On Wednesday, I received a letter from Bryan M. Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, who is the lawyer of Kevin Morris (who is the lawyer for Hunter Biden). The letter warns that I could face a defamation action if I do not retract (or if I repeat) my criticism of Morris’s representational relationship with Hunter. Putting the personal invectives aside, Sullivan did offer a couple of details on the possible defense of Morris in a pending ethics complaint brought by a conservative legal group.
Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column discussing how Morris and others reportedly met to plan out a scorched earth strategy to attack and threaten critics. The Washington Post reported that the discussion included targeting or threatening critics with defamation lawsuits.
In his letter, Sullivan attacks my reference to ethics rules as unworthy of a professor as well as “blatantly misleading and just bad lawyering.” That tirade about my lack of knowledge and principles is followed by a demand for an immediate retraction and adds “if you repeat your baseless charges, you understand that accusing someone of violating the law is defamation per se.”
I will not issue a retraction despite the threats of Morris and Sullivan. I did, however, publish another column repeating my objections to Morris’s blurry representational claims.
The effort in such threats is to silence or chill critics in their criticism of a wealthy, powerful public figure like Mr. Morris.
Since Morris may repeat such threats against other columnists and critics, I wanted to give a full account of his claims that his transactions with his client are entirely in compliance with California bar rules. For that reason, this is a bit lengthy but it may help others receiving such letters from Morris and Sullivan.
Unfortunately, after I responded to the counter arguments by Sullivan under the ethics rules, he expressly refused to address glaring problems in applying exceptions to the general rule against lawyers paying personal costs of their clients.
The Original Column
The letter was triggered by my column in The Hill in which I criticized Morris for maintaining an array of alleged different roles while serving as counsel. Notably, the letter does not appear to deny the roles, but focuses on a brief reference to the general rule against paying personal costs of clients.
Here is the original graph:
Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients. Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.
Sullivan suggests that Morris is not subject to this general prohibition because he could claim exceptions to the rule against such payment of personal costs or bills of a client. He stated:
“In your Column, you reiterate the inaccurate, uninformed, and frivolous claim made in the recent California bar complaint that Mr. Morris violated California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) by allegedly ‘paying the bills’ for Mr. Morris’ client, R. Hunter Biden. In doing so, you completely ignored the remaining portions of Rule 1.8.5 in which it is expressly provided in subsection (b).”
There certainly are such exceptions or allowances but some of us reject their applicability to Morris or to these payments or loans. Indeed, we believe that Morris’s ill-defined representational relationship is precisely what these rules strive to avoid. As discussed below, those concerns were magnified by Morris’s recent deposition where he seemed to struggle to separate matters falling under his roles as friend, donor, investor, and lawyer.
Rule 1.8.5(b)
Sullivan primarily objected that his client could claim exemption under Rule 1.8.5(b). I disagree, but first here is that second provision.
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may:
(1) pay or agree to pay such expenses to third persons,* from funds collected or to be collected for the client as a result of the representation, with the consent of the client;
(2) after the lawyer is retained by the client, agree to lend money to the client based on the client’s written* promise to repay the loan, provided the lawyer complies with rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), and 1.8.1 before making the loan or agreeing to do so;
(3) advance the costs of prosecuting or defending a claim or action, or of otherwise protecting or promoting the client’s interests, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
(4) pay the costs of prosecuting or defending a claim or action, or of otherwise protecting or promoting the interests of an indigent person* in a matter in which the lawyer represents the client.
I still do not see how this exception would apply to these payments. Again, I sent questions on these provisions and their conditions to ask how Morris could justify his claim for an exemption. Sullivan refused to supply those answers.
Mr. Sullivan included only the first three provisions. The first provision references a circumstance when a lawyer can pay bills “from funds collected or to be collected for the client as a result of representation.” If reports are accurate, Morris is alleged to have given Hunter millions for taxes and expenses. It is not clear what representation would generate millions to repay such money as a loan.
The second provision refers to a written agreement on payment that can be made, but notes that the agreement must be reached “before making the loan or agreeing to do so.” As discussed below, it does not appear that such an agreement on the loans existed during part of the representational period. As to the later written agreement, Morris admitted that the loan would not be due until 2025, after the next election, and could be excused by Morris. Moreover, as Sullivan acknowledged, any failure to comply with these rules allows Hunter to unilaterally void the conditions under California precedent cited in the letter.
The third provision refers to advancing the costs of the litigation to the extent that they are contingent on “the outcome of the matter.” Again, it is not clear what matter that would be and whether the costs paid were indeed in the millions.
Sullivan’s letter omitted the fourth provision, which refers to the applicability to an indigent person. While Hunter was in debt, it is hard to see how he was indigent given his various assets and holdings.I specifically asked Sullivan if Morris treated Hunter as an indigent person despite his assets and lavish lifestyle. The rule was changed around six years ago to remove barriers for clients who could not afford to face litigation. This rule has been subject to considerable discussion by California bar members and experts. However, analysts at the time warned that this applied only to the indigent and not even to pro bono clients.
Finally, the rule also has a provision that expressly states that:
“Costs” within the meaning of paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) are not limited to those costs that are taxable or recoverable under any applicable statute or rule of court but may include any reasonable* expenses of litigation, including court costs, and reasonable* expenses in preparing for litigation or in providing other legal services to the client.
Note that this provision specifically refers to the third provision specifically cited by Sullivan. The amount of money that has been attributed to Morris would seem to exceed any “reasonable” cost under this rule. I also asked Sullivan if Morris was claiming that supporting Hunter’s expenses and paying his taxes fell into this definition.
Sullivan simply states that “in California, there is no prohibition on an attorney lending money to their client despite your misguided attempt to give the appearance of some sort of prohibition.” In reality, Rule 1.8.5(a) does state the general bar on such payments. There is also an exception, but I disagree that the exception would apply to Morris’s payments and loans.
Rule 1.8.1
That may explain why, after citing Rule 1.8.5, Mr. Sullivan’s letter also refers to Rule 1.8.1 providing in part: “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client, or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client.” Sullivan notes that the rule allows for such business transactions with clients with informed written consent.
It is important to note that this rule does not deal with giving clients money to cover personal expenses or taxes. It concerns business transactions with a client under very specific conditions. It is not clear if Sullivan is arguing that the loans to Hunter Biden are a business deal made for the pecuniary benefit of Morris. As discussed below, there appears to be a mix of loans and acquisitions related to his client.
Sullivan stresses that any arrangement was not adverse. Of course, it presupposes that some or all of these payments were business transactions under Rule 1.8.1 and not a cost under Rule 1.8.5.
The use of Rule 1.8.5 raises other concerns. Morris reportedly was introduced to Hunter at a Democratic fundraiser and later started to give him money while serving as his counsel. If he also did business with Hunter, the question is whether he acquired any assets of Hunter that were the subject of federal or congressional investigation. It would raise concerns if he saw a good business opportunity in any distressed assets of a client. However, Sullivan would not confirm whether they attributed most of the payments to business dealings with Hunter.
In the House transcript below, Morris admits that, after he started his representation of Hunter, he did not have any written agreement dealing with the loans and payments. Despite being told that he was going to be asked about the loans, Morris could not recall how much money he has given Hunter in loans. Then they had this telling exchange:
Q Was that loan agreement, that [sic] in place in January of 2020 when you first began giving loans out to Hunter Biden?
A No, we documented it a little later.
Q When you say “a little later,” what’s a little later?
A I don’t remember, counsel.
Q A year later? Six months later?
A It might have been.
Q …So, again, just to clarify, because your attorney asked, but I want you to answer the question again. It’s your testimony that in January of 2020, when you first began giving loans to Hunter Biden, there was no written loan agreement in place at that time, correct?
Mr. Morris. Correct.
So Morris did not secure a written agreement before making these loans and was not even sure when the agreement was eventually crafted later in the course of his representation.
Morris and Sullivan insist that this is all in compliance with the rules. They are suggesting that a lawyer can just give massive amounts of money to a client to cover everything from taxes to personal expenses without any written agreement detailing the conditions and expectations with the client. Morris could not remember if that agreement came as much as a year later.
Finally, the transcript refers to Morris investing or assuming interest in entities associated with Hunter’s foreign partners or businesses. It is not clear what financial interest Morris assumed with regard to any real property owned by Hunter. I specifically asked Sullivan about such transactions. These business interests appear to have arisen after Morris delved into his client’s finances as his counsel. His client was in obvious financial distress at the time. It is important to determine if Morris assumed interest or purchased assets due to his knowledge of Hunter’s past dealings.
Again, there is a telling exchange with Morris of his ownership of 10% of Bohai Harvest RST LLC (BHR), through his acquisition of interest in Skaneateles LLC. Those are business interests associated with Hunter Biden. Note the apparent confusion of Morris in his knowledge and claims of privilege (emphasis added):
Q What kind of company was Skaneateles?
A I mean, I don’t know. An LLC, I think.
Q But did it sell shirts? What was it? I mean, what was the purpose of the company?
A I think it’s — again, I’m not — you know, I’m not to the point sure, but it was an LLC and — you know, I think it — Hunter actually had a very simple corporate structure personally. I think this was one that was for some purpose that I can’t remember. I — you know, anyway.
Q Do you know what Hunter Biden’s role was with Skaneateles?
A No. I think he was the sole, sole member of an LLC.
Q And are you aware of an investment fund Bohai Harvest?
A Yes.
Q What is that? It’s a Chinese — it’s a hedge fund of Chinese Nationals, I believe, that raise money to make investments in public-private, and infrastructure programs.
…
Q And do you know what kind of investments that BHR makes?
A I knew better at one time. I remember going through them. I don’t remember exactly what they were. I think they were — I don’t know. I think they were infrastructure.
Q But at some point, you were aware of the different types of projects that the Chinese National fund was investing in?
A Oh, well, yeah. When I was reviewing the investment I was going to make, I did it in — as part of my diligence on evaluating that transaction.
Q Did there come a time when you took over the interest for Skaneateles, which held BHR, the investment in BHR?
A The way I think it was, counsel, that I acquired, I acquired Skaneateles, which as I understand it owned the BHR piece.
Q What else did Skaneateles own?
A I don’t know.
Q Does it own anything else?
A I don’t think so.
Q But sitting here today, you’re not exactly sure what Skaneateles —
A I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have anything else.
Q And does it sound right to say that Skaneateles held a 10 percent stake in BHR?
A It sounds right.
Q So you currently own that 10 percent stake in BHR?
A Correct, through one of my corporate entities.
Q Which purchased Skaneateles, which held the BHR investment?
A Uh-huh.
Q Do you know when you — when did you purchase Skaneateles?
A Was it — I — you know, in 2021.
Q How did it come up that you were going to purchase Skaneateles? Or why did you buy Skaneateles of all the companies that Hunter Biden was involved with? Why that one?
A That’s privileged. I am not going to answer that because of attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Sullivan. No, no, no, why did you buy it? Like what?
Mr. Morris. I’m not going to answer it.
Q No I am going to ask about your communication —
A The —
Q The communication is privileged.
Mr. Sullivan. Can we go off the record for 2 minutes of the —
Mr. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.]
…Q You’re fine. Back on the record. Why did you buy BHR?
A I did the transaction because, you know, I evaluated it as a businessman, and I thought it was something that could be a very successful investment. I — you know, but I did diligence on the assets. I knew what — I knew what Hunter paid for it in the beginning, and I saw, and I still see upside.
Q What did you pay for Skaneateles?
A I think. 157K.
…Mr. Liner. You don’t know when. Do you know when you actually bought this interest?
Mr. Morris. No….
Q Did you have a written agreement with Hunter Biden regarding the sale of Skaneateles?
A I don’t know. I don’t believe so. Or — I don’t know. Probably, yeah. Probably, it was the — I would imagine I had to — okay, yeah. The answer is yes.
Mr. Liner. You had legal counsel as well.
Mr. Morris. Correct. A lot of them.
Q Does that contract allow for Hunter Biden to purchase back BHR at a certain time point?
A That I don’t — I can’t tell you, Counsel.
Mr. Liner. Meaning you don’t know?
Mr. Morris. Meaning I don’t know.
This is an exchange after Morris was told weeks in advance that he would be asked about his payments, loans, and agreements with Hunter Biden. Yet, Morris is still not clear on what agreements he had with his client or key details on those transactions. He is not even sure if he is holding an asset (that is the subject of congressional inquiry into his client’s dealings) that he might just give back to his client at some point.
Summary
Mr. Sullivan also insists that, under California Rule 1.7, there is no conflict of interest in any of these dealings and that they are certainly not adverse to Hunter Biden. That will require more information on the full array of business, personal, and legal arrangements that Morris maintained with his client.
In the end, we are left with more questions than answers, even after Morris’s long deposition. The six basic questions on the applicability of claimed exceptions for payments or loans to clients may have clarified some of these points. However, Sullivan refused to answer and accused me of trying to trick him and his client. He objected that I was “clearly engaging in that old trick to pry into alternative matters and misconstrue my letter, which we will ignore.”
There is no trick — new or old. Mr. Sullivan is contesting the application of the cited rule to his client. There is a general rule stating lawyers “shall not” pay personal expenses as quoted in the column. California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) (“[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.”). There are exceptions, but I fail to see how they would cover Morris’s payments or loans. Indeed, the applicability of exceptions requires underlying conditions that could add to the concerns for some of us on the multifaceted relationship between Morris and Biden.
The assertion of Sullivan and Morris that any of this is defamation is itself unsettling. They are now suggesting that exceptions to a general rule against paying personal costs of clients are applicable to these payments. I disagree. While his public figure standing under New York Times v. Sullivan requires satisfaction of the actual malice standard, that higher standard is not necessary to discard this claim. This is an interpretative disagreement in a matter of great public interest and columnists are allowed to express their opinions on Morris’s conduct.
The original column only made passing reference to this rule, but the threat has allowed for a more comprehensive discussion of the rule and possible counter arguments. For those who might be targeted next by such letters from Sullivan or Morris, I hope that this analysis will reinforce your own position in discussing these issues. Morris would be better served by offering answers rather than threatening lawsuits.
Obviously, as we learn more, this will be an ongoing discussion on the ethics of this relationship. This is an issue that has come up in practice for many of us under different variations of this rule. However, given our California lawyers who are regulars on this blog, I look forward to discussing these issues further in whether Morris’s relationship is consistent and compliant with California bar rules.
Here is the transcript so that you can read Morris’s own words explaining his representational arrangement with Hunter Biden: Morris_Redacted
Good for you professor!
Keep up the good work!
Kudos to you for not bending to that attempt at intimidation. I’m not an attorney, but the CPA in me would love to get a look at those
LLC returns and the accompanying K-1s.
None of the normal legal rules apply to the Bidens, or to any of their attorneys who pay their bills. They are exempt from the rules. Kind of like Hunter flaunting his Congressional Subpoena in from of the Oversight Committee for a glitzy photo op before jetting off on vacation.
Let’s make a few things clear. Hunter the nimrod flaunts his crack pipe and access to the big guy while flouting the IRS and the Congressional subpoena.
Bullies and sycophants. On that column I left a comment comparing them to the mob, something many others have done as well, and this only reinforces that notion. The law is not on their side and they know it, they are simply accustomed to being able to treat it as arbitrary. We have a great many things rupturing our society at present, but this global faux aristocracy is near the top of the list. It kills them that we will not bow to their metaphorical jus primae noctis. Very grateful for the people on this site.
James: Love your “global faux aristocracy” and “metaphorical jus primae noctis” intimations, thanks from me.
@lin
Thank *you*. I always appreciate your comments and your insight.
Interesting when Lawyers have spats. This makes me happy that I stick to medical law and not contracts and such. I do rely on attorneys for so much help in various degrees in medicine both in the business aspects and malpractice as well as quality assurance, impaired physicians and some things such as that. Libel and slander are not my bag of tea nor expertise.
I wish the professor well in this endeavor but this appears to be the Bill Clinton response on electioneering and politics and that is that each and every charge be answered immediately by something as bad or worse, before the sun sets. I think that was what was concocted in his War room in the 1992 and 1996 elections. I am not sure politics has been enhanced by this attitude.
I have many friends in the law and counted many attorneys and even some judges as patients but I never once engaged in business with one. Simply did not seem the right thing to do..
I do not know for sure, Professor Turley, but I have the feeling that, after this powerful answer, Mr. Morris’ attack dogs will not send you another letter. Well done! Your so far unanswered questions will be a shield against those bullies.
Not surprisingly you offer a thorough explanation and support for you prior statements snd positions. Only partially in jest I offer the following: The Biden family has operated an influencing peddling scheme for many decades, a scheme that has been well known, accepted and enabled in DC for most of those decades. The relationship between Hunter Biden and his lawyer is part of this scheme.
If you offered the Biden saga as a book or screenplay proposal it would be turned down as too over the top to be believable. And yet the reason very few people will expose this scheme is because most of them have been complicit in enabling and covering it up for so long.
I would add a somewhat related point about the narcissism of Joe Biden (and Jill Biden). They know that the always intelligently challenged Joe Biden if failing mentally and physically before everyone’s eyes, and yet they are intent on placing the security and other national interests of the United States to satisfy their own interests in continuing and remaining as President.
I bring these two points together by suggesting that Joe Biden will eventually use his presidential powers to protect Hunter, Joes brothers, sisters and other family members from paying for their crimes.
Isn’t it odd that all of the left wing activists that hate straight white men, hate wealthy nepo babies, hate men that treat women badly, hate rich people that avoid taxes and hate rich lawyers have no trouble with Hunter and Morris and one of the skeeviest straight, white, rich misogynists ( Hunter if we can judge from his pictorial history)?
We have not even addressed possible lawyer involvement in criminal enterprises – the exemption to the lawyer-client privilege that was used often by Biden Justice Department to force testimony from Trump lawyers about J6 and the Mar-a-Lago case. Should Congress or the next administration find evidence of criminal collusion between Morris and Hunter Biden, a nice tight conspiracy charge might help Morris’s memory as to the questions posed in the deposition. Nothing focuses the mind better than the thought of spending years in a slammer with a roommate who wants you to call it “Barbie”!
With all the BS and lies about Hunter Biden that Turley spouts, I am surprised he has not been sued sooner.
Keep up the great reporting!!!
This is an excellent, concise and interesting post. What baffles me is where is the IRS in this matter? Unless he has married Hunter, there are strict tax rules regarding loans. If he “forgives” the loan, Hunter is liable to the IRS and state and local tax offices for the amount that was forgiven, plus interest and penalties. How much interest did Hunter pay for the loan? The real question is, what does he hope to gain or what has he gained already?
The rest is a crock of half truths and evasive mumbo-jumbo. I wonder if such individuals who live in such a warped reality ever think how their answers sound to us lowly mortals?
I don’t believe it is true that accusing someone of breaking a law is necessarily defamation. (The correct terms are “slander per se” or “libel per se”.) We are impinged by so many laws that all of us probably violate one or another almost every day. The suggestion that someone “violated a law” does not carry the opprobium usually associated with slander per se. Imagine if Trump could sue everyone who has accused him of violating a law.
OK, the polls have closed and the votes are in: Jonathan Turley for Independent Counsel to look into the Biden Crime Family. He will be appointed sometime next January by AG Pam Bondi.
The old adage was never pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel.
Today that is upgraded to never pick a fight with a Law Professor and lawyer, that has millions of followers. In Print, on TV, and the interwebs.
Professor Turley,
There is a difference between “a written promise to repay the loan” as required by California ethics rules and “a written loan agreement.” For example, an email between the two would suffice. And you know this but you offer a bait and switch in this column.
Has Morris denied any email documenting the promise to repay the money? Until we have the answer to that, you cannot jump to these conclusions..
This is indeed bad lawyering.
His deposition provided the opportunity to present such evidence.
His oral testimony is so littered with his self professed ignorance of his personal financial dealings, after being given ample notice of the scope of the questioning, he has triggered doubt to his entire book of claims
As an insurance adjuster, after the first 3 or 4 answers claiming ignorance, the claim would have immediately been forward to the fraud investigators.
Can you point to a single question that asked this?
If not, it is not his affirmative obligation to present this information
Sure. A lawyer with ample warning of a deposition, never once opened a file to inventory his documentation.
I guess if he is as clueless as you, he would never consider any of his documentation. He failed to know what the function of the business he bought. Then the lies just get worse.
You said “sure” and then didn’t give a single question that asked whether an email or other written communication was exchanged about the promise to repay debts…. Did you forget to provide?
Actually he sounded like your typical stoner.
First, there is a question as to whether an email would satisfy the CA Statute of Frauds. If a loan agreement is not enforceable, it does not satisfy the ethical duty to demand and enforce repayment. Second, do you have any reason to believe that such an email exists?
There is no obligation under the ethics rules that the promise to repay be an enforceable loan agreement. Can you point to this requirement anywhere in the rules?
I have no idea whether such an email exists, but failure to acknowledge that a written “loan agreement” is not required to satisfy the very lenient “written promise” standard is clearly misleading
It goes without saying that the agreement for repayment must be enforceable. Otherwise it would be a sham. A one-sided.email from Morris to Biden would almost certainly not be enforceable since it would not be signed by Biden.
Not an enforceable “loan agreement.” This is a big difference between an IOU email and a loan agreement. I am not sure how else to spell this out. It could be as simple as a form email indicating past due balances, with a response == I will pay you back later.
That is all that would be required under the CA ethics rules.
Any loan agreement would have to satisfy the requirements of the FEC and IRS in addition to the CA ethics requirements, including timing of loan and documentation. The same is likely true for the purchase of the artwork and the companies Morris purchased. The transcript left many questions unanswered. Since no documents were attached, I have no idea whether they are sufficient or not; do you?
There is no requirement for a loan agreement in the first place!
For example, a promissory note or a simple IOU email would suffice under the CA ethics rules.
The relevant rule says “the client’s written promise to repay the loan.” You assure that an IOU email would satisfy this requirement. Do you have a case so saying? A valid agreement would need to be signed.
Further, you have constantly told us that Hunter’s laptop could have been hacked by Russians. If the Russians could have hacked the laptop to import damaging influence-peddling information, why couldn’t they hack his current computer to forge an IOU?
Edward,
There is no requirement for loan agreement to signed by both parties. I don’t know how many times I must repeat this. A written promise to repay (generally called a promissory note) is all that is required. A promissory note can take many forms, and an email can suffice.
As for a case, check out Walton v. Broglin (1975), 52 Cal.App.3d, in which the appellate court upheld the validity of a promissory note signed by the client midway through the case. There was no discussion of the Rules of Professional Conduct at the time. Even without initial email evidence, this shows that Turley is ill-informed on the law in California.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/1981-62.htm
Have you read Walton? What are your thoughts?
“Anonymous”, why is it that the great legal minds of the Biden family never have written contracts, loan agreements, stipulated schedules of payment or even contracts? Could it be that they are just a bunch of morons who happen to have a ton of money due to influence peddling and therefore they can attempt to set up lame, easily discovered, one person LLCs, tax shelters, phony entities and simplistic money laundering operations?
Weak sauce, such weak sauce. I’m embarrassed for you
Jonthan – This is right out of the Left Wing Radical DEMOCRAT Play book- go after anybody who opposes or disagrees with them, including lawyers. This is the way they try to silence you. Stand firm but what you bekieve and know. Just look at the events over the last 3 years, they go after anybody who opposes or critizes them. They want to silience you.
“Again, I sent questions on these provisions and their conditions to ask how Morris could justify his claim for an exemption. Sullivan refused to supply those answers.”
Well, there you have the crux of the matter, JT demands answers, did not get answers, therefore JT is right and everybody is wrong.
How many times does JT assume facts not in evidence, build a case, over time his assumptions fall apart, but JT just ignores the issue and goes on to something else? Quite often.
JT (and all you trump minions), go back to looking at the Hunter Biden porn, you will be a lot happier.
Well, there you have the crux of the matter, JT demands answers, did not get answers, therefore JT is right and everybody is wrong.
First, responding to a lawyers letter to cease and desist is not a demand. Its is a response seeking clarity.
Second Turley may be wrong. But the lawyer threatening Turley never makes that claim.
When you threaten to sue someone, especially a top lawyer, having a request for answers isn’t a “demand” being made by a petulant teenage reporter, it is a request for clarity. It is also how a lawyer proceeds in a situation like this.
PS. What “facts that aren’t in evidence” are facts that are being asked under pains and penalty of perjury in a congressional hearing. The bigger questions is why aren’t these “facts” in evidence?
Hunter porn is pretty bad, but it is better than his art-works.
Well this is what happens when the blindfolded lady holding a set of scales finds herself on a slippery slope of raw sewage which is what our once proud Justice system has become.
I’m sure the intent of Mr Sullivan’s letter was for to provide the public a court presentation of all of the facts surrounding Kevin Morris’s actions and statements. Thank you. I wish every American would read your article.