1. Reflections on Postville Raids

2. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) I declined to represent any Postville Defendants. I posted email identifying conflicts on CJA and Federal Defender List serve. In my view, representing 40 Defendants arising out of same prosecution violates Gideon and Model Rule 1.7

3. Model Rule 1.7 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

4. [6] Comment 6 to Model Rule 1.7 Similarly, a directly adverse conflict may arise when a lawyer is required to cross-examine a client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client, as when the testimony will be damaging to the client who is represented in the lawsuit.

5. I was positive that one of my clients would have either favorable, or unfavorable information to another client.

6. Many did not “transfer, possess, or use” any identification document

7. Hoagland Affdavit

8. Hoagland p. 28 Source 11

9. “Use?” Many had I-9’s filled out for them

10. Consider statute of limitations issue on aggravated identity theft Example of Source 12

11. Source 12 Hoagland p. 29-30

12. “Used” or “Transferred” in 2003

13. “Use” prior to 2004 Presenting false identification to get job Excellent ex post facto argument

14. Erik Camayd-Freixas p. 6 of his essay

15. David Hoagland

16. All clients were likely potential witnesses relating to situations similar to claims in Hoagland Affidavit