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.

June 3, 2011 John Edwards Indictment for Criminal Acts in Handling Campaign Funds (275)
June 3, 2011 Conditions with Release on Bond of John Edwards (274)
June 21, 2011 Transcript of Hearing in Pre Trial Motions for John Edwards (298)
June 27, 2011 Protective Order by Court in Regards to John Edwards (286)
July 14, 2011 Transcript of Pre Trial Hearing for John Edwards (298)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' First Motion to Dismiss (214)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Exhibit A with First Motion to Dismiss (216)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Exhibit B with First Motion to Dismiss (222)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Exhibit C with First Motion to Dismiss (219)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Exhibit D with First Motion to Dismiss (211)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (212)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Attachment 1 Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (229)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Attachment 2 Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (216)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Attachment 3 Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (219)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Attachment 4 Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (220)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Attachment 5 Memorandum of Law in Support First Motion to Dismiss (222)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Second Motion to Dismiss (220)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Memorandum of Law in Support Second Motion to Dismiss (223)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Third Motion to Dismiss (221)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Memorandum of Law in Support on Third Motion to Dismiss (210)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Fourth Motion to Dismiss (215)
September 6, 2011 John Edwards\' Memorandum of Law in Support Fourth Motion to Dismiss (228)

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.

©Rose Turner
April 24, 2012
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: $1 million, $1 million in secret payments, $1.5 million "dream home", 101-year-old heiress and socialite, a good trial with sex, Abbe Lowell, alleged criminal actions, and witnesses in trouble, Andrew Young, battling cancer, called the three other witnesses, campaign contributions, campaign donor, cancer, Cate Edwards, Cate Edwards an attorney, Celebrity Trials, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill North Carolina, commit campaign fraud, crime under federal law, David Harbach, December 2010, Disgraced Senator, Elizabeth Edwards, Federal assistant D. A. David Harbach, flawed legal reasoning, Follow the money, Follow the money and the mistress, Fred Baron, gifts from friends, government's "crazy" interpretation of federal law, government's case relies on flawed legal reasoning, grand jury process was tainted, heiress, heiress and socialite, High Profile Trials, individual contribution allowed by federal law, John Edwards, Judge Catherine C. Eagles, jury of nine men and seven women, money never handled by the candidate, motivated by partisanship, national campaign finance chairman, never deposited in a campaign account, North Carolina, Nothing is simple in politics, pregnant mistress, Presidential "hopeful" John Edwards, prosecutor David Harbach, Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, Republican federal prosecutor, Rielle Hunter, Rose Speaks, Rose Speaks Face Book, Rose Speaks Twitter, Rose Turner, secret payments, September documents, siphoned off by Young, six criminal counts, socialite, Texas lawyer Fred Baron, Trial of John Edwards, Tweet Blender, two wealthy campaign donors, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles, violation of federal law, well-known Washington lawyer, White House in 2008

Well we are all just sitting here waiting for the guilty verdicts on the Anna Nicole Smith trial to come in, and are curious as to what is taking so long? It is now day five of deliberations and nothing from the “Peers”…not sure if it is going to be good or bad…either way, it appears that the jury is taking their time and crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s. And Judge Fidler is not Judge Perry…big difference.

So, a little light humor here while we wait. And while chuckling, pay attention and you will learn something about the way of this world we call “Divorce.”

Folks, here is a little update on the story we did on Mr. Douglas A. Bagby on June 15th of 2010 titled, “The Ted Baxter of the Courtroom”…well, time does change things and in this case it went from awful to just terrible, I mean bad, real bad, like all four of my tires are flat bad, miserably painfully on a scale from 1-10….

…As luck would have it, Ms. Lauren Stills on September 17, 2010 signed a declaration under the penalty of perjury all of the following. I am going to take snippets of her declaration, the parts that I found “moving” and… …Well, when you go through her declaration and read what she has to say about her lawyer, Mr. Douglas A. Bagby…

…Here are some highlights:

From Paragraph 3, First Page, of what Lauren Stills’ declaration:

“Mr. Bagby’s seeking to withdraw under the circumstances of my case is, in my view, unconscionable. It should not be granted. Indeed, he seeks to withdraw after depleting a substantial family asset base, the size and limits of which were known by him, as he advised me from the outset and on the eve of my hiring him to sell our family residence to raise funds for legal fees, which only now seems like self-serving advice which helped his practice weather the economic downturn while there appeared an evident client shortage.”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: WOW…

….Paragraph 4, towards the bottom:

“Quite frankly, I trusted Mr. Bagby, and expected from the outset to the present (minus two months) that he would be faithful in bringing closure to both financial and custody matters given the ample resources he had at his disposal.”
DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: WOW, Yup, “He had,” that is past tense!

Paragraph 4, bottom:

“It made no sense to spend as if there was a bottomless pit of financial resources, which he knew there were not. Could it be true that Mr. Bagby figured he would just work until the money ran out and then withdraw? Sadly, I now believe this to be so.”

DESPERATEEXES.COM ASKS: Lauren did you ever discuss and….

…Paragraph 5, first line:

“Over approximately four years of representing me, Mr. Bagby has completed no or virtually no discovery on the most critical financial issue of the entire case–namely, valuation of PIP–and has left the forensic accountant with a balance of over $ 16,000.00 and a payment promise long overdue”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: WOW X 3. Often we as private investigators will assist clients with issues like this and try and “ride herd” over the case…it is almost sounding like there was a stampede of Ben Franklins aka…

Paragraph 5, line 29:

“The bottom line is that Mr. Bagby has incurred ample fees to ensure payment for himself–to the tune of approximately $1 million in fees to his office over almost four years…”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: Oh that is one hell of a tune, Peggy Lee had a hit recording titled, “Hey Big Spender,“ that too… …not as nice as Sorrell Trope, Lisa H. Meyer or Susan E. Weisner, but nice….
.
Paragraph 6, line 20, Lauren Stills declares:

…“what is going to happen when the money runs out?…Had I been provided just one ounce of an honest answer months and hundreds of thousands of dollars ago, I would have made different choices…” “letting the attorney run the show…”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: Lauren, you should have…

…Folks, read all of this declaration at your leisure as it is a real learning experience for women and sometimes men to realize what you are getting into in the world of Divorce. Is what Lauren Stills experienced so rare? Well…

As to his “never using my office or services”……

Now in all fairness as I can see the e-mails and letters coming (at least I hope), as I am making it clear now, ANY E-MAILS OR LETTERS FROM MR. DOUGLAS A. BAGBY WILL BE POSTED FOR ALL TO READ ON… …DESPERATEEXES.COM. This is not to pick on Mr. Douglas A. Bagby, it is however…

Mr. Douglas A. Bagby’s declaration as of September 22nd, 2010 highlights forthwith:

Paragraph 2, line 10, Mr. Bagby states:

“I do not intend to provide any response to the many false statements made by Respondent in her declaration unless this court orders me to do so…I do not believe the personal attacks made by the respondent against me do anything other than support my request to withdraw as her attorney in this matter…”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: LMAO! I can close my eyes and hear Mr. Douglas A. Bagby stating his position, standing of course. I agree with Mr. Bagby…

Paragraph 2, line 17, Mr. Bagby states:

“August 4, 2010, I sent Respondent a lengthy confidential email explaining why I could not possibly continue as her attorney of record in the pending action…Financial considerations were not the compelling reason”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: LMAO SOME MORE! Brevity is not one of Mr. Bagby’s strong cards. And where in the list of considerations was “Financial.” (someday I hope I can make one million on one case…)

Paragraph 3, line 20, Mr. Bagby states:

“I have invested extraordinary efforts on behalf of Respondent over the past 4 years.”

DESPERATEEXES.COM STATES: SOMEONE HELP ME I AM ON THE FLOOR….OMG!!!!!!! And what did Lauren Stills invest in you Mr. Bagby?

Paragraph 3, line 22, Mr. Bagby states:

“My office has over 7,000 email communications with Respondent since February of 2008 on virtually every issue, including many on evenings, weekends, and vacations, and probably in excess of 10,000 since I was retained by respondent”

Feel free to read all of Mr. Bagby’s responses to his client’s accusations and again, Mr. Douglas A. Bagby is not the only lawyer who bails on a client. I have done it and again I have seen other lawyers do this also…

To all my readers, remember to ask questions and don’t write big checks, write small ones and keep track. And also remember to have someone on your side if you are too timid to ask the ultimate question: “WHAT THE F*%# ARE YOU DOING?“….AND……

To read the rest of John J. Nazarain’s article visit Desperate Exex.com, the two declarations are not on his site yet but I will email him and ask how we can get these for you to read.

http://desperateexes.com/2010/10/19/the-further-adventures-of-ted-baxter-esq/

©John J. Nazarian
October 20, 2010
Used with the permission of John Nazarian P. I. – writer
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of our featured author, John Nazarian, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: $1 million, $1 million fees, $1 million in fees, Ben Franklin aka, Celebrity Trials, Desperateexes.com, DIVORCE, Divorce Hollywood Style, Douglas A. Bagby Esq, email communications, forensic accountant, Hey Big Spender, High Profile Trials, hundreds of thousands of dollars, John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Lauren Stills, Lauren Stills’ declaration, Legal Respondent, Lisa H. Meyer, Ms. Lauren Stills, Peggy Lee, Private Investigators, Respondent, retained by respondent, Sorrell Trope, Susan E. Weisner, Ted Baxter of the Courtroom