The docket entries listed in comment from reader NAAS left me with a somewhat outdated post – and there’s been too much injustice heaped on James Perdiago to add insult to injury with a post that doesn’t do justice to the recent filings in his case.
Part I that you’re reading now was intended as an introduction – and now it’s become an introduction to a puzzle. If you look at the list of docket entries, you’ll see this among those dated 09/29/2008:
09/29/2008 147 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, REFERENCES OR INFERENCES UNRELATED TO THE CHARGES OR A RELEVANT DEFENSE by USA as to James G Perdigao. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Mann, James) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
Here at SLABBED we’ve certainly not taken Perdigao’s case as a wild and interesting ride, but possibly destined for the fiction section of the library – and why anyone would makes little sense to me, particularly after the evidence surfaced backing up his claims about traffic court, about as much sense as suggesting Perdiago, not USA Letten, was doing an imitation of the Hinderberg in the criminal case and then writing this.
The U.S. Attorney has also filed a motion in limine (a motion to exclude evidence), asserting that all the stuff aimed at the US Attorney and Adams and Reese in that civil case should not come up in the criminal trial.
The date interests me. If you follow the link to the motion in limine, you’ll see that it was filed on the 26th and not the 29th as shown on the docket – which means it was filed on the same day the orders for Motion Hearing showed on the Pacer listing of the docket.
Of course, more than the date interests me and I know the same goes for many of us. That’s why I’m going to double check some things before posting more. Part 2 – coming shortly if Comcast cooperates – will have the documents you need to understand why Judge Fallon seemed to be issuing hearing orders as fast as Perdigao was filing motions.