You'd think it might have occurred to him that submitting a claim that says that the original defendant never actually made the statement for which you are suing his exwife was just a bit problematic.
It will be fascinating to see what happens if that schlemmiel really does pursue this case. If he actually pursues the financial aspect, surely the fact that everyone involved has said, repeatedly and in print, that the original statement never happened will compromise the results. What is the point of pursuing a case to such an extreme that you're almost guaranteed to lose in court? And you know if his advisors are any good, the legal ones are saying, "Yo, guy, stop while you're ahead," and the image advisors are saying, "You realize you look like a total and complete asshole right now, don't you? You're divorcing your wife, getting into what promises to be a terribly ugly custody fight, joining up with this hot-cha babe (mind, your ex is also fabulously gorgeous, so most people think you're nuts on that count by itself), and pummelling a person in court who has continuously said -- and proven -- 'I didn't say that! I didn't do that! I surrender!' You keep beating them in court like this, and you're not going to be able to go out without getting spat on. You can't stand too many such victories."
What an ass.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!