TotallyOz Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Do you think that there is more coming or this is all a big set up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steveescort Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I am sure there's plenty more to come There's plenty of stuff floating about at the moment about the royal s ncluding Kate's miraculous pregnancies where she disappears off the scene for like the whole nine months almost. Surrogate perhaps ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zipperzone Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Do you think that there is more coming or this is all a big set up? I'm sure there is more that COULD come out - but probably won't. The Palace will spend any amount needed in Damage Control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Plus the case now has Dershowitz rampant. How her lawyers could have let her drag him into it is one of the biggest head-scratchers about the whole business. No matter what the truth, that move will end up being far more trouble to them than it was worth. Of course who knows what goes on behind anybody's closed doors. But I know Dersh just a little bit from the decades spent living in Cambridge (including one time spotting him in his birthday suit at the clothing-optional Chilmark beach on Martha's Vineyard ), and the notion of him boffing that chick is out there beyond the Andromeda galaxy as far as I'm concerned. lookin and MsGuy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted January 24, 2015 Members Share Posted January 24, 2015 So Dershowitz comes out swinging, files to have his name struck from the court documents and calls a press conference where he announces he's going to sue the lady's two attorneys for defamation and then pursue disbarment charges. But the two lawyers beat him to it and sue him first for damaging their reputations. I don't know which one (or ones), but somebody here is pulling an Oscar Wilde. lookin and AdamSmith 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted February 3, 2015 Members Share Posted February 3, 2015 And now the lady in question drags Bill Clinton's good name through the mud. Come on, who would believe that? Well me for one. But that prissy old couple, Al and Tipper Gore? Less than credible, she shoudda stuck with Bill. AdamSmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Suckrates Posted February 3, 2015 Members Share Posted February 3, 2015 Just Remember, The Royals are just like US ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 MsGuy, what do you think her lawyers could possibly be thinking? Have they put themselves at professional risk the way Dershowitz claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted February 4, 2015 Members Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well you have to bare in mind that lawyers write the applicable rules and lawyers in general aren't very big on putting themselves at risk. On the other hand judges have their say so too & are a subset of lawyers who have a general interest in maintaining appearances and a special interest in not being publicly played for fools by trial attorneys. And of course there are concerns about efficient administration, justice to the parties blah blah blah like anybody actually cares. So the rule is (more or less) is that lawyers aren't supposed to lie to the judge or to assist their clients in so doing. On the other hand attorneys are supposed to vigorously represent the client which translates into presenting the client's version of the facts unless they know almost to a moral certainty that their client is lying through her teeth. The fig leaf is that it's not the lawyers function to judge the case but only to assist the client to present it. On the third hand, these days judges and bar associations are a little less inclined to tolerate the shenanigans of the flakes and knaves and Dershowitz is exactly the type to relentlessly press his case in such a highly public manner that, who knows, they may actually get a public reprimand or some such from the bar. Sooner or later Dershowitz is going to get a chance to interrogate their client under oath and, if she cracks and starts saying the lawyers have been coaching her in what lies to tell or, worse yet, have been slipping her a bit of cash from time to time to maintain her interest in pursuing her case (both of which are very likely true), Dershowitz may yet get his pound of flesh. As to what they could possibly been thinking, after a life time of dealing with human frailty, not excluding my own, I have found that there is no possible gain to be had pursuing that particular question. The entirety of the above post is, of course, entirely a fictional exercise along the lines of my Chance related posts and in no way should be interpeted to impugn the integrity of the Florida bar generally or the individual lawyers involved in this case. PS As I recall it, we spent all of 1/2 of one class period discussing this topic in my legal ethics course and more than half of that was spent on exploring how to evade &/or circumvent the rule w/o actually getting yourself disbarred. PPS Judges have a special set of rules for themselves which make it almost impossible to sue them no matter how egregious their actions. They can be impeached or, in some states, removed by the state Supreme Court or some other judicial forum, but not sued privately. lookin, AdamSmith and MsAnn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Thank you! Fascinating, and unsurprising. lookin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsAnn Posted February 4, 2015 Members Share Posted February 4, 2015 Sooner or later Dershowitz is going to get a chance to interrogate their client under oath and, if she cracks and starts saying the lawyers have been coaching her in what lies to tell or, worse yet, have been slipping her a bit of cash from time to time to maintain her interest in pursuing her case (both of which are very likely true), Dershowitz may yet get his pound of flesh. I was skeptical at first as to Dershowitz's involvement, but I have seen a couple of interviews that he has given, and if nothing else, he is convincing. This is going to be fascinating theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted February 4, 2015 Members Share Posted February 4, 2015 I was skeptical at first as to Dershowitz's involvement, but I have seen a couple of interviews that he has given, and if nothing else, he is convincing. This is going to be fascinating theater. MsAnn, Mr. Dershowitz is a world class trial lawyer. World class trial lawyers are convincing. Therefore Mr. Dershowitz is convincing. It's his stock in trade. I agree though that Dershowitz is too good at what he does to tell a lie that he is likely to be caught out on. And I also agree that this situation has all the elements of an entertaining real life farce. AdamSmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boiworship Posted February 5, 2015 Members Share Posted February 5, 2015 I would NEVER want to cross Alan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest callipygian Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 MsGuy plays coy as he considers a new rule for the protection of bench rulings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted February 5, 2015 Members Share Posted February 5, 2015 Trial judges can already get away with anything short of whipping out a .357 and taking pot shots at random folks in their courtroom, so MsGuy is somewhat at a loss as to just what judicial behavior a new rule might be designed to protect. AdamSmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest callipygian Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Trial judges can already get away with anything short of whipping out a .357 and taking pot shots at random folks in their courtroom, so MsGuy is somewhat at a loss as to just what judicial behavior a new rule might be designed to protect. Your honor, the court jester rests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted February 5, 2015 Members Share Posted February 5, 2015 Isn't that sort of what Judge Roy Bean did? Whipped out his gallows and hanged various and sundry? Of course, that gives the appearance of due process versus "instant gratification". Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The Roys would seem to have it. We now have Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (what, again) writing his letter to the governor urging Alabama state judges to ignore the federal district court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban. The Southern Poverty Law Center apparently takes some issue: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-judge-faces-ethics-complaint-gay-marriage-letter-n295601 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Jeffrey Epstein accuser was not a sex slave, but a money-hungry sex kitten, her former friends sayhttp://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/epstein-prince-andrew-accuser-not-sex-slave-ex-pals-article-1.2133175 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsAnn Posted March 1, 2015 Members Share Posted March 1, 2015 "Nothing to see here people, everyone just keep moving" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
