Given that he isn't employed he is likely his lawyer to take this case on contingency; which means there is at least some truth to what is being said. Remember he is quoting, in places, discovery transcripts; lying to a court is hardly something one does, let alone on a whim.
Going public is a double edged sword, if someone is willing to stick their head this far above the parapet there must be something going on. I'd say both parties have some explaining to do, and a fair amount of it. The evidence is compelling, I wonder if the other parties have evidence that is as compelling?
Going public is a double edged sword, if someone is willing to stick their head this far above the parapet there must be something going on. I'd say both parties have some explaining to do, and a fair amount of it. The evidence is compelling, I wonder if the other parties have evidence that is as compelling?