Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

« Care to Smell my Tires? | Main | Taser 31, others 0 »

January 29, 2007


Alan Winograd

Your analysis is correct. I do admit to being a plaintiff's lawyer. However, I initially thought that some of their claims must be true because of how stridently they argue their position. After reviewing the objective facts and evidence and my own experience, there is no other conclusion other than that their argument is a complete fabrication. If the accountability reformers ever brought their case in a court of law, it would not survive a summary judgment motion and any lawyer who brought such a fraudulent case would probably be disbarred. Court's require facts and evidence unlike the court of public opinion. These are the same folks who present phony evidence of WMD's to justify invasion and all the other b.s.

The comments to this entry are closed.