“Based on the foregoing considerations, the motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment filed by the defendants (doc. 16) is due to be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment is due to be DENIED as to the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED as to plaintiff’s invasion-of-privacy claim, and that claim is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
So how did Lin Wood and Beth Holloway win? In this quote: “Based on the foregoing considerations, the motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment filed by the defendants (doc. 16) is due to be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment is due to be DENIED as to the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
I am still reading through the court’s 33 page opinion but wanted to get this up for all of you that have been following the tragedy of Natalie Holloway and now her mother’s lawsuit against the National Enquirer.
I have also downloaded ALL of the Motions that led to the Court’s decision today, or those with exhibits not filed under seal. Ken and I will be working tonight to get ALL of the up for you to read.
One of our favorite attorneys and his law firm has struck another win on behalf of the small guy, or as Dan Rather put it the “voice for the damned”.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Final Opinion on 2nd Appellate Court of California vs. Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Howard K. Stern. I have not read it yet so will give my opinion after I read it and after I ask for on record statements.
For reference sake this article we had in October 2012 states most of the same things. That article was titled; Howard K Stern and Dr. Khristine Erosovich has Major loss as California Appeals Court Reverses and Remands back to Judge Robert Perry”. This latest opinion has added two more pages but so far as I read it is just the same as last year.
After I read through this I will be back with more to say! So stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com tonight as we unravel what this opinion actually means and share what you think it means after you read it!!!!!
Am I the only one who thinks California should just let this go and not keep spending tax payers money of a selected case to prosecute?
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
In the Sheldon G. Adelson vs National Jewish Democratic Council famed libel attorney L. Lin Wood went to the heart of the Washington D. C. Anti-SLAPP statute, you know the ones that Perez Hilton is always being sued and then comes back and wins under.
Lin Wood has gone straight to the heart of the constitutionality of the Anti-SLAPP statutes, could we be seeing the making of a U. S. Supreme Court case on the Horizon?
I read the other day on Face Book where an attorney had just filed his first defamation case and was wishing for a Lin Wood play book. I had forgotten how much I enjoy reading Wood’s filings. At one time I had said Wood’s Court filings were woven with the beauty of a glistering cobweb of a spider on a winter’s morning. As I read through these filings I found myself thinking the same thing. There are ought to be a Lin Wood play book for Libel and Defamation suits, he is still the best there is out there.
The hearing was on Dec. 17th in New York Southern District Federal Court before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken at 2:30 PM and the winner of the filings and Oral Arguments is……………
We will also be updating the Beth Holloway suit against the National Enquirer this week. These are some great cases to follow. HOWEVER IF YOU HAVE A CASE YOU WANT US TO FOLLOW, JUST FILL OUT THE CONTACT US FORM AT THE TOP. WE ARE ALSO ALWAYS LOOKING FOR GOOD GUEST AUTHORS SO IF YOU HAVE A CASE WHERE PAPERS ARE AVAILABLE AGAIN JUST FILL OUT THE FORM ABOVE, WE WILL GET THE PAPERS AND YOU CAN WRITE ARTICLES FOR ROSE SPEAKS.COM.
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
After destroying the lives of two women, one famous, Kelly Rutherford, and one unknown Shellye Broughton who both lost their children to overseas fathers and possibly jurisdiction; Judge Theresa Beaudet has been booted out of L. A. family court! Can the U. S. even get the children back? Both mothers are now broke after fighting with Judge Theresa Beaudet, fighting a judge and not the fathers, how in American can this happen? I understand one of the children involved in this can’t even be found right now.
I have to say after reading and corresponding with both women the first thing that comes to my mind is “Ding Dong, the witch is………..”
We here at Rose Speaks.com are attempting to reach both women for their thoughts on this. However for now we have found an article on Desperate Exes.com that we will share. I do have to say, John J Nazarian is MUCH kinder to Judge Theresa Beaudet than I would be, but then we are not in the same state with Judge Beaudet.
The above thoughts are the Editorial opinion of Rose Turner and as such is copyrighted to Rose Speaks.com.
Did DESPERATEEXES.com play a part in the removal of Judge Theresa Beaudet? Well the ‘rumor’ out there is yes, maybe a little and how do I feel about that? We are not sitting here and cheering and ‘high-fiving’, just as I was not happy seeing judges that I thought were excellent transferred to other assignments……. Superior Court, Family law assignment is a tough and miserable job for any bench officer aka, A JUDGE.
Judge Theresa Beaudet, positively has a place in the Superior Court, may I suggest criminal courts? May I further be so bold to suggest sitting on death penalty cases? Judge Beaudet would be perfect, I could also close my eyes and see a lovely embroidered ‘grim reaper’, done in a darker black thread than the robe. Sure, were you would have to look closely and pay attention to see it clearly. Being that her Honor is tall, this could be very tasteful……and during holidays have another robe were the thread could be done in gold, gold and black, I could be onto something here!
Sending criminals to state prison would be a very appropriate punishment to separate‘bad’ people from their children…….
This current theory and attempt at dealing with young children and mothers has failed at least two that I personally am aware of! Is it my opinion that Judge Theresa Beaudet is a terrible human being, absolutely not.
My thoughts on Judge Theresa Beaudet is this, when I was going through the police academy I remember seeing ‘recruits’ that I knew would not be successful working in the field, (driving a radio car and dealing with bad guys). They were great recruits, running, constitutional law, driving course and all the rest of the academy. However the reality is simple, someone needs to work in the offices of police and sheriff’s departments handling other duties…..they are dressed just like all the other cops and deputies, and are wonderful at doing their ‘special’ jobs and serve an important function working as a ‘law enforcement officer’. I and all of us at DESPERATEEXES.com wish Judge Theresa Beaudet more success at her next assignment……..
Johnfucious understands that New Hampshire and Washington still have ‘hanging’, they hope and encourage you to use lethal injection, as a primary method, very nice! Nicer yet, Oklahoma offers firing squad only if lethal injection and electrocution are found unconstitutional….some judges have all the fun!
Follow John J Nazarian On Face Book and on Twitter; follow John and see who John J Nazarian is following. Most Important subscribe to John J Nazarian on You Tube, see John Unleashed on the latest stories of today.
While visiting Face Book go through all of Nazarian’s photo gallery, you will get a feel for the total Nazarian!!
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Celebrity P I John J Nazarian one of our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Now that the election is over I want to began a dialogue about one of the people I learned about named Sheldon Adelson. Imagine my surprise as I was using Google and PACER as my sources of information that I found that Sheldon Adelson who is an American business magnate, translated Billionaire. Adelson is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, the parent company of Venetian Macao Limited which operates The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino and the Sands Expo and Convention Center. Adelson also owns the Israeli daily newspaper Israel HaYom. Adelson is listed in the Forbes 400 as the 12th wealthiest American. Adelson personal wealth is estimated to be $20.5 billion as of September 2012. WOW remands me of the case of billionaire magnate Kirk Kerkorian’s divorce and child custody case.
However on PACER I located a defamation suit where Sheldon Adelson is suing David A Harris, Marc R. Stanley and the National Jewish Democratic Council for maliciously false and defamatory statements that conveyed to the public that Adelson personally approved of profit from prostitution in integrated resorts owned and operated by Sands China Limited, a subsidiary of Las Vegas Sands Corp., of which Adelson is a major shareholder, Chairman and CEO.
However what grabbed my attention and caused me to download the papers was the lead attorney, Heavy Weight Defamation Specialist L. Lin Wood.
Rose Speaks.com will be following this case as well as the Beth Holloway case because many of our readers as well as the owners like the Motions and Memorandum of Law L. Lin Wood writes, and you can’t get better than when the rich with unlimited funds sues the rich, besides this case covers the ANTI-SLAPP statutes that gives people like Perez Hilton and TMZ some legal cover for the outrageous in states that have this statute. So get your popcorn out and let’s begin.
This case is based on the Citizens United Decision by the Supreme Court that allows Billionaires to give unlimited funds to a political candidate of their choice. In fact in the original filings Lin Wood alleges on his client’s behalf that the defendants’ goal in this lawsuit was to advance their perceived political interests by assassinating Mr. Adelson’s character, punishing him for exercising his right to make monetary contributions to political causes and candidates of his choice, and demeaning him within the Jewish community.
Wood argues on behalf of Adelson that Adelson supports open debate on issues of political concern, the defendants, in this case, made false and defamatory accusations, made with actual malice, and crossed the threshold from constitutionally-protected speech to defamation of a public figure designed to suppress speech for which they should be held accountable.
Although none of the parties lives in New York, Lin Wood states this court has jurisdiction because they all do business in New York and the court has “subject matter” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.
I don’t know if this is court shopping as we sometime see parties do, for instant East Texas federal courts “specialty” is Trademarks, so you would be surprise at who files lawsuit in our small area for that “specialty in courts” I will check New York and see if there is a “specialty” there as well in defamation or if this is simply the most convenient for everyone.
It appears the main claim by Adelson is that as a philanthropist he has donated significant funds to charitable causes in the U. S. and abroad, one of them is the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research in Tel Aviv, Israel, which was established more than 20 years ago with his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson. They have clinics in Tel Aviv, Israel, Las Vegas, Nevada and in Macau.
Many of the hundreds of patients seen by these clinics (the Adelson Clinics), are women whose addiction has forced them into prostitution. The clinics work to support these women, provide them with drug abuse treatment and end their involvement in prostitution.
The Adelsons’ also fund a Medical Research Foundation that conducts, in part, some research into the biology of addictive diseases and the consequential impact on addiction treatment, among other fields.
In a July 3, 2012 article, defendanst David A. Harris and NJDC posted an article and an online petition asking others to support their demand that the Republican Party cease accepting monetary donation from Mr. Adelson. The Original complaint goes on to say the statements contained in the article are false and defamatory and convey the unmistakable message that Mr. Adelson engaged in the exploitation of prostitutes and is worthy of public scorn and contempt. This same author and JNDC posted another article with the same allegations and petition on July 11, 2012. The July 3, 2012 article titled “Tell Romney to Reject Adelson’s Dirty Money”
Adelson claims the only source of this information is a disgruntled former employee of Adelson, Steven C. Jacobs, who was terminated in 2010. The allegations are that Jacobs said he would try to get Adelson and has since then with false allegations in lawsuits as well as giving information to others like being the “only source” in two these articles, has continued to try and carry out his threats to ruin Adelson.
Part Two which will be the Motion for Summary Judgement based on the ANTI-SLAPP statutes and Adelson’s Response and Memorandum of Law will post soon after midnight tonight or by 7 AM tomorrow, November 19, 2012 after I have time to read and glean the best parts of L Lin Wood’s team’s filings.
We will also be updating the Beth Holloway suit against the National Enquirer on Tuesday, November, 20, 2012. These are some great cases to follow. HOWEVER IF YOU HAVE A CASE YOU WANT US TO FOLLOW, JUST FILL OUT THE CONTACT US FORM AT THE TOP. WE ARE ALSO ALWAYS LOOKING FOR GOOD GUEST AUTHORS SO IF YOU HAVE A CASE WHERE PAPERS ARE AVAILABLE AGAIN JUST FILL OUT THE FORM ABOVE, WE WILL GET THE PAPERS AND YOU CAN WRITE ARTICLES FOR ROSE SPEAKS.COM.
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
California Appeals Court today, October 18, 2012, Reveresed Judge Perry’s decision to dismiss charges against Howard K. Stern and ruled that the felony conviction MUST be reinstated on Dr. Khristine Erosovich.
Here is the main description and the download has now been FIXED!
Oct 18 2012 California Appeals Court Reverses Remands with Direction the Trial court Dismissing and/or lowering the Charges on Howard K. Stern and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich
The clear thing that sticks out if the first paragraph:
The People of the State of California appeal after a series of rulings which resulted in the dismissal of charges against two defendants, Dr. Khristine Elaine Eroshevich and Howard Kevin Stern. Mr. Stern?s new trial motion was granted. Two conspiracy counts were then dismissed pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1385, subdivision (a) (section 1385). We will reverse the new trial and dismissal orders.
Next the Court gives some directions to Judge Perry Court of alternative positions to take to still dismiss the charges on Howard K. Stern:
We agree with the prosecution that Mr. Stern?s new trial motion could not be granted nor the charges dismissed on the ground the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. But, as we will explain, what can occur to Mr. Stern once the remittitur issues is limited by the double jeopardy provisions of our Constitutions.
Here, we conclude the trial court incorrectly granted Mr. Stern?s new trial motion; the evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law. As will become clear, the former jeopardy effect of the erroneous order granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion is the same as an acquittal. Similarly, we conclude the trial court dismissed the charges against both defendants based on an erroneous finding the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, we reverse the orders granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion and dismissing the case pursuant to section 1385 as to both defendants. Once the remittitur issues, the trial court may take up the remaining new trial motion issues, dismiss on other grounds pursuant to section 1385, or even impose sentence. But, there is one thing the trial court may not do and that is to order Mr. Stern to be retried.
Some background on the proceedings are given by the Court of Appeals:
Dr. Kapoor was acquitted of all charges. As to count 3, the jury found defendants conspired between June 5, 2004, and September 10, 2006. As to count 1, the jurors found defendants conspired between September 11, 2006, and February 8, 2007. The jury found defendants conspired to commit two crimes. The first target offense was to obtain controlled substances by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11173, subd. (a)2.) The second target offense was to unlawfully give false names or addresses in prescriptions for controlled substances in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.3
Dr. Eroshevich was also convicted of two other charges. She was convicted in count 7 of obtaining controlled substances by fraud or misrepresentation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11173, subdivision (a). Further, she was convicted as charged in count 9 of giving a false name or address in a controlled substance prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.
Next we have a summary of the Trial Court’s Ruling of Judge Robert L. Perry:
Howard K. Stern
Preliminarily, the trial court found Ms. Marshall suffered from chronic pain syndrome; further, her “drug-seeking behavior” was primarily due to inadequate control of pain rather than addiction. The trial court was further persuaded the overriding purpose in procuring controlled substances in names other than Ms. Marshall?s true name was to protect her privacy. With respect to prescribing medications in a false name, the trial court concluded the law was vague as to what constitutes a false name. The trial court found no basis for charging a conspiracy ending on September 10 and a new one beginning the very next day on September 11, 2006. More significantly, the trial court found, “[T]here is [no] evidence in the record at all that Howard Stern lacked a good faith belief that the practice of obtaining prescription medicines for [Ms. Marshall] in names other than [her true name] could be against the law.” The trial court found Mr. Stern acted to protect Ms. Marshall?s privacy, as had most of the doctors and hospitals that had dealt with her. The trial court concluded: “When I consider all the evidence, and even viewing it in a light most favorable to upholding the verdict, I find it is clearly insufficient. Under these circumstances, I find no reasonable trier of fact could find that Howard Stern had a specific intent to violate either of these target crimes . . . and I do grant a motion for new trial to Mr. Stern on these [conspiracy] counts . . . .” Immediately after granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion, the trial court stated: “[B]ut I?m going further. [¶] I find the evidence at trial was so lacking and insufficient to show a specific intent to join a conspiracy on the part of Howard Stern to commit these target crimes, that I do believe the interest of justice supports the dismissal of these counts as to Mr. Stern, and I so order. And this, of course, is under Penal Code section 1385 . . . .”
The minute order prepared for Mr. Stern sets forth the trial court?s reasons for dismissing counts 1 and 3 as required by section 1385: “On the court?s motion, counts 1 and 3 are dismissed due to insufficiency of the evidence. [¶] The court further clarifies that it is dismissing counts 1 and 3 in their entirety, which includes all hung target offenses, due to insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.”
Dr. Khristine Eroshevich
Having dismissed the conspiracy counts as to Mr. Stern, the trial court turned to Dr. Eroshevich?s motion. The trial court concluded: “I don?t think there was an agreement between the two of them to violate the law, and . . . I don?t think the conspiracy counts can stand [as to Dr. Eroshevich], and so I dismiss those as well . . . .” The clerk?s minutes for Dr. Eroshevich contain no statement of reasons for the dismissal. The minutes state concerning Dr. Eroshevich: “The cause is argued and the court grants defense motion to dismiss counts 1 and 3 pursuant to . . . section 1385 due to insufficiency of the evidence.” No other language pertinent to the dismissal of counts 1 and 3 as to Dr. Eroshevich is contained in the clerk?s minutes. We will later discuss the effect of the absence of any language in the trial court?s oral order or the clerk?s minutes concerning: the substantial evidence standard of review; having viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdicts; and that no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hatch, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 273; People v. Salgado, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 10.)
However, the trial court denied Dr. Eroshevich?s motion for a new trial or to dismiss as to counts 7 and 9: “I choose not to disturb the jury?s verdict regarding [Dr.] Eroshevich on counts 7 and 9. There is no doubt in the court?s mind that based on the evidence [Dr.] Eroshevich acted out of a heart-felt desire to help her friend. Obtaining a prescription in the name of another person, Charlene Underwood, without [Ms.] Underwood?s knowledge or consent was clearly wrong and constituted a violation of the law. As a doctor[,] [Dr.] Eroshevich well knew she should not have done this and it is clear to the court that she acted with the required intent to defraud.” However, the trial court “vacated” the count 9 conviction on grounds it was not appropriate to punish Dr. Eroshevich twice for the same act. The trial court then reduced count 7 to a misdemeanor. The prosecution has not appealed the trial court?s orders with respect to counts 7 or 9.
However, DON’T get to excited here, the Appeals Court gave Judge Perry several options to dismiss the charges or other options but not that of a NEW TRIAL. This is becoming the cases that never ends!
After I read through this I will be back with more to say! So stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com tonight as we unravel what this opinion actually means and share what you think it means after you read it!!!!!
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Disgraced Senator and Presidential “hopeful” John Edwards’ Federal Trial on six criminal counts related to nearly $1 million in secret payments from two wealthy campaign donors that was used to hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the White House in 2008.
Nothing is simple in politics, is this trial politically motivated or did John Edwards commit campaign fraud?
No one is questioning that John Edwards received money from two donors, neither of which will testify, about the money or Edward’s mistress, Rielle Hunter.
First announcement before opening statements began with a WTF moment when U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles said former Edwards aide Andrew Young called the three other witnesses in the last two weeks. Eagles ruled that lawyers for Edwards could mention the improper contact to jurors in opening arguments Monday, but barred them from using the term “witness tampering” or telling the jury that Young had a one-night stand with one of the other witnesses in 2007; a possible violation of federal law.
The Court seated 12 jurors and four alternates Monday morning. The panel is made up of nine men and seven women.
“It wasn’t just a marriage on the line,” prosecutor David Harbach said. “If the affair went public it would destroy his chance of becoming president, and he knew it. …He made a choice to break the law.”
Edwards’ defense team told the jury that most of the money at issue in the case went not to support Hunter, but was siphoned off by Young and his wife to build a $1.5 million “dream home” near Chapel Hill. Edwards’ lawyers contend the payments were gifts from friends intent on keeping the candidate’s wife from finding out about the affair. Elizabeth Edwards died in December 2010 after battling cancer.
A key issue will be whether Edwards knew about the payments made on his behalf by his national campaign finance chairman, the late Texas lawyer Fred Baron, and campaign donor Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, a now-101-year-old heiress and socialite. Each had already given Edwards’ campaign the maximum $2,300 individual contribution allowed by federal law.
Abbe Lowell, the well-known Washington lawyer who is representing Edwards, has said that even had Edwards known about the secret payments, his actions wouldn’t amount to a crime under federal law. Lowell has said in court that the government’s case relies on flawed legal reasoning, that the grand jury process was tainted and that the Republican federal prosecutor who led the investigation was motivated by partisanship. Lowell has derided what he calls the government’s “crazy” interpretation of federal law whereby money that was never handled by the candidate nor deposited in a campaign account is being defined as campaign contributions.
Follow the money and the mistress is my initial take on this! Cate Edwards, John Edwards eldest child and an attorney herself has been with her father entering court every day.
I will do a short article every night and catch all of us on the trial and what has lead all of us to this.
Here are the documents from June 3, 2011 through September 6, 2011. I will load the rest of the September documents right after we get this up and then I will have the witness list and the exhibit list up tomorrow night. So we finally have a good trial with sex, alleged criminal actions to cover it up, and witnesses in trouble with the judge already. What a great start.
We encourage all of you to join other posters to discuss all of the cases we cover. If you read a post that upsets you just scroll past that comment http://community.rosespeaks.com/ I seldom step on the forums that belongs to the members, however, as I do have time I enjoy reading and participating in the discussion.
Visit our Download Section and pick up all of the documents related to any cases we follow; we put up papers throughout the trials, and then leave them up as part of the history of the cases we cover.
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Entries (RSS)