I have been critical of the representation afforded by Gloria Allred and her daughter Lisa Bloom in past cases, including the rapid calling of press conferences at the height of news cycles. Bloom has had public squabbles with clients including Harvey Weinstein and Kathy Griffin. While media management is part of zealous representation, there are times when I am left uncertain as to the legal strategy behind press conferences. In the case of Allred’s representation of Roy Moore accuser Beverly Nelson, the press conference has not only resulted in her being nationally ridiculed but she is now accused of falsifying Moore’s signature on a yearbook. Allred’s defense of her client on the charge has been so anemic and uncertain that many have taken it as a concession. As a result, Allred has given Moore just the issue to paint all of these women as liars and made the failure to turn over the yearbook the element of doubt that he was so desperately searching for in this scandal. Just as I was critical of Moore’s counsel, this situation could not be worse for Allred’s client. This was a predictable attack that Allred should have anticipated and had a response (other than we will turn over the yearbook in time) to blunt the attack on her client . . . better parading her in front of cameras.
We previously discussed the allegation regarding the yearbook. Beverly Young Nelson was 16 when she says that Moore tried to rape her after offering her a car ride home. Moore says that he does not know Nelson but the yearbook page above contains a personal message from him reading “To a sweeter girl I could not say Merry Christmas” — signed “Roy Moore D.A.”
I criticized Moore’s counsel for solely attacking two insular allegations, including the yearbook, in a conspicuous failure to address the broader allegations of pursuing teenage girls. They also wrote a letter that was legally and grammatically flawed. On the Yearbook, they alleged that the signature was taken from court documents. They note that Moore was an assistant D.A. and D.A. were the initials of Judge Moore’s secretary, Delbra Adams, who added them to his official signature stamp. However, I did not think that the signatures looked identical and I remain unclear why limited handwriting analysis could not be performed on the copies. The originals allow for more comprehensive testing.
However, Allred played directly in this highly predictable attack. She has not turned over the yearbook to a neutral expert, which has fueled the narrative from Moore supporters. Moore himself is keeping a clock on the delay.
“Well, all I’m saying is we will permit an independent examiner of the writing to look at exemplars of [the] former judge…we will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing.”
Really, that is all you can say? Who are representing at that time. But it got worse:
“Well, all I’m saying is we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing. We will not be distracted, and we will pursue a just result for our client.”
This is not some gotcha, unforeseen moment. Not only is this the document Allred paraded around before the press but it is a controversy that has been stewing for days.
Allred only would promise to have analysis of the signature “done in a professional setting to the extent possible. That’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath and that’s what we think is most important.”
Allred’s actions could not be more beneficial for Moore and her bizarre defense has left many discounting her client’s story. In other words, after the press conference, her client is being discussed as often as a possible forgery suspect as a victim. The floundering after the Moore attack has left her client in a materially worse position after Allred’s signature press conference.
81 thoughts on “The Yearbook Controversy: Gloria Allred Gives Moore The Issue That He Was So Desperately Seeking In Election”
One other part of All-Red’s assertions that troubles me is the statement that they will only turn over the yearbook to the Senate Judiciary Committee, when and where the document could be examined by a qualified professional.
It should be obvious to anyone that Roy Moore is not yet a member of the Senate.He also in not under formal investigation by the Senate. Therefore, the idea that a Senate committee should have any jurisdiction over this case pre-election is bizarre, in addition to being incorrect.
Ms. Allred should know that the venue where any testimony would be heard within the Senate is the Senate Ethics Committee. Additionally, she should also know that this committee wouldn’t have the jurisdiction to investigate Moore unless and until he is elected to the Senate.
Based upon past events, I consider anything that Ms. Allred forces herself upon to be a scam that she seems to have a specialty in perpetuating. I cast an awfully suspicious eye toward any and all of her claims, and those of the clients she purports to represent.
That pic of All-dread makes her look like she could be Joe Ross from Car 54.
OMG !!!! car 54 !!! you’re the best!!! i loved that show- totally stupid, my kind of humor !!!!
Gloria can end this today by coughing up the yearbook for analysis. Badabing Badaboom. Every moment she does not do that and allows those images of her choking to sink in is a moment that favors Moore.
I would also like to point out that at least one of the most pre-eminent Moore haters (I think it was Late4D) has already conceded to me (in another thread) that an older man dating a teenager (17+) can indeed be a good man and thus not a creep/predator. For the rest of you: stop stereotyping/projecting: you have no idea how many good men you are smearing – at the very least my dad and my grandfather.
Oh and one last thing, how about you leftists coming clean on an old Uncle – Uncle Grope-y Joe. OMG now he’s in a hotel room with Lady Gaga:
really? are you kidding me?
This and Franken’s delay can only help Moore’s prospects as well.
Oh God please let the democrats run Biden!!! What a gift!
Handwriting analysis is open to opinion / bias of the analyst. A more compelling validation would be the ink-age analysis that the FBI knows how to do. If the ink age were pinned down as late ’70s, then the Roy Moore machine would be pushed further into a “checkmate”, having to argue that Ms. Nelson plotted to bring down his Senate run starting 39 years ago.
The timing of this reminds me of the Benghazi attack timeline; leading up to an election. The details of this reminds me of the Trump dossier; make it as salacious as possible for the most shock value. Democrats are going to need to find a different tactic.
The timing is suspect and speaking as a small town denizen at one time, what small town, Bible-belt prosecutor is going to keep an assistant whom the town regards as a high-school skirt chaser? None that I know about.
Precisely. Unless of course the assistant DA had the goods on the DA. That’s about as likely as the town accepting a high school skirt chaser working out of the DA’s office.
How many signatures remain the same after decades? Unless it is a blatant and/or Mickey Mouse attempt at forgery, it is probably Moore’s. Lawyers do not perform proactively but reactively. Allred is waiting for the right moment, the accumulation of focus, the moment when Moore has the most accusations, proof, etc against him. Allred is flushing Moore out. Obama did this with his birth certificate. The longer the accusations continued, the stupider the accusers appeared when Obama’s birth certificate appeared. Perhaps the most significant lesson here is that the stupidest of all ‘birthers’ is now President.
Even if the signature is forged, that simply points to one idiot that sought the limelight or money or both. Moore has admitted to dating teenagers. Many women have come forward. Moore is remembered as a ‘dirty old man’ sort of legend at the Mall. It it walks like a deviant sexual predator, talks like a deviant sexual predator, acts like a deviant sexual predator, perhaps it just is a deviant sexual predator; in spite of one grandstanding accuser that might be false. Then again OJ got off because he screwed up his hand while wearing a surgical glove and illustrated that he couldn’t fit a blood shrunken glove over it.
Good point that our writing changes over time. In addition, I have become more and more skeptical about the “science” of handwriting analysis. Remember when “experts” in bite analysis used to be accepted?
An analysis of the writing probably will prove nothing, as each side’s expert will support his master’s contention.
Isaac – the “7” was written two completely different ways – one European and one American, at odds with Moore’s handwriting. The handwriting at the bottom looks different to the naked eye. It was also written in two different colored inks. “D.A.” was written, in a different colored ink and hand, after his signature, when he was actually an Assistant DA at the time, and would never have used that title. I understand that our handwriting changes over the years, but within the same autograph?
If it does turn out that this particular accusation was a fraud, then that takes the linchpin out of their case. This was the accuser who was 14 at the time that Moore allegedly molested her. As for the other women, the critical issues are whether they were of legal age, and if the encounters, if true, were consensual. In Moore’s generation, many women got married as teenagers, 17 and older. My own mother was 19, both a teenager and of age, when she wed my father. So “teenager” needs to be more specific.
I agree that the allegations of being banned from a mall are deeply troubling, and should be provable. The sheer volume of allegations already led me to believe that it would be impossible to either prove or disprove each one before the election.
I do not think that Allred is such a litigating genius that she pretended to make her client look like a fraud in order to trick Moore.
” Obama did this with his birth certificate. The longer the accusations continued, the stupider the accusers appeared when Obama’s birth certificate appeared. Perhaps the most significant lesson here is that the stupidest of all ‘birthers’ is now President.”
Unless you are intending to imply that Obama’s intention was to help get Trump elected, then it appears as if his plot to ‘flush out’ the birthers and make them look stupid was a resounding failure. Allred’s intention was not to help Moore’s credibility, but she has done so, nevertheless, and since it is certain that her conditions for turning the yearbook over to be examined will not be met before the election, it is unlikely to succeed in the goal of eliminating Moore from the contest. All-in-all, a bad strategy, if not outright stupidity..
How did lawyer and accuser find each other one lives in Alabama and other in California
Gloria is a ,DNC delegate
This has nothing to do with disrespecting women. This is nothing more than politics in America. If Gloria Allred can’t make political hay, she won’t show up. Soon we’ll probably take this as normal. When you run for office, get ready for accusations to fly.
“I criticized Moore’s counsel for solely attacking two insular allegations, including the yearbook, in a conspicuous failure to address the broader allegations of pursuing teenage girls. They also wrote a letter that was legally and grammatically flawed.”
A few thoughts here: rarely do we get a defendant to admit everything they claim is a lie and rarer still can we prove it. What we usually get are lies about small things from which we can infer lying about bigger things.
And as for the claim of not responding to the broader issue of not pursuing young but legal teenagers, how does one prove a negative?
On the grammar issue — which has been mentioned several times — that’s a red herring in my book. It looks like a bad use of a word template but regardless, the letter seems to make it’s awkward point. Here’s a grammatically poor, run-on sentence that seemed to garner a lot of historical traction on the way to making its point:
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us –that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion– that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
Turley clarified his previous sentence as follows: “On the Yearbook, they alleged that the signature was taken from court documents. However, I did not think that the signatures looked identical and I remain unclear why limited handwriting analysis could not be performed on the copies. The originals allow for more comprehensive testing.”
That goes directly to the foundation for alleging the forgery of Moore’s signature on the yearbook. The rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document does not look like the Roy Moore signature on the yearbook that Nelson allegedly copied from the court document. She would have to be an inept forger. Except that the Roy Moore signature on the yearbook does look like the examples of Moore’s handwritten signature that his own lawyer released to the press. Whence Nelson would have to be both prescient and inept in order to make good on the foundation for alleging forgery against her.
On the bigger issue, how does one prove that he didn’t date underage girls? (Or for that matter, that there is not a teapot out in space orbiting the sun?) Do you have to ask every woman in America who was underage during the time frame and was present in Alabama (or anywhere Moore traveled to) and the verify the accusers? Is that too big as task for anyone or any group assuming you get cooperation?
Moore’s lawyer, Phillip Jauregui, is the one alleging forgery of Moore’s signature on Nelson’s yearbook inscription. Jauregui’s theory of that forgery is that Nelson supposedly copied Moore’s signature from the court document she received in 1999 when her divorce complaint was dismissed. Even Turley concedes that the signature on the yearbook does not look like the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document. The rubberstamped Roy Moore signature features “fancy penmanship” that is not found in the examples of Roy Moore’s handwritten signature that Jauregui released to the press, nor is the fancy penmanship from the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature found on Nelson’s yearbook inscription.
Jauregui’s theory of the forgery is poppycock. Meanwhile, the Roy Moore signature in Nelson’s yearbook does look like the examples of Roy Moore’s handwritten signature that his own lawyer gave to the press. The only significant difference being size: the examples of Moore’s handwritten signature from Jauregui being small, fill-in-blank signatures and the allegedly forged signature on the yearbook inscription taking up plenty of space on the yearbook page.
I’m not asking Moore to prove his innocence. But I do expect Moore to demonstrate a plausible foundation for alleging forgery against Beverly Young Nelson. Moore has not yet done so. Why not, Mespo?
Diane – all Allred has to do is turn the yearbook over to a neutral document examiner and get exemplars from Moore from that time period and we can solve this issue. Allred is the plug is the bottle, not Moore or his attorney.
I think the foundation is that Nelson won’t let an examiner look at it until after the election. The senate hearing is poppycock since Moore isn’t a senator and thus not under their jurisdiction anyhow.
Absolutely correct. If Moore is defeated, the forgery won’t matter. The goal of defeating Moore will have succeeded. If he wins, the forgery will be forgotten Allred given credit for trying.
I’m surprised JT bought into the Moore gambit in the first place. This left-wing delaying tactic to ensure that Moore’s charges aren’t resolved before the election is why we never should accept political motivated criminal charges at face value. The Left doesn’t care about crazy Beverley or her case that even her stepson decries as bullsh*t. It’s all about political power. Allred will abandon her client like yesterday’s newspaper after the election. This little method of prevailing was all laid out by an Italian political advisor years ago: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Moore’s lawyers, Phillip Jauregui and Trent Garmon, are suing The Washington Post and The Alabama Media Group for defamation of Roy Moore based upon careless reporting and disregard for the truth and Moore’s reputation. Jauregui and Garmon have demanded retractions from both WaPo and AMG. But Moore’s lawyers are not suing Beverly Young Nelson for defamation based upon the alleged forgery of Moore’s signature in Nelson’s yearbook. Consequently, the presumed purpose of alleging forgery against Nelson is to cast sufficient doubt upon the reporting of the defendants in the defamation suit as to leverage retractions from both WaPo and AMG.
That Gloria Allred has poorly represented her client, Beverly Young Nelson, would be most alarming were Nelson facing legal jeopardy from Moore’s defamation suit. But the foundation for alleging forgery against Nelson was so poorly laid by Moore’s lawyer, Phillip Jauregui, and so rife with glaring inconsistencies, that Allred’s delay on releasing Nelson’s yearbook for expert forensic analysis might not amount to inadequate counsel. However, Allred’s demand for a Senate hearing does raise a legitimate question as to whether Allred might also be representing clients other than Beverly Young Nelson. If so, then Nelson might need a lawyer other than Allred. And Allred could face a conflict of interest charge.
Nelson’s 1977 high school yearbook allegedly signed “Love, Roy Moore, D.A.” “D.A.” were the initials of Judge Moore’s secretary, Delbra Adams, who added them to his official signature stamp.This same signature with “D.A.” was on Judge Roy Moore’s divorce decree of Beverly Young Nelson’s case (Where she said she’d never seen Moore since the groping? And why didn’t she ask for another judge in her divorce case?).
That’s a HUGE problem for Allred and Nelson since there’s no way that Moore would have added his assistant’s “D.A.” initials to a 1977 yearbook signature (he was an Assistant D.A. never a D.A.) AND especially since Ms. Adams did not start working for Judge Moore until 1989, 12 years later.
Stop with all the facts that prove Beverly is a transparent fraud. It’s bad for Democratic business.
O’Neil, the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature does not match the handwritten examples of Roy Moore’s signature that Moore’s lawyer released to the press. Moore’s lawyer, Jauregui, conceded that Moore used the abbreviation D. A. after his signature when Moore was an Assistant District Attorney. That concession was necessary because the abbreviation D. A. appears on the handwritten examples of Roy Moore’s signature that Jauregui released to the press.
Meanwhile, O’Neil, Jauregui is not alleging that Nelson copied only the initials D A on the yearbook inscription, but that Nelson supposedly copied the entire rubberstamped Roy Moore signature from the court document she received in 1999. The signature in Nelson’s yearbook does not look like the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document. Instead, the signature in Nelson’s yearbook looks like the handwritten examples of Roy Moore’s signature that his own lawyer, Jauregui, released to the press.
One more thing, O’Neil, Beverly Young Nelson never appeared in court before Judge Roy Moore. She and her then husband reconciled for five years after the 1999 divorce complaint. Because of that reconciliation the 1999 divorce complaint was dismissed. Because of that dismissal there was no hearing requiring Nelson to ask for a different Judge than Moore. Moore’s own lawyer conceded that Moore did not personally sign the dismissal of the divorce complaint that Nelson received. Instead, Moore’s administrative assistant used the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on that document, thereby requiring her initials after it.
Remember, O’Neil, the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature does not look like Roy Moore’s handwritten signature; and the signature in Nelson’s yearbook does not look like the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature, either. But the signature in the yearbook does look like the examples of Roy Moore’s handwritten signature that his own lawyer released to the press; and those examples of Moore’s signature have the abbreviation D. A. after them.
Diane – this is why you need the yearbook examined. It would be easy enough to go to the courthouse and get a copy of something Roy Moore signed as DA, copy it and then copy that signature into your yearbook. So, Gloria needs to cough up the yearbook now so it can be examined, not wait for a Congressional hearing. She is just stalling for time, while she backs and hoes. She needs cover for her disbarment hearing.
Paul said, “It would be easy enough to go to the courthouse and get a copy of something Roy Moore signed as DA, copy it and then copy that signature into your yearbook.”
That is not the theory of the forgery alleged by Moore’s lawyer, Phillip Jauregui. Although, admittedly, it would be easy enough for any of us blawg-hounds to change the theory of the forgery as often as any blawg-hound changes socks. Consequently, I’m all in favor of expert forensic analysis of the yearbook inscription at the earliest opportunity–say, yesterday, for instance.
Turley is right that Allred’s delaying tactic looks bad for Nelson and good for Moore. I strongly suspect that Allred is representing the interests of parties other than her client, Beverly Young Nelson. Beverly needs a new lawyer.
I think I would request Moore to sue which would then open himself up to discovery under oath. Hold the book up high saying, “Go ahead sue us, but then you’ll have to answer questions under oath instead of refusing to answer questions about these charges from multiple women.” The clock could then start ticking for every day he doesn’t sue!
Moore need prove nothing; Allred and Beverly have to prove everything. I wouldn’t sue, just let truth take it’s slow course,
Were Moore to prevail in his defamation suit against WaPo and AMG, he will have to prove careless reporting with disregard for the truth and for Moore’s reputation. The is the presumed purpose for Moore’s lawyers alleging forgery against Nelson without bothering to sue Nelson for defamation.
He’s got a bette fraud suit against Beverly and her lawyer. He might be able to prove the media were in in it if he can prove they ignored contrary facts.
Moore is the one demanding the yearbook, I would release it conditioned on his having to be deposed or appear under oath in some forum. He wants what she has. She does not appear to want anything from him,
I’d do nothing. Let the accuse explain why she won’t reveal the truth. It’s always good Kabuki.
mespo – right now Roy Moore has the hot hand and it gets hotter every day that Allred doesn’t release the yearbook. I have this feeling that Moore is used to playing much harder ball than Allred. 🙂
Alfred’s a media lawyer. Go on tv, make your case there with no scrutiny, and settle for what you can get. Rinse and repeat.
enigma – she and her lawyer are making a serious accusation to change an election. Should they not be open to being challenged? Moore owes her nothing. She and Allred handed him the smoking gun. Every day she goes without giving him the yearbook to be examined, her claim gets weaker.
Paul said, ” Every day she goes without giving him the yearbook to be examined, her claim gets weaker.”
If the yearbook inscription is a forgery, then the delayed analysis of the alleged forgery will not change that prospective fact.
If the yearbook inscription is not a forgery, then the delayed analysis of the alleged forgery will not change that prospective fact.
Either the yearbook inscription is a forgery or it is not a forgery.
Either the delayed analysis of the yearbook inscription will not change the prospective fact or it will not change the prospective fact.
Diane – Allred’s case is political, to stop Moore getting elected, not to get to a Congressional hearing or have the evidence examined. Moore has called her bluff and she is waffling.
Poker, schmoker. I hate poker. And pinochle, too. It’s my understanding that if the first poker player increases the wager, then the second poker player has to match that first poker-player’s bet in order to “call” the supposed bluff. Then, and only then, are cards laid face up on the game table. Moore has to show a foundation for alleging forgery against Nelson in order to match Allred’s bet and “call” her supposed bluff.
In the meantime, I want that damned yearbook inscription face up on the game table by the end of business today. Or else I’ll have The Lummox upend the whole confounded card table. Nobody will know whose chips were whose; let alone whose cards were whose. I’m started to feelz mean about this thing. Did anyone check to see how many cards were in the deck to begin with?
Diane – it is only a bluff if you don’t have the cards to back up your bet or you want to scare people out of the pot early with a weak hand. If you have the cards, even if you lose to a better hand, it is a solid bet.
Paul, I have no cards. Unless you count the cards that Moore’s lawyer played. And that hand looks more like Three Card Monte than a poker hand. Make them all roll their shirt sleeves up and see what falls out.
Diane – this is not a poker game where everyone shows their hands at the end. Allred made a claim on national TV. She needs to back it up, now.
If that were the only claim out there you might have a point. Unfortunately for Moore, there are eight women out there making claims, and Moore hasn’t addressed any of them directly. Moore probably does owe all of them something, starting with an apology, but in the mode of the party leader, deny, deny, deny and hope it goes away. Good luck with that.
You take ’em one at a time. There are two serious claims — Beverly-oocio and the 14-year-old. Beverly’s story appears preposterous to me. The other is more problematic for Moore but inconsistencies are leaking out like the absence of a bedroom phone where she claimed to have arranged the aborted tryst. I also hear there are as yet unconfirmed allegations that Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm may have made two previous unfounded accusations of sexual assault against two of her pastors while an adult. So face value acceptance seems a bit over-anxious at this point.
I don’t think any of us get to decide for anyone else which claims are serious. Positions like that of the Alabama Governor, basically, I believe the women but will still vote for Moore will prove problematic.
You can believe who you want to believe. The only opinions that matter are in Alabama and if they want to believe 40-year-old scurrilous accusations delivered 30 days before an election, I can’ t make ’em smarter.
Should all the people currently in prison that are claiming they were wrongfully convicted based on false testimony and manufactured evidence admit guilt and apologize before receiving a fair review of their cases?
Yep, even the ones claiming actual innocence!!
Sean Hannity tried his best to lead Moore to the right answers but they didn’t come out. Can you imagine any review concluding you should let your teenage (starting at 14) daughter, niece, cousin, whatever near him?
Can you imagine any review concluding you should let your teenage (starting at 14) daughter, niece, cousin, whatever near him?
I cannot imagine any circumstances where I would allow my teenage son or daughter to be alone with anyone I haven’t vetted. If they were in a power position, I certainly wouldn’t trust them.
enigma – think of Roy Moore as one of four innocent black boys accused of rape of a white girl in Florida. Who does he actually owe an apology to? The timing is just too suspicious. Let Allred show her hand now, not after he is elected and she is trying to do more damage to him.
If he is actually innocent he would owe them nothing. The “timing” in this case has much to do with the current atmosphere where women for a moment might feel they’ll be believed. Not so 40 years ago, ore one year ago.
In today’s climate, Bill Clinton might not have survived, Trump may still have a day in court and Charlie Rose was just suspended by two networks.
Sure, like the cast of Dracula that popped up before the Presidential election to accuse Trump of sexual impropriety. Maybe they were clairvoyant.
The “cast of Dracula?” Is that in line with Trump’s defense that the women didn’t look good enough to assault? I am starting to have a little respect for the Alabama Governor that believes the women but is honest enough to admit that the politics matter more. Do you honestly believe all the women that have come forward against Trump are lying? BTW, I’m on the record that Franken needs to go.
Until they sustain a case in court, they’re cackling birds.
I’m asking whether you believe them or if it even matters?
I don’t know how anyone can believe uncorroborated salacious allegations not subject to cross examination. I think he who asserts must prove and none did.
By that standard, almost the only way to be seen as guilty is to confess? If you deny unbelievable numbers of accusers 10 at my last count for Moore, 17 for Trump, 50+ for Cosby, then you are the one that must be presumed to be believed?
By your standard, we disregard any motive to fabricate and take the truth of the accusations on faith. That’s not our system of arriving at the truth.
That really wasn’t an answer for this question was it? Do you believe the women?
LOL! And you have the gall to besmirch Gowdy? At least he has facts to work with. You’re getting worked and you don’t even realize it. That’s very pathetic.
More popcorn please.
Excuse me, Olly. Wasn’t even talking to you or about Gowdy, (who I do besmirch on a regular basis). Troll much?
Excuse me, Olly. Wasn’t even talking to you or about Gowdy, (who I do besmirch on a regular basis).
That’s so weak! There’s is no excuse for you Enigma. I am talking to you though. Troll much?You didn’t seem to have much of a problem with me calling out CV Brown for his racist comments written to you a few days ago. Didn’t see them? Oh, that’s because they got deleted. Hmmm? I don’t troll, I call out the BS wherever I see it. If you’re going to shovel this horse$hit, then either put down the shovel or expect to be called on it.
I did actually miss the recent racist comments directed towards me by CV Brown although there are others I recall well recently that I noted were deleted. Maybe Turley will write about the First Amendment not applying on his own blog? I’d rather people’s comments stand and be there for all to see.
I’m missing what has you all upset. If I ask mespo a question about Trump and you’re condemning me about Gowdy, that kinda is trolling isn’t it?
If you think my pointing out relevant factors in the Benghazi attack is horseshit, you’re welcome to your opinion. I don’t know if you actually watched the Benghazi hearings like I did, but Gowdy indeed looked stupid, solely related to his questioning and inability to make a point (as opposed to his excessive sweating which I hadn’t previously mentioned). His committee then found that there was no evidence that Clinton had done whatever it was he hoped to find after spending millions on his political witchhunt.
Props to Gowdy by the way, for asking a few relevant questions in the House Russia Investigations where most of the House Republicans are trying to change the subject.
You may disagree with my opinions but I challenge you to find something non-factual I’ve introduced.
You’re the master of your question and I’m the master of my answer.
And never the two shall meet. I wouldn’t have a good answer for that question either. I didn’t have a good answer for Franken and say he should go. Conyers should go. Joe Barton doesn’t have to go but he should be embarrassed as hell. Moore should quit and Trump should go.
Trump said he was going to sue those who accused him in early November 2016. How is that different from the said “cast” who popped up?
If your reputation is harmed you have the right to sue. Don’t see any comparison to the accusers who, for the most part, dropped their claims and ran.
Gloria you screwed your client and you should be disbarred. Either you have the goods or you don’t. Put up or shut up!
“You are the company you keep.”
I believe these lawyers savor publicity to such an extent the fail to exercise caution. The failure to judge a potential client by her merits and the failure to assess damage control brought on by their own vanity continues–costing attorney and client a commendable reputation.
The State Bar ethics rules are, for the most part, adopted directly from the ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is not required to investigate his or her client, and can generally take the client’s word at face value, EXCEPT where something comes up that should reasonably warrant further inquiry. There isn’t any bright line test; it depends on the facts and circumstances, but if you are resting your client’s allegations in large part on a yearbook inscription, there may come a time when Allred is asked to explain to what degree she attempted to verify its authenticity. Allred lives in Los Angeles, so it wouldn’t have been particularly difficult to retain a handwriting expert to confidentially examine the inscription, or even a photocopy of it, before going public. If she did so, and was advised that it’s legit, then she’s in the clear. If not, and it turns out to be a forgery, she may be in hot water.
Excellent argument, TIN. Personally, I don’t care what happens to Allred. I care what happens to Beverly Young Nelson. And I strongly suspect that Allred is representing interests other than Nelson’s interests. I wonder what the ABA rules say about that.
Diane – if Moore sues, one of the first discovery questions will be: Who is paying for your representation?
Assumed fact not in evidence, Paul. Also known as a hold card, unless I heard it wrong. Allred could be working pro-bono for Nelson while collecting fees from some other client for services wholly unrelated to her representation of Nelson. Or not.
Diane – Allred does not work pro bono on a case like this. Someone is paying the tab.
Comments are closed.