#1190 
by riddlemethis » Oct 25, 2010 7:41 am
mcgruff wrote:BrandySpears wrote:riddlemethis wrote:Yep, here, definitely, but I expect that mentioned in the complaint it is germaine to the action. . .we just don't know why?
Maybe is was relevant to explain the accusations of payments to her teenage children?
The lawyers will spin the facts just as much as they can get away with. The narrative they seem to be trying to create is a young man, a little bit out of his depth at work and also in his personal life, trying to maintain a relationship with an older woman who already has several children. They may try to hint that insecurity drove him to shower his girlfriend and her children with gifts in order to prove his worth, or they may try to paint her as the experienced older woman, a Lady Macbeth leading her partner astray.
They're just messin' with your head.
Why would the plaintiff's lawyers want to do that; mitigate the responsibility of the number one defendant? There's nothing in that for them & as he's the one with the established relationship (& supposed contract) with them, not her. At a guess, I wonder if it isn't to do with her family having been paid funds & making clear that the connection between Josh & this family is as a group of adults, that does not include children - perhaps to circumvent the very defence suggested above? Something like that seems more plausible than any effort to soften JT's responsibility. I reckon lawyers include certain types of information for a reason, especially if it could otherwise appear to be discriminatory (or just plain irrelevant). Expect it will become more clear during the hearing.
I told the priest, don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. - Concrete Blonde
Reason is the servant of the passions - David Hume
You got to be Jesus crazy to pull a move like that. - Victor T
