S05.E14: Self-Defence

[yeswedo]

As time runs out before the trial, Mike wants to represent himself while Harvey wants to lead the charge. To decide the issue, Harvey challenges Mike to a winner takes all showdown.

[jmonique]

I don't understand why Mike is such a big deal. Doesn't Anita Mills have anything else to do? Does the city really have the resources to have someone go to ARGENTINA to interrogate Sheila?

 

This is just so ridiculously overblown and OY WITH THE INTENSE. This isn't Al Capone.

[Chicago Redshirt]

Mike in and of himself is not a big deal. Mike is the key to getting Pearson Specter Litt, though, which IS a big deal. It is the federal government that is prosecuting Mike, not city or state prosecutors. And given that this is like the third or fourth prosecution aimed at PSL in recent years, I could see prosecutors willing to put some extra effort in on all this.

 

That said, it is kind of annoying that the prosecutor continues to not just make a straight up case.

 

If Mike is going to take the position "Yes, I lived with Trevor but I was commuting to Harvard once a week," Gibbs should be able to blow that out of the water by showing there's no receipts for bus/train trips, gas or any other travel expenses. Why is she tracking with precision all of Louis's movements, but not bothering to track Mike's? Why is she not showing that Mike Ross has no valid undergraduate degree through whatever school he purportedly graduated from instead of relying on Trevor? And why didn't she prep Trevor for the easy line of attacks that a) he's a drug dealing scumbag who b) cut a deal with and c) had a lifetime of being jealous of Mike?

 

Also, since Gibbs's objective is to go after Jessica, how is it that Gibbs doesn't know that Trevor told Jessica about Mike's not having a Harvard degree?

 

Law nitpicks:

 

1. Witness tampering does not require the witness to be under subpoena. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

 

 

 

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

I don't think there is any question that's what Louis did.

 

2. At trial, potential witnesses are excluded from the courtroom so they can't taint each others' testimony. So you're not going to have Louis, Rachel, and Jessica all watching Donna testify and the like.

 

3. Jimmy couldn't be called as a "rebuttal" witness, certainly not in the middle of the prosecution's case.

 

4. Gibbs was attempting to shift the burden onto the defense, which was under no obligation to present a single witness who says Mike went to Harvard. Someone of Gibbs' station should know that the burden is entirely on the prosecution to show its claims were true beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

5. Gibbs getting the trial date moved up without any prior notice....oy.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Chicago Redshirt

[Tara]

Oh my. Sad, sad, sad. This show is so bad, it angers me. And this is coming from someone who stuck with Gossip Girl to the end.

They need to euthanize this show now.

[Good Queen Jane]

Only two more episodes. I don't know if I can last that long. Please, Great Harvard Law God of the Universe, bring this to an end!

[Tara]

I am just hoping that they at least have a kick-ass, all their adversaries-go-down-big-time, finale.

Biut I doubt we'd even get that. Because this show is a constant ping-pong match, where no one ever wins. Least of all the viewers.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Tara

[PepperMonkey]

Mike is asking people he's called his friends to continue to lie for him and to plant even MORE fake evidence??? What a great guy!!

 

I found out this has already been renewed for season 6 because I'm always the last to know everything, it seems. I don't know if I'll be around to watch it, though. It's not enjoyable at all anymore and hasn't been for a couple years. I tried to hang in because I'm not a quitter, but, alas, the stench of this mess is stronger than my resolve.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by PepperMonkey

[Slovenly Muse]

While I am also having a hard time getting any enjoyment out of this show anymore, I have to say, this is the first episode that really made me feel anxious about the stakes involved in this trial. With more and more people either seeming to know or believe "the secret," the possibility of people we hadn't even considered participants in the conspiracy suffering the consequences of it are starting to make me actually care. While Mike, Harvey and Jessica are never going to prison (obviously), the idea that Harold, Benjamin, Jenny, or... what's his name? Jimmy? might actually be affected by this thing. These people are way more likely to lose everything or do time for their involvement (or potential involvement), since they're already basically absent from the show, and surprisingly (very surprisingly), I think I would actually... care? If that happened? Huh. Suddenly it feels like there's something at stake here.

 

If only they hadn't turned the whole thing into some nonsensical "Mike vs. Harvey" fight, as if they were actually against each other - which is a weird episodic plot considering the major through-line of this story is about how unshakably loyal they are to each other. Way to fall back on a tired formula AND undercut your own story. The pseudo-legal bullshit isn't helping either. (Thanks for clearing that up, Chicago Redshirt!)

 

However, I did kind of admire the way Anita Gibbs used Donna to completely call Jessica's preposterous bluff about ALL her people being willing to swear on the stand that Mike went to Harvard. That was well-played.

[CaptainCranky]

This show has gotten so friggin convoluted it's almost impossible to watch the absurd story lines they're trying to foist off on the viewers.

 

USADA Gibbs would need an investigator staff of 20-25 people to get all the goods she comes up with on this show. 

 

I've really got mixed emotions about sticking around to the end of this season.

Edited February 19, 2016 by CaptainCranky

[catrice2]

It started out with such promise...why couldn't they just have Harvey hire Mike and then make him go to law school?  The show would have been  just as enjoyable if the premise had been Mike being the first non  Harvard lawyer to come in and do well. They could have still had a case of the week and drama....the "secret" ruined this show.    The clothes are not even cutting it any more, and Gina Torres did something to her hair.

[Dowel Jones]

From the shallow end:  It's way too late in the run to make this comment, but I sure wish they had fashioned Louis with better fitting shirts.  I know they did it for character appearance, but it always looks to me like his head is being choked off by that shirt collar. 

[romantic idiot]

Guys, I know I should not have liked it, but I am enthralled. I can't wait for next week!! Don't know what it says of my intelligence and my critical thinking but I love it. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by romantic idiot

[Kloie]

Could they all go to jail, please? Except maybe Donna, because she's ok.

[bros402]

Could they all go to jail, please? Except maybe Donna, because she's ok.

Rachel's father would get her out of it even if she kicks and screams the whole time. So then we'd have a show about Rachel and Donna.

 

Provided Mike and Harvey don't get to interact with them and they don't really complain about it, Donna & Rachel show might be okay :P

[Synth]

Guys, I know I should not have liked it, but I am enthralled. I can't wait for next week!! Don't know what it says of my intelligence and my critical thinking but I love it. 

This last few episodes of this season are IMO somewhat reminiscent of the frenetic fast pace of the first season so from that perspective I have to admit that I'm enjoying it as well.

 

It's a shame though that it's based more around typical tv heightened drama usually found in soap operas than the often ridiculous and improbable but never-the-less enjoyable legal cases the writers came up with in Season 1.

[Bunnyhop]

I don't know why I still watch this mess.  I admit that I don't pay close attention anymore and usually do other things while I play it back.  But I just don't care what happens to anyone on this show anymore, including Donna.
Mike running around asking, no, demanding that everyone he knows and ever knew lie for him.  And gettting all offended when he finds out that most people are at least as opposed to going to prison as he is.  Because, well, the entire world will suffer if this arrogant little shit is exposed for the lying, selfish liar he is.  
  The self-righteousness of a bunch of liars,  demanding that everybody lie, obstruct,and generally roll around in the mud with them has just pushed me to my limits.  The arrogance of their expectations that everyone else risk prison, disbarment and ruin in order for them to skate on years of criminality is astounding.  And we know they are in crisis mode because they yell all the time and say goddamn constantly. No, wait, they've always done that.
As far as I can tell, PSL does not practice law anymore, except to represent themselves.  Which, given their utter disrespect for the law, is probably a good thing.  (Next week-possible jury tampering!)
I hear the show has been renewed, so I assume that there will be some craptastic rabbit out of the hat miracle that spares everyone from the fates they so richly deserve.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Bunnyhop

[grannygeek]

 

They could have still had a case of the week and drama....the "secret" ruined this show.

Re: Mike's frikkin' secret. IDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCARE!!!!!!

This show, like so many others, abandoned what made it work to begin with i.e.: external drama COTW and went for internal drama: Louis coveting Donna, the Scottie bs, Harvey in therapy and always, always, Mike and his gd 'secret'.

Is it easier to write soap opera bullcrap than actual cases? Yes, I'm talking about you Person Of Interest, Good Wife, Blacklist, and so, so many more.

[milner]

I have wanted to ask this for some time but haven't because I don't like looking dumb.  However, given what has been happening on the show, being dumb is the new norm.  We have all seen shows where the accused defends themselves, so clearly you don't have to be a lawyer to present in court.  Does Mike use the letters or Harvard grad designation after his signature or on letterheads?  Could they not say clients just have assumed he was a lawyer when in fact he was a clerk like Rachel.  He always had a 'real' lawyer with him on cases.  The being a junior partner is a tougher fix but I just wondered about the other.    Yea, I know dumb idea!! 

[FiveByFive]

This show, like so many others, abandoned what made it work to begin with i.e.: external drama COTW and went for internal drama: Louis coveting Donna, the Scottie bs, Harvey in therapy and always, always, Mike and his gd 'secret'.

 

 

I actually quit watching the show for an entire season and have no desire to go back and rewatch.  Why? They got rid of the Harvey/Mike dynamic that was the whole point of the damn thing. I do think it's riveting now just to see how this plays out.

 

.... but I figured out what the problem is.

 

After returning I see Mike is still in a-hole mode and failed to remember the only reason he is there is because of these people. Mike can read every book ever and memorize case after case but the fact of the matter is: he learned the ropes from Harvey, got support from Donna, Jessica and the others and he quickly forgot all about that.  They lied for him and he doesn't seem to care. They're trying to save their own skin and help you and the first part they are only doing because of you but you are too full of yourself to see that. 

 

What I'm seeing is:

 

Mike: I am going to represent myself! I am going to do this to this witness! I am going to blackmail this person into ..

Them:  Mike you shouldn't do that because ...

Mike: I don't care! I know more than all of you because I didn't go to law school but I memorize things and I've been working here a few years so I think I have a better grip than you people that have been doing this for 20 plus years!

Them:  We just want to help before you get us all in troub--

Mike: I. Do. Not. Care. I AM MIKE ROSS FAKE ATTORNEY AT LAW! NOW DO AS I TELL YOU INSTEAD OF THROWING ME UNDER A BUS AND SAVING YOURSELVES! I DO NOT WANT YOUR HELP THAT I NEED! 

 

There is zero reason why any reasonable person would think that they are a better attorney than the attorney that taught them this early on in their career.  Mike is all, full speed ahead charging at people while Harvey and Jessica are smart enough to think first. Mike is just the most unlikable person on the show. At least Louis is a good lawyer and when forced to admits when he needs help and respects his coworkers on some level.  

[bros402]

Re: Mike's frikkin' secret. IDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCAREIDONTCARE!!!!!!

This show, like so many others, abandoned what made it work to begin with i.e.: external drama COTW and went for internal drama: Louis coveting Donna, the Scottie bs, Harvey in therapy and always, always, Mike and his gd 'secret'.

Is it easier to write soap opera bullcrap than actual cases? Yes, I'm talking about you Person Of Interest, Good Wife, Blacklist, and so, so many more.

 

They should've resolved the secret around season 3. Had half a season devoted to the secret being revealed, the fallout, and how the firm managed to miraculously recover from it - and had Mike go to law school. Then come up with a less annoying overarching thing for them to deal with - pretty much anything would be less annoying.

 

Also, Person of Interest was pretty much always about the Machine - not the numbers of the week.

[Tara]

I know why I still care about this horribly wriiten show:

It's the chemistry of the actors.

I love Gabriel Macht.

I love Patrick J Adams.

I love Sarah Rafferty.

I love Gina Torres.

I love Rick Hoffman.

Hell, I even love Meghan Markle.

And that is why this show has any followers at all.

It's not the actors, It's the direction the producers are taking the show.

[jmonique]

I know why I still care about this horribly wriiten show:

It's the chemistry of the actors.

I love Gabriel Macht.

I love Patrick J Adams.

I love Sarah Rafferty.

I love Gina Torres.

I love Rick Hoffman.

Hell, I even love Meghan Markle.

And that is why this show has any followers at all.

It's not the actors, It's the direction the producers are taking the show.

 

The back-and-forth and dialog between the actors in the early seasons was what intrigued me. There was a spark there, even if the law behind the COTW was flimsy.

 

Now there's just no joy anywhere on this show. Everything is "GOD DAMNIT, MIKE," and "HARVEY, I WILL REPRESENT MYSELF TO APPEAR SELF-SACRIFICING WHEN I'M 200% GUILTY!!!" and "Wait, you won't risk going to jail for me? HOW DARE YOU, I GOT YOU THAT ONE THING ONCE!" Everything is in capital letters and intense and you can't barely remember why these people like each other, much less why they're ALL running and running and running to subvert the law and get Mike out of this.

I blame USA for this, though. All of their shows are just weirdly intense now.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I have wanted to ask this for some time but haven't because I don't like looking dumb.  However, given what has been happening on the show, being dumb is the new norm.  We have all seen shows where the accused defends themselves, so clearly you don't have to be a lawyer to present in court.  Does Mike use the letters or Harvard grad designation after his signature or on letterheads?  Could they not say clients just have assumed he was a lawyer when in fact he was a clerk like Rachel.  He always had a 'real' lawyer with him on cases.  The being a junior partner is a tougher fix but I just wondered about the other.    Yea, I know dumb idea!! 

 

Everyone has the right to represent him/herself in court.

 

However, to represent others, you have to be a licensed attorney. That generally means you have to have graduated from an accredited law school, and you have to pass both a written test that makes sure you know the law and also a background check. Lying about any part of your background is grounds for failing. You cannot hold yourself out as an attorney or do most legal work without actually being an attorney.

 

Pretty much everything Mike has done -- appearing in court, filing motions, signing off on contracts -- has been while pretending that he is a Harvard Law-educated person. He is not. I am under the assumption that he passed the written test, which should be easy for someone with his photographic memory and smarts. However, he could not pass the background check. I'm under the assumption that his passage of that was hacked as well.

[HawaiiTVGuy]

Is it me or the fact GIbbs (a shout-out to NCIS where Hope also has a recurring role?) keeps on playing these sleazy back-handed games makes her just look weaker and weaker.  If she had such a strong case against Mike, and everyone else, why does she need to resort to such under-handed tactics?

 

And the more that I think about the case, what exactly can Sheila say at trial?  Oh, my records are SOOO complete, and I have no record of Mike Ross?  Yet, her hard copy records, which are not secure, are supposedly more reliable than computer records that show transcripts and proof of attendance?  The prosecution is trying to prove the "absence" of something, which is actually harder to do, than an actual overt act.  Finding bus tickets I would think are almost impossible.  Do you need passenger information on bus tickets?  And why would Mike have kept those records after all those years?  And would Greyhound have kept those records?

And Trevor is like the worst witness ever:  Hi Trevor, did you volunteer to testify today or did the ADA approach you?  And you only decided to testify once the ADA said they would give you immunity for your drug dealing, which you described as quote: "being enough to send me away for 10 years"?  Oh and you testified that Mike Ross cheated on a test in college and that is how he got expelled?  Actually it was because of YOU that he cheated FOR other people, isn't it?  And going back to how Mike Ross was doing in college, how were his grades?  And did he attend class at all during that time period?  And wasn't he actually going to be going to Harvard if he wasn't expelled as a transfer student?  And again, he was so smart, he accomplished that without needing to go to class?  And you were a weed dealer after you graduated?  Or is it more accurate to describe you as a user who happened to occasionally sell?  In fact, you were constantly in debt with your suppliers, because you smoked yourself into debt?  So, in between your chronic weed smoking, your dealing, your full-time job and your girlfriend, you somehow know exactly what Mike was doing every minute of every day?  

 

Hypothetically, if no one is going to use the electronic footprint they left and pretend it doesn't exist to cast OBVIOUS reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, and Jimmy wasn't around to perjure himself on the stand (although it is hilarious that supposedly the key to the prosecution is no one can remember Mike at Harvard, yet none of the first year associates raised an eyebrow when he started at the firm, so obviously none of them thought twice that they never saw him), the key to the charge is he didn't go to "any" law school for it to even be a crime, because according to the electronic database of the New York Bar Association, he has a license.  So if they just turn the Donna examination and say yeah, Mike lied to get that interview, not because he wasn't a lawyer, but simply because he didn't go to Harvard and knew he that the Firm only hired Harvard grads, but he knew he, a graduate of jo-schmo night school, was better than the Harvard grads and he went in and impressed the hell out of Harvey.

@Chicago Redshirt

 

4. Gibbs was attempting to shift the burden onto the defense, which was under no obligation to present a single witness who says Mike went to Harvard. Someone of Gibbs' station should know that the burden is entirely on the prosecution to show its claims were true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yup, that is called prosecutorial misconduct, and grounds for dismissal and sanctions.  Along with all the other testifying she was doing, of course, this is TV, trying to keep testimony that normally would take days in a normal court setting to 15 minutes requires the absence of some of the most obvious objections.

 

And why wouldn't Louis want to report the fact Gibbs violated the restraining order?  She did exactly what the restraining order was designed to prevent her from doing, making direct contact with him to try to intimidate him to turn.

 

And I have to add, I know this wouldn't have worked as if it did, there would not have been a show, but seriously, it hurts that no one figured out the OBVIOUS solution at the beginning, Mike works as a freaking law clerk/paralegal/investigator/anything not called a lawyer, and he can do all his magical document review/legal research/sit in on interviews and be a general pain in the ass.  He can even SIT at the freaking lawyers table, just unfortunately can't say he "represents" anyone.  Seriously, he pretty much could do EVERYTHING a typical big firm 1st year associate does, and they wouldn't have been breaking any laws.  Oh well...the show needed a hook I guess, and now it is being hoisted on its own pitard as a result.

Edited February 23, 2016 by HawaiiTVGuy

[HawaiiTVGuy]

They should've resolved the secret around season 3. Had half a season devoted to the secret being revealed, the fallout, and how the firm managed to miraculously recover from it - and had Mike go to law school. Then come up with a less annoying overarching thing for them to deal with - pretty much anything would be less annoying.

 

Also, Person of Interest was pretty much always about the Machine - not the numbers of the week.

Yeah, not sure how POI got lumped into the group (and I watch all of the shows mentioned).

Edited February 23, 2016 by HawaiiTVGuy

[Chicago Redshirt]

Is it me or the fact GIbbs (a shout-out to NCIS where Hope also has a recurring role?) keeps on playing these sleazy back-handed games makes her just look weaker and weaker.  If she had such a strong case against Mike, and everyone else, why does she need to resort to such under-handed tactics?

 

And the more that I think about the case, what exactly can Sheila say at trial?  Oh, my records are SOOO complete, and I have no record of Mike Ross?  Yet, her hard copy records, which are not secure, are supposedly more reliable than computer records that show transcripts and proof of attendance?  The prosecution is trying to prove the "absence" of something, which is actually harder to do, than an actual overt act.  Finding bus tickets I would think are almost impossible.  Do you need passenger information on bus tickets?  And why would Mike have kept those records after all those years?  And would Greyhound have kept those records?

And Trevor is like the worst witness ever:  Hi Trevor, did you volunteer to testify today or did the ADA approach you?  And you only decided to testify once the ADA said they would give you immunity for your drug dealing, which you described as quote: "being enough to send me away for 10 years"?  Oh and you testified that Mike Ross cheated on a test in college and that is how he got expelled?  Actually it was because of YOU that he cheated FOR other people, isn't it?  And going back to how Mike Ross was doing in college, how were his grades?  And did he attend class at all during that time period?  And wasn't he actually going to be going to Harvard if he wasn't expelled as a transfer student?  And again, he was so smart, he accomplished that without needing to go to class?  And you were a weed dealer after you graduated?  Or is it more accurate to describe you as a user who happened to occasionally sell?  In fact, you were constantly in debt with your suppliers, because you smoked yourself into debt?  So, in between your chronic weed smoking, your dealing, your full-time job and your girlfriend, you somehow know exactly what Mike was doing every minute of every day?  

 

Hypothetically, if no one is going to use the electronic footprint they left and pretend it doesn't exist to cast OBVIOUS reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, and Jimmy wasn't around to perjure himself on the stand (although it is hilarious that supposedly the key to the prosecution is no one can remember Mike at Harvard, yet none of the first year associates raised an eyebrow when he started at the firm, so obviously none of them thought twice that they never saw him), the key to the charge is he didn't go to "any" law school for it to even be a crime, because according to the electronic database of the New York Bar Association, he has a license.  So if they just turn the Donna examination and say yeah, Mike lied to get that interview, not because he wasn't a lawyer, but simply because he didn't go to Harvard and knew he that the Firm only hired Harvard grads, but he knew he, a graduate of jo-schmo night school, was better than the Harvard grads and he went in and impressed the hell out of Harvey.

@Chicago Redshirt

Yup, that is called prosecutorial misconduct, and grounds for dismissal and sanctions.  Along with all the other testifying she was doing, of course, this is TV, trying to keep testimony that normally would take days in a normal court setting to 15 minutes requires the absence of some of the most obvious objections.

 

And why wouldn't Louis want to report the fact Gibbs violated the restraining order?  She did exactly what the restraining order was designed to prevent her from doing, making direct contact with him to try to intimidate him to turn.

 

And I have to add, I know this wouldn't have worked as if it did, there would not have been a show, but seriously, it hurts that no one figured out the OBVIOUS solution at the beginning, Mike works as a freaking law clerk/paralegal/investigator/anything not called a lawyer, and he can do all his magical document review/legal research/sit in on interviews and be a general pain in the ass.  He can even SIT at the freaking lawyers table, just unfortunately can't say he "represents" anyone.  Seriously, he pretty much could do EVERYTHING a typical big firm 1st year associate does, and they wouldn't have been breaking any laws.  Oh well...the show needed a hook I guess, and now it is being hoisted on its own pitard as a result.

 

The real-world reason Gibbs keeps doing all this underhanded sneaky stuff is because the writers want us to pretend like Harvey and Mike are heroes, and the easiest way to do that is by making the person prosecuting them semi-villainous. Also, because Mike and Harvey could beat the underhanded, indirect case, as opposed to the case that shows a) Mike never graduated from any college and therefore could not have gone on to Harvard Law b) none of Mike's so-called professors remembers him at all c) Harvard's only records pertaining to Mike are electronic and there are no corresponding paper records.

 

What Sheila could testify to is, yes, that every student who has ever attended Harvard Law has a corresponding paper file kept in the regular course of business, in a room that only a certain number of Harvard employees normally have access to, that she checked and found no corresponding file for a "Michael J. Ross," that there is no reason to suspect that there had ever been a paper file for a Michael J. Ross. She shared her suspicions with prosecutors anonymously at first, and then revealed herself.

 

Possibly she could also testify that Louis Litt, her former boyfriend and a name partner at Ross's firm, asked her to not make her suspicions about Mike Ross public. When she told him that he knew that Ross was a fraud, he was silent. He later bought her a ticket to Argentina with the express wish that she not be available to testify against Mike Ross.

 

Gibbs (presumably) would look at the electronic records and see when they were created and how, and be able to assert evidence that they were hacked. She would also be able to show that every item on his resume was faked. Although he claimed to be a member of the Order of the Coif, for example, he's not. The extracurriculars he claimed (say, Moot Court or Mock Trial or Law Review) would also prove false. And important records, like billing and student loans, would also be non-existent.

 

Trevor's a bad witness in a lot of respects, but he's got the advantage of telling the truth here. He lived with Mike and can say authoritatively, no Mike didn't commute to Harvard Law. He didn't do any Harvard homework or tests. He was selling test results during this time period. And you can confirm that with Jenny and other people who knew him at the time. There's a large gap between knowing what your roomie is up to every minute of every day and knowing that your roomie did not regularly travel to Boston to pick up and drop off homework, never talked about going to Harvard Law, never had mail from Harvard Law come to your residence, etc etc.

 

They retconned it so that at least Harold and Jimmy both knew that Mike wasn't a real Harvard Law grad originally. So it may be that the other dozen or so people in his class (plus some number of people in the classes before and after his) just were like, "Eh, whatever."

 

Pretending that "OK, so he didn't go to Harvard but he did go to some other law school" doesn't get him anywhere because a) there are no records to suggest he went to fly-by-night law school b) it shows that he's a liar about Harvard Law, which still makes him a fraud.

[HawaiiTVGuy]

The real-world reason Gibbs keeps doing all this underhanded sneaky stuff is because the writers want us to pretend like Harvey and Mike are heroes, and the easiest way to do that is by making the person prosecuting them semi-villainous. Also, because Mike and Harvey could beat the underhanded, indirect case, as opposed to the case that shows a) Mike never graduated from any college and therefore could not have gone on to Harvard Law b) none of Mike's so-called professors remembers him at all c) Harvard's only records pertaining to Mike are electronic and there are no corresponding paper records.

 

What Sheila could testify to is, yes, that every student who has ever attended Harvard Law has a corresponding paper file kept in the regular course of business, in a room that only a certain number of Harvard employees normally have access to, that she checked and found no corresponding file for a "Michael J. Ross," that there is no reason to suspect that there had ever been a paper file for a Michael J. Ross. She shared her suspicions with prosecutors anonymously at first, and then revealed herself.

 

Possibly she could also testify that Louis Litt, her former boyfriend and a name partner at Ross's firm, asked her to not make her suspicions about Mike Ross public. When she told him that he knew that Ross was a fraud, he was silent. He later bought her a ticket to Argentina with the express wish that she not be available to testify against Mike Ross.

 

Gibbs (presumably) would look at the electronic records and see when they were created and how, and be able to assert evidence that they were hacked. She would also be able to show that every item on his resume was faked. Although he claimed to be a member of the Order of the Coif, for example, he's not. The extracurriculars he claimed (say, Moot Court or Mock Trial or Law Review) would also prove false. And important records, like billing and student loans, would also be non-existent.

 

Trevor's a bad witness in a lot of respects, but he's got the advantage of telling the truth here. He lived with Mike and can say authoritatively, no Mike didn't commute to Harvard Law. He didn't do any Harvard homework or tests. He was selling test results during this time period. And you can confirm that with Jenny and other people who knew him at the time. There's a large gap between knowing what your roomie is up to every minute of every day and knowing that your roomie did not regularly travel to Boston to pick up and drop off homework, never talked about going to Harvard Law, never had mail from Harvard Law come to your residence, etc etc.

 

They retconned it so that at least Harold and Jimmy both knew that Mike wasn't a real Harvard Law grad originally. So it may be that the other dozen or so people in his class (plus some number of people in the classes before and after his) just were like, "Eh, whatever."

 

Pretending that "OK, so he didn't go to Harvard but he did go to some other law school" doesn't get him anywhere because a) there are no records to suggest he went to fly-by-night law school b) it shows that he's a liar about Harvard Law, which still makes him a fraud.

In terms of the Sheila thing, this would have been before getting in her face about things.  As a custodian of records, she can only testify to what records she saw at a certain period in time.  She cannot testify first-hand knowledge about his attendance or lack of attendance.  Again, in the day and age of CSI, a jury would be bound to find electronic records showing the presence of something, much more compelling than the absence of a random hard copy record.  And combine that with Jimmy's testimony (granted they didn't know they had that), but again, IMO, lack of hard copy record in a room full of records, versus electronic record refuting that = reasonable doubt.

I know this is all for TV, and that is probably the reason they didn't go down the rabbit hole, so you could be right, Gibbs may have been able to discover the hack easily enough, and maybe because they didn't want to go down the rabbit hole, but as the prosecutor, wouldn't that be the first thing you would do?  Figure out exactly how to refute the electronic records contrary to your case, yet she presented zero evidence to show that, even from her own IT expert.  

Again, this kind of goes back to Gibbs putting the burden on the defense and claiming they are responsible for producing witnesses to show Mike went to Harvard, because where are those witnesses for Gibbs?  Based on all the time and effort she is using to tail and strong-arm people, wouldn't it be easier to go to all the Harvard graduates from his class and ask them if they know he went to Harvard or not?  In my opinion, the glaring hole in testimony of these people would be the center of my closing for defense.

 

I totally understand the problem with the idea that he can't now say he went to another school, because of the hacking that was done, just saying if that had never happened, and the only thing that people can show is he didn't go to Harvard, yet everyone who has ever met him says he is the best lawyer out there and he otherwise can produce examples of going to a night school, then IMO there would be plenty of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury if he is actually guilty of the crime he is charged.

Edited February 23, 2016 by HawaiiTVGuy

[ahisma]

Mike works as a freaking law clerk/paralegal/investigator/anything not called a lawyer, and he can do all his magical document review/legal research/sit in on interviews and be a general pain in the ass. He can even SIT at the freaking lawyers table, just unfortunately can't say he "represents" anyone. Seriously, he pretty much could do EVERYTHING a typical big firm 1st year associate does, and they wouldn't have been breaking any laws.

Honest to god, I would WELCOME at this point the final scene of the season (show) being Harvey waking up and glaring balefully at a pizza box. Then going in to work and telling Donna, "I had the stupidest dream last night. Anyway, I need to get in to see Jessica to tell her I don't need an associate—I have a new assistant who can run rings around any of the other idiots I saw."

[Chicago Redshirt]

Sheila is portrayed as a sort of all-purpose Harvard Law official. She was depicted originally as someone who connects graduates with law firms like Pearson. Then she was portrayed as having a role in the admissions process as well, denying Rachel admission even though she was the daughter of a famous alum, had awesome test scores, years of experience as the bestest paralegal evah!, and is a woman of color.

 

Assuming she wore those various hats back when Mike supposedly matriculated and graduated, she would potentially be able to testify to other things as well, such as she did not remember arranging for Mike to interview with Pearson Hardman, and there's no record of Mike interviewing with her or anyone, no admissions record other than electronic one, but that normally there should be a paper one.

 

If Gibbs had properly prepared and tried her case, I think she easily beats the reasonable doubt standard. A person who actually went to Harvard Law would generate all these records: student loan debt, scholarships, applications, LSATs. None of them exist for Mike Ross. His roommate confirms Mike never went to Harvard. His former girlfriend Jenny confirms he never went to Harvard. His resume has X number of lies on it. His teachers do not recall him and have no evidence he's turned in any work. As for the electronic record, closer scrutiny shows it only came to being after Mike supposedly went to Harvard.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Chicago Redshirt

[vibeology]

If Gibbs had properly prepared and tried her case, I think she easily beats the reasonable doubt standard. A person who actually went to Harvard Law would generate all these records: student loan debt, scholarships, applications, LSATs. None of them exist for Mike Ross. His roommate confirms Mike never went to Harvard. His former girlfriend Jenny confirms he never went to Harvard. His resume has X number of lies on it. His teachers do not recall him and have no evidence he's turned in any work. As for the electronic record, closer scrutiny shows it only came to being after Mike supposedly went to Harvard.

 

Exactly this and its why I'm getting frustrated with this plot. Harvard isn't free and even if Hacker Girl faked Mike's tuition payment, where did the money come from? I doubt she hacked into banks to change their records too. As long as the other end of the money trail is missing, this is an easy case to prove. Here's the things about loans; banks don't often lose the original documents with the signatures on them. That how they legally hold you accountable to pay them back. If Mike was a scholarship recipient, again, those aren't the sort of documents that get lost easily. Harvard Financial aid is typically part award and part loan. Where are the bank records of Mike paying those loans back in the subsequent years. And you don't just pay tuition when you go to a school. You get health insurance, pay student fees, get a student card with your picture, take books out of the library, get ranked in your classes, join clubs and societies and a whole list of things I'm forgetting, There are no records of Mike doing any of that.

 

How likely is it that Mike's paper transcripts, all his exams and papers, his financial records, his name on the class rankings, bank records showing no payments to Harvard ever for any incidental, Bar paperwork, LSAT test, and actual diploma from his undergrad were all lost? If that's true, Mike is the unluckiest lawyer alive. That doesn't hold up. Add to it that since Gibbs has Trevor she should also have Jenny and the Dean who expelled Mike in the first place, she has several witnesses that can say Mike didn't complete his undergrad and Mike didn't commute to Boston once a week. This case should be a slam dunk. One student, who has a financial reason to lie, shouldn't be anywhere close to enough to cause doubt up against that mountain of evidence.

 

I get that Gibbs wants to get Harvey and Jessica. But the strongest case isn't pressuring Rachel's in school or putting the screws to Donna's Dad. its laying out all the evidence to Mike and then handing him a deal to turn on Harvey and Jessica. Not that he would. I think Mike would go down saying he was a lawyer to the very end, angry that anyone would doubt him because he knows the law.

[Chicago Redshirt]

In fairness, Hacker Girl wouldn't have to actually move money to fake Mike's tuition payments. She'd just hypothetically have to insert somewhere in Harvard's computer records that Mike was billed on these dates, and Mike paid on these other dates. Cross-checking with Mike's actual bank accounts and the records for whatever loan company or scholarship funds would show that to be false.

 

Also, there's no particular reason to think that Hacker Girl was that thorough in creating a cover for Mike; in fact, I think she may have explicitly said that she only created a superficial cover. 

 

To go on with some of the other things that would show Mike wasn't at Harvard that I don't think have been mentioned yet:

 

-No student e-mail address (or at least, no correspondence through that e-mail address as of the time of his supposed attendance)

-No alumni solicitations before the creation of the hacked transcript (there's a joke about someone going into witness protection to find on the first day of his new identity that his alma mater has tracked him down and started asking for money)

-The hard copy of the graduation program wouldn't have his name in it.

-No social media from Mike talking about going to Harvard, nor about any of Mike's section mates about Mike. 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Chicago Redshirt

[Roseanna]

I can't undertand why Donna Felt herself weak and apologized that she didn't make a perjury for Mike.

Maybe there are situations where perjury could be a lesser sin, but certainly not to save a collegue or friend or even a  family member from some years in prison for something he/she is guilty for.