Thursday, February 25, 2010

More Stupid Statements From Gryphen's Comments Section: It's Eddie Burke's Fault

The stupid statements keep rolling from the keyboards to Jesse's comment section.

SoCalWolfGal said...
I cannot imagine Levi missing this hearing. Something is very wrong and it's called "all things Palin" to quote the former mouth of the former governor. I hope that young man is okay. Thanks Gryphen for trying to find out why he missed the hearing and his whereabouts. I also agree with Anon@12:32 pm in that I am puzzled as to the word trial, and why is it so far out? Seven months away and Tripp will be close to two years old. Was Eddie Burke and the Beehive Lady successful in "influencing" the judges? I don't like this at all.

(emphasis added)

Remember the "death threats" that Jesse said had occured (when there were none) against the judge? In this commentor's mind, the judge got "rolled" by Eddie.


ella said...
and add THIS to the list of lies leaked to the Press:
"The judge told Johnston's lawyer it would have been better if Johnston had participated."

Says WHO? The Palin's - that's who!

Why NOT make up all of this cr*p to make Levi look bad in the public eye?
Because THAT is what is happening.

Believe me, attorney's KNOW when there client's presence is requested and/or required - it is basic!


Then you have this from a "Lawyer"

Donna said...
Folks--I'm a lawyer and have been practicing for 30 years. It is absolutely normal in a scheduling conference not to have clients there. It is equally normal for a judge to say something to the effect that he/she wishes a client were there--without context, inflection, or anything else it is a serious mistake to inflate this to "poor judgment" on the part of Levi's lawyers. Gryphen--I rarely disagree with you but I do on this occasion.

Judges--hard as it may be to believe--are human beings. Sometimes they say things that are just throw aways. Rarely do they remember something such as "Party X didn't show up for a scheduling conference." Now, if it had been an evidentiary hearing and someone hadn't shown up without good reason, that would be a different thing entirely, but that's not this.

The fact that something is set for "trial" merely means it's set for an evidentiary hearing. Not simply legal arguments but the actual presentation of testimony.

Right--- Tell that to the judge when they are telling you that your client should be there. This is a "public" child custody case now and the public gets to see how the judge acts and rules....

Like I said before, Levi needs to get another attorney...

Gryphen said...
Donna, I agree that it is not uncommon for only the lawyer to show up at a hearing to represent their client, and for that client to stay home.

But there is nothing common about this case.

This is not about legality it is about public relations. Now the Palin-bots will use this example to further paint Levi as a "dead beat" dad.

This was easy to predict and even easier to prevent.

Yep Jesse that was what you and the other idiots wanted, it to be public.

Here is some Karma...

Palin Wins -- Levi Johnston Ordered to Pay Up

No kidding? That is the law. Makes you wonder about the mental health and logical reasoning with the crazy left.

No comments: