump ship/be fired?
    Ralph MeczykSteve GreenbergJoe Lopez (The Shark)Darryl GoldbergJoel Brodsky

    VoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com

    ~~~

    AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

    United States District Court
    Northern District of Illinois
    Eastern Division
    JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
    Case Number: 09 C 6746

    Peterson
    v.
    JP Morgan Chase Bank

    Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court enters judgment
    in favor of defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and
    against plaintiff, Drew W. Peterson,
    on all of the remaining claims in this suit.

    Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
    Date: 9/17/2010

    My guess is that DP’s lawyer, Walter Maksym, is O U T !

  35. Could be, Joy. I left Maksym off the list since he isn’t technically on the ‘defense’ team but calls himself Drew’s ‘civil’ attorney. However, he did attend the New Year’s party so…

  36. judgin :
    Since we never know what’s gonna happen next, I took a safe guess.. LOL

    I wonder what Brodsky has on Maksym… Pictures from the New Year’s party? ;)
    Luckily for Maksym, he does not share his office with Brodsky.

  37. thetruth :

    Hey guys, I wanted to say, joel’s history when it comes to his temper has not proven to be resilient. The accusations seem to follow the wrath of Joel. He gets upset, and like a teenage drama queen, tries to ruin the reputation of others not knowing that this only soils his own. This, brutally frank character shows signs of joel’s retaliation. So any further allegations from brutally frank, AKA Joel Alan Brodsky, should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

    Hello thetruth. Speaking for myself, I’d have to say that Brodsky’s temper, as you suggest, has been obvious from the beginning. I’ve pointed out that he can be quite vindictive himself, something he likes to accuse the authorities of, by having the FBI phone number on his phone speed dial. Also, probably the Attorney General of this state and others, as well as the ARDC. Any number, in fact, in which to complain against his opponents. It would seem to me if he spent as much time working on winning a motion once in a while, rather than making formal complaints against forum members, reporters, other attorneys, and anyone else that happens to piss him off at the time, he might have something going for himself. If he thinks he’s gaining the respect of his contemporaries as being a whiner who is hellbent on making trouble for his opponents, methinks he’s delusional. His meltdown has begun.

    As to brutally frank (that’s two “l’s” in brutally), I think I’ve gone the route of what Facs suggests by being creative and forming another opinion as to who it is. Winkwinkwinkwinkwink. Hell hath no fury……..

  38. Heh, now that Peterson has a judgment against him for filing that ridiculous lawsuit, yathink his lawyer, Maksym, told him not only was there the possibility of losing the suit, but that it would be turned around and thrown back at him?

    It sucks to be Drew Peterson. It sucks to have the kind of representation he does. But, that’s okay. We want him to be defended by the suckers.

  39. In order to not jeopardize my identity, as to not provoke the wrath of joel, I can not tell you how I know, or assume, that brutally frank is Joel Brodsky. But knowing the guy personally, brutally frank is joel brodsky, and it is apparent by the tone of his statements above. Reem Odeh has a reputation above joel’s, and anyone can see the vindictive nature of brutally frank, just as joel brodsky had acted when Reem decided to leave the firm.

  40. facsmiley :

    thetruth :
    Hey guys, I wanted to say, joel’s history when it comes to his temper has not proven to be resilient. The accusations seem to follow the wrath of Joel. He gets upset, and like a teenage drama queen, tries to ruin the reputation of others not knowing that this only soils his own. This, brutally frank character shows signs of joel’s retaliation. So any further allegations from brutally frank, AKA Joel Alan Brodsky, should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

    Oh, I don’t know that you have that right. I’d get a little more creative with my guessing as to the exact identity…

    Who would you say it was?

  41. Hahahaha, thetruth. I’d say, from what I deduced from what Facs was trying to point out is — …behind every great (oops, I mean vindictive) man is a ……

    You finish it.

  42. I do not think it is surprising to see lawyers come and go on a case such as this one. You cannot have that many lawyers together in general as they tend to all want to be the leader. Also – Joel has admittedly been running a different game plan for his client than lawyers would normally do. He came out early and stated that he was going to be using the media in hopes of getting results like Baretta (aka Robert Blake) and MJ. I cannot imagine too many lawyers will agree that the information Joel has helped Drew get out to the media has been helpful to his case. And since Drew still has said Joel is his main attorney then they either have to sit back and watch what they don’t agree with or leave. I would so love to be a fly on the wall in some of the meetings!

  43. In Joel’s own words:

    Joel: I wish to address the person who says my peers are questioning my handling of the case. So far, in court, I have been successful, getting my client the property taken by the state back (police had to resort to illegally revoking the gun permit to keep Drew from getting the guns). The only criticism I get, and the criminal defense bar is split on this issue, is that I let my client give a total of four (4) controlled interviews, and make a number of sound bite comments on certain issues. The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh). My conclusion is (and its my decision), that the standard model does not apply in extremely high profile cases in the post O.J. world. The O.J. Simpson trial changed everything. It made and broke big time media careers, and consequentially made the media, and by extension public perception, an additional party in extreme high profile cases. Now, in these rare cases, the media and its influence is in the courtroom and jury room. Therefore, the media must be addressed and engaged in these extreme cases. Examples: (1) Scott Peterson did 3 short tv appearances (I wouldn’t call them interviews) before he was named a suspect and then he remained totally silent. He was convicted. (2) Robert Blake and Michael Jackson both did media interviews. Michael Jackson even produced a TV special on his case to counter some bad publicity, and Blake did an interview from his jail cell without his lawyer present as well as other interviews. Both these men were acquitted. I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.

    Source: http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

  44. Yeah, I agree that attorneys can come and go on a case. Well, in criminal defense, that is. In corporate and general matters, infighting like this is certainly not common.

    What I have seen, though, IMO, is a most vindictive, trouble making defense attorney. I realize defense attorneys use their personal beliefs and techniques to represent their clients, but I believe I’m watching a major meltdown of a defense member and a team that I’ve come to see. It’s moved on from humiliating and discrediting witnesses now, to humiliating and discrediting the lawyers. Holy smoke! What next?

    At this point, Peterson is a mere blip on the screen right now. His defense team, it appears, is dueling over whom is going to sling the most dirt and file the most complaints against whom. Well, Reem Odeh claims she’s staying silent because she’s fearful of what Brodsky might do to her, but that, in itself, tells me she’s worried about something herself. I hope not. I hope she’s ethical and above board, but being tied-in to this group makes you wonder. Besides, who would want to partner with an attorney who is hellbent on causing chaos and destruction for another attorney or judge? If you get him pissed off, what will he do next?

    On the other hand, we’ve been blogging about this lawyer for almost three years, and we have been right on. There’s no dispute about that, lest you count the Peterson team.

  45. Brodsky and Peterson seem to have a certain thing in common. They both pump up the people around them as being the best ever and then when there is discontent they break them down as being horrible people. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground with them. It’s all hot or cold. Drew must be a gambler or he really thinks that all of the shenanegins are going to work. He’s a grown man though and his decision for who represents him is in his own hands. He is making the choice of his own free will.

  46. Hi all. IMO, Reem, being a defense lawyer by choice, took the “job” because it was a contracted by her practice. Regardless if she believes Peterson or not, her job is to defend or try to defend her client. I understand how it may look that she stayed on knowing what a scum bag he is, but there are plenty of jobs out there that we don’t like to do but they keep the mortgage paid. (Well in this instance, I’m not sure how that was happening, but anyway). She left because of Brodsky not drew, that’s pretty apparent. As far as her fearing the rath of brodsky, I don’t presume she has hidden skeletons that she fears he will unvail, I just think she wants to get on with her life and not have to worry about defending herself against the childish “drama queen” antics that may come her way. She wants to move on and not have to worry about him anymore. I can understand that. Haggage probably got jealous over the “guys” all thinking she was a “hot lawyer with brains” LOL!!! She has to go!! LOL!

  47. My opinion about Peterson’s situation is a couple of things. I think he’s breaking down due to his confinement and lack of success in any attempts to take him a step forward. Instead, he’s always taken at least two steps back, for one reason or another. Secondly, I find it very strange that he is so locked-into keeping his lead attorney on, or, at the very least, not moving him to the back of the bus. Peterson can reason that his lead attorney has strong points, maybe just not in the area of law that he needs him for. Brutallyfrank suggested that Reem Odeh’s strong point is immigration law. What is Brodsky’s? He doesn’t exactly have a curriculum vitae, that I am aware of, which lists his endless murder trial cases. In fact, does he even have one?

    So, my point is this. How, oh how, does Brodsky manage to keep Peterson in line if and when he rears his ugly head and demands answers to why his lead attorney isn’t getting results so far? Even known to fall asleep in court. Having two attorneys defect, even though the murder defendant was on good terms with them. Being told by co-counsel to STFU. What is it about this guy that has Peterson mesmerized by his representation?

  48. thinkaboutit2 :Brodsky and Peterson seem to have a certain thing in common. They both pump up the people around them as being the best ever and then when there is discontent they break them down as being horrible people. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground with them. It’s all hot or cold. Drew must be a gambler or he really thinks that all of the shenanegins are going to work. He’s a grown man though and his decision for who represents him is in his own hands. He is making the choice of his own free will.

    IMO, Drew is a manipulator that doesn’t know how to play outside the field of young vulnerable woman. Now that that is over, he doesn’t know what to do. He’s counting on his “team” to work in his favor but when you get a laywer that is the same personality, neither one of them know what to do anymore. Why don’t they just put their hands up in the air already.

    Brodsky said drew fired Reem — If he’s not paying her how can he fire her?

  49. Sureyouwill @ #69. You know, early in this defense, Reem Odeh spoke wisely to a Tribune reporter, and voiced her concerns about how Joel was handling the media blitz with Peterson and “allowing” Peterson to give interviews.

    “I’m concerned that there’s more emphasis and more of an effort to cater to the media frenzy than there is to looking into the issues surrounding the investigations,” Odeh said. “It just seems to me that when there’s nothing going on with the investigation and things are quiet in the media, it seems like sometimes either Joel or Drew says something to start the media frenzy all over again.”

    Brodsky has mounted an aggressive campaign for media coverage.

    Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, “Absolutely. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

    Odeh said she plans to meet with Peterson and tell him that she believes he should behave in a more professional manner, and if that doesn’t happen, she will push to have him dropped as a client.

    So, with all due respect, in response to your post about Reem Odeh taking “the job,” yes, that is correct. But, wouldn’t you agree that she saw the writing on the wall, but chose to ignore it? Nothing changed after her interview, in fact, it went on to become even worse than what she was referring to that early. Why did she not push for Peterson being dropped as a client? Why did she continue to enable her law partner?

    I think those are fair questions, even if there are no answers.

  50. BTW, in addition to my comment @#72, Reem Odeh was never reported to have gone to the media on her own behalf and ask that statements attributed to her be retracted or corrected. No story was done where she said the reporter took her comments out of context or quoted her incorrectly.

    In fact, the case is, Brodsky is the one that went on to get his comments reported, and said Reem Odeh was misquoted. Which, to me, means absolutely jack squat. In fact, if anything, I’ve learned to listen to and believe the opposite of what comes out of his pie hole.

  51. Rescue, I understand where you are coming from. IMO, as far as droping Drew as client, it would be my presumption that she, being a young lawyer probably in her first practice, probably didn’t have that big of a “percentage stock” in making calls like that for the “firm.” I don’t think she really chose to ignore it but rather that she was trying to survive in her career. Hindsight, again we all stay in relationships with people and/or jobs that we know aren’t good for us; but eventually, the light comes on and we see a way to climb out — I’m glad she finally had an opportunity to break free. As far an enable her law partner? Do you really think by what we’ve seen and heard, that anyone can enable Joel? I don’t think anyone, including his haggage, oops I mean wife, can control or try to talk sense into that “body of a man!”

  52. The quote was his response posted in Legalpub. I, personally, have not seen anything that can be researched and found that proves Reem Odeh said the quotes attributed to her were false. Just Brodsky’s rendition of the “facts.”

    Joel Brodsky said…

    To address briefly the post of May 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM., let me start by saying that you are obviously unfamiliar (as I was at the start) with the games the media, especially the cable media, play. You would be totally amazed.
    But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.
    In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.
    As to the blue barrel and Dan Abrams, this is a good example. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90′s. (in fact he was fired from his last job in September of 07 because he kept showing up for work drunk). Abrams people agreed to show the pictures on the condition that Drew also come on the show. We agreed because the pictures are important on the issue of Morphy’s credibility. (By the way he is not in protective custody, he is in rehab because the State is trying to clean him up, but its not working. He still is not clean enough to go before the grand jury after 5 months of rehab, thats how messed up he is. Not a credible witness I say.) When I realized that Abrams was not going to show the pictures, as his producer had agreed, then I decided to try to show them to the camera, but Abrams cut away and just described the pictures verbally, which did not do them justice. (So what appears like me trying to sneak a picture on tv is not what occurred. The bottom line is that there is no evidence (receipts, credit card records, forensic traces, etc.) what so ever that a blue barrel / container ever existed. Morphy was so horribly messed up on drugs and alcohol at that time you cannot rely on anything he as to say. (Webmaster – the pictures are on my office computer and if you want I can e-mail them to you so your bloggers can make up their own minds about Morphy.)
    Finally, the Steve Dahl “Date With Drew” thing, was both intentional and a mistake. Dahl’s people knew we were going to call in, and we new in advance that he was going to address the fact that for some reason Drew is hit on by women because of the publicity. Dahl is a radio comedy legend in Chicago for over 20 years and he had been doing a Drew parody (including songs) every day on his show for from a half hour to an hour. He had been very hard on Drew, and we thought if we joined in his comedy bit we could take some wind out of his sails, and maybe even change the slant of his comedy. (Kind of like when politicians go on comedy shows to laugh at their campaign mistakes) It was going well until Dahl suggested the dating contest. I mistakenly ok’d it. We approved because of what we have latter come to understand is an inappropriate sense of humor that cops, defense lawyers, prosecutors, develop to deal with the daily tragedy and stress they deal with. We all tell tasteless jokes about some very tragic situations to psychologically deal with the situations. I just did it in public which was the mistake.
    I hope this adds to your understanding of the media issues in the Peterson case.
    May 4, 2008 10:19 AM

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

  53. sureyouwill :

    Rescue, I understand where you are coming from. IMO, as far as droping Drew as client, it would be my presumption that she, being a young lawyer probably in her first practice, probably didn’t have that big of a “percentage stock” in making calls like that for the “firm.” I don’t think she really chose to ignore it but rather that she was trying to survive in her career. Hindsight, again we all stay in relationships with people and/or jobs that we know aren’t good for us; but eventually, the light comes on and we see a way to climb out — I’m glad she finally had an opportunity to break free. As far an enable her law partner? Do you really think by what we’ve seen and heard, that anyone can enable Joel? I don’t think anyone, including his haggage, oops I mean wife, can control or try to talk sense into that “body of a man!”

    Maybe I am wrong, but I believe Ms. Odeh was the one that was on the lease first at 8 South Michigan, and Brodsky joined her in practice. If I am also assuming this is correct, she is the one that had the need to bring in another attorney to assist her with her case load.

  54. I’m sorry, IMO, he’s just such a MORON!! An entire page article to explain how the media misquotes — boy, he must have relaly wanted to convince everyone that Reems “quote” was misinterpreted. Do you think his lesson in media error was enlightening? LOL — NOT!!

  55. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90′s.

    BTW, I have to say this! Go get ‘em Joel. Yeah, right, the pictures were recent, until it was uncovered that Peterson and Carcerano bought and paid for the “ten year old” pictures from one of Morphey’s former gf’s. Idiot.

  56. What I don’t get, and what I don’t understand, is if you go back and compile all of the stupid, idiotic, ignorant, dysfunctional, inaccurate, false and absolutely incredible quotes, stories, tales, FBI, ARDC, ISP, AG and SA phone calls that are attributable to Brodsky, why is it that he is the one intimidating others and he’s not the one whose feet are being held to the fire? Huh?

  57. rescueapet :What I don’t get, and what I don’t understand, is if you go back and compile all of the stupid, idiotic, ignorant, dysfunctional, inaccurate, false and absolutely incredible quotes, stories, tales, FBI, ARDC, ISP, AG and SA phone calls that are attributable to Brodsky, why is it that he is the one intimidating others and he’s not the one whose feet are being held to the fire? Huh?

    Because there is such a thing as moral standards and others not wanting to put theirself at Joel’s level! Nanna nanna nana! There’s nothing better than letting an “ass” make an “ass” out of himself without touching him!

  58. The only way this lawyer can get someone to back off from breathing down his neck is to threaten them with phone calls to the the above-mentioned authorities, and even a boss (he tried to get Joe Hosey fired a few times). Can’t he just practice law the way most every other attorney does and use his skills to master the courtroom, rather than engaging in the dirty tactics he does day in and day out? Intimidating people, threatening lawsuits, threatening to call authorities? Someone needs to call on him for a change. He even admitted to calling the FBI to make trouble for Findstacypeterson.com.

    Stand back, though, when you open his closet door. Halloween’s got nothing on this guy.

  59. rescueapet :
    But, Lorie, we don’t want Brodsky off the Peterson defense team. Remember the Chant?

    Oh yeah oops almost forgot :)

    Drew DON’T fire Joel, DON’T fire Joel! After all you two were meant for each other!

  60. rescueapet :
    The only way this lawyer can get someone to back off from breathing down his neck is to threaten them with phone calls to the the above-mentioned authorities, and even a boss (he tried to get Joe Hosey fired a few times). Can’t he just practice law the way most every other attorney does and use his skills to master the courtroom, rather than engaging in the dirty tactics he does day in and day out? Intimidating people, threatening lawsuits, threatening to call authorities? Someone needs to call on him for a change. He even admitted to calling the FBI to make trouble for Findstacypeterson.com.
    Stand back, though, when you open his closet door. Halloween’s got nothing on this guy.

    Rescue,
    You got that right! There is no telling, especially with all the crazy stuff that has gone on from his side. Then we have the letters, sightings, all kinds of things. Makes you wonder who was really behind it all? I mean I don’t have to wonder, but when you have no solid proof, it is only speculation. Of course this is only my opinion, but I could almost bet we all know who was!

  61. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS LEAVE TO APPEAL DOCKET
    posted to the IL Courts Website.
    http://state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/PLA_Ann/2010/092910.pdf
    http://state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Docket/2010/09-10.pdf

    SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
    WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
    THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE LEAVE TO APPEAL DOCKET
    WERE DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED:
    No mention of any Appeal for Drew W. Peterson
    ~~~~~

    Apparently DP/JB are not going to file an Appeal
    to the SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
    after denial by APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS of their
    MOTION FOR RELEASE of Drew W. Peterson
    while awaiting the prosecution’s ‘Hearsay’ Appeal.

  62. Thanks for the info, Judgin. Hmm, maybe the reason being that that would delay things even more for Peterson. At least now, his case is moving up within the system.

  63. Brutalyfrank :Based on very accurate reports, she is incompetent. She has allegedly forges affidavits of divorce and misrepresented herself as a member of federal trial bar. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson , just insisted on having her name on all re filed papers. Her visit with drew today , never happened. Brodsky being an ass aside but one should really look at her ability to so anything other than immigration.

    That’s an interesting point, brutal. I’ve never thought of Blobsky being an ass “aside.” The word “throughout” fits my perspective more accurately.

    Btw, this has never happened to me before, but does this post make anyone else crave bad chicken wings?

  64. coffeeocity :

    Brutalyfrank :Based on very accurate reports, she is incompetent. She has allegedly forges affidavits of divorce and misrepresented herself as a member of federal trial bar. She admitted and been witnessed that she never wrote one brief on Peterson , just insisted on having her name on all re filed papers. Her visit with drew today , never happened. Brodsky being an ass aside but one should really look at her ability to so anything other than immigration.

    That’s an interesting point, brutal. I’ve never thought of Blobsky being an ass “aside.” The word “throughout” fits my perspective more accurately.
    Btw, this has never happened to me before, but does this post make anyone else crave bad chicken wings?

    No, it just reminds me of bad chicken wings…

    and sour grapes :(

  65. justanotherhen :Meanwhile Drew is sitting on a small, round, stainless steel stool !

    a low, small, cold, hard, round, stainless steel stool …

    We can warm up old ‘Sparky’ for him … LOL

  66. FYI: Andrew Abood has emailed us to lend his support of Reem Odeh, and has asked that we post it.

    Andrew Abood to me

    show details 6:44 PM (41 minutes ago)

    Just a comment about Reem Odeh who seems to be taking some criticism. She is a good, honest and decent person. She is great mother. At a young age she has a unique quality about her — she is a rainmaker. She is able to generate a lot of business because clients have confidence in her and her abilities. A lot of law firms find lawyers that can sit in an office and punch out the billable hours, but finding a lawyer like Reem that can actually generate clients is a rare quality and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to practice law with her and I appreciate the comments that she made about me to Joe Hosey.

  67. Whatever you might think about Andrew Abood or Reem Odeh, it’s nice to see an expression of loyalty and appreciation.

    From what we hear, Reem had the clients before she hooked up with Joel and I’m sure she’ll have even more now that she has gotten away from him.

  68. Oh, haha, Good thing I checked the Legal Pub interview with Joel Brodsky as this is what he said about Andrew Abood as well as Reem Odeh on May 8, 2008 at 9.20am:

    The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh).

    Please note he calls Andrew Abood his excellent co-counsel and Reem Odeh is the very sharp Reem Odeh.

  69. I vote Brutaly Frank is JB. He wouldn’t be able to help himself. Not known for his emotional continence nor grown-up, normal, civilized behaviour, nor spelling skill. Nice to see Reem absolved of any responsibility for all the poorly prepared filings, though. ;)

  70. Haggage. I love it, Reem. Keep heading toward the light, my sister. His and you-know-whose attempts to humiliate you haven’t, can’t, and won’t succeed. I hope you sue him for gender discrimination/ gender hate.

  71. rescueapet :FYI: Andrew Abood has emailed us to lend his support of Reem Odeh, and has asked that we post it.

    Andrew Abood to me
    show details 6:44 PM (41 minutes ago)
    Just a comment about Reem Odeh who seems to be taking some criticism. She is a good, honest and decent person. She is great mother. At a young age she has a unique quality about her — she is a rainmaker. She is able to generate a lot of business because clients have confidence in her and her abilities. A lot of law firms find lawyers that can sit in an office and punch out the billable hours, but finding a lawyer like Reem that can actually generate clients is a rare quality and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to practice law with her and I appreciate the comments that she made about me to Joe Hosey.

    Understanding and believing everyone has the right to the best defense, I’d be more comfortable joining in wishing “all the best in her future endeavors” if she hadn’t chosen to remain enmeshed with Peterson for 3 years. Feel the same way about Abood. Sure they’re better attorneys and more likable than Blobsky, but I remember what it was they wanted when I first learned their names; Peterson as a free man and maybe a book deal. What if they’d been successful in their past endeavors? I guess it’s “too soon” for me.

  72. Decision on Peterson’s weapons charge possible Friday

    October 1, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — Drew Peterson could learn Friday if an unlawful weapons charge will be dropped.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant is accused of owning an assault rifle with an illegal short barrel. He says he had an exception because he was a member of the swat team.

    Peterson is in jail awaiting trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He has denied any involvement.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7700198

  73. joehosey

    Gun charge is dropped. 4 minutes ago via txt

    Wow! Except I wonder what he means by “dropped?” Dropped by the State, or dismissed by the Judge? Not sure what that means.

  74. see above….as per Joe’s Twitter

    joehosey

    Judge dismissed the charge under LEOSA. State may appeal.
    18 minutes ago via txt

  75. Oh, got it now. State may appeal? Bah.

    Score one for the defense. Run for cover, LOL. I’m sure Brodsky won’t want to let this one get by without trumping it up in the media.

  76. This is a disappointment, not a surprise. Judge RS always puts a ‘real’ decision up to the Appellate Court with three judges deciding.

  77. joehosey
    Brodsky apparently does not want to let Reem withdraw so he can terminate her from the case.
    3 minutes ago via txt

    joehosey
    Brodsky; He’s Drew Peterson. He always wins in the long run.
    4 minutes ago via txt

  78. LOL @ Facs! Yeah, that’s the big question – will the State appeal?

    I wonder if this ruling has an effect on Steve Peterson’s problems? If the gun is “legal” under LEOSA, according to the judge, then that would work for Steve too, no? Or is it an issue of taking possession of evidence that was to be included in a search warrant?

  79. “He’s Drew Peterson. He always wins in the long run.”

    No change of venue.
    No decrease in bail.
    No release from jail while appeal is pending.
    A judgment against him from Chase bank.
    No interviews from jail.
    No homebaked cookies!

    He’s a winner, alright.

  80. “Brodsky apparently does not want to let Reem withdraw so he can terminate her from the case.’

    Because he is just that big of a dick. Joel: Keepin’ it classy.

  81. joehosey
    Brodsky; He’s Drew Peterson. He always wins in the long run.
    4 minutes ago via txt

    If he doesn’t win, someone Just disappears. IMO

  82. Well guys, we know JB is a vindictive man, and he won’t back off until he uses every ounce of effort he can to make trouble for anyone that gets in his face.

    I wonder what he would do to a disgruntled client? Rat him out?

  83. Interesting ruling on LEOSA. I guess that would mean that all current and former LE can run around legally with illegal weapons???

    I do think though that the gun charges were brought up to get and/or keep him in prison while they worked the other cases.

    Curious to hear more about what Hosey means by Joel trying to block Reem from withdrawing. Wouldn’t a judge get pissed if a lawyer wasted the court’s time to block someone from withdrawing from the case just so he could fire them? And if he did fire them – wouldn’t the lawyer still have to go to court to formally withdraw? I picture him saying he wants to block her from withdrawing because she was supposed to be the one to do the testimony of the boys. And then keeping her on because he knows she wants to be done with him. IDK though – just wild theories. :)

  84. I thought Stephen’s suspension had to do with interfering with the investigation by hiding the guns for his dad at all rather than with exactly what guns he had in his possession. But who knows – haven’t heard much on that internal investigation.

  85. facsmiley :“He’s Drew Peterson. He always wins in the long run.”
    No change of venue.No decrease in bail.No release from jail while appeal is pending.A judgment against him from Chase bank.No interviews from jail.No homebaked cookies!
    He’s a winner, alright.

    ~~~~
    DP/JB are short-sighted…

    the run is still on and the finish line is farther ahead than they are able to think…

  86. cyrhla :

    The State should appeal and they will win.
    Stephen is coming back to work, I guess.

    The thing with the judge’s ruling is he might not have completely bought-in to all of the defense’s argument. He shot down the Second Amendment argument, I believe. I think his ruling could be based on even one point that he based his ruling on.

    If the State did appeal, and who knows if they will, sure, they could possibly win on appeal, but, at this point, sending this gun case back to the Appellate Court just doesn’t seem productive anymore. But, that’s JMHO.

Comments are closed.