NMC’s analysis on latest in Neilson case

From comments:

So we could all be on the same page, I ran through and posted some of Patsy’s story in an update after Bestlawyer pointed me toward it.

You’re right, Bestlawyer, the withdrawal of the pleading was unusual. I had several reactions, but hesitated to say them because I think there are several possibilities and picking between them would be speculation.

There are some things that are clear, though. First, there’s this: The pleading Ken withdrew had to do with his request to be paid through the Federal Public Defender system. He’d obtained that, and the prosecutors had filed a motion saying that Neilson could pay and was likely lying to obtain a public defender. Coghlan filed a pleading saying that Neilson couldn’t pay a lawyer, that his assets were illiquid and that the government’s understanding about income-producing property was mistaken. He also acknowledged that the Government could seek to recover what Coghlan was paid out of Neilson’s assets.

The next thing that happened was Coghlan withdrawing from the case and withdrawing that pleading. It was clear that Coghlan and Neilson had had a break-down about something. Was the pleading withdrawn because Neilson needed a do-over (that is, to back out of what he’d said to get a public defender) because of the threats stated in the prosecutor’s motion? Was there an issue from Coghlan’s side about needing to correct something out of the obligation of candor to the court? What happened between March and May, then, that delayed this explosion? See what I mean– anything would be speculation. I’m sure others can come up with other possibilities.

NMC
7/8/10