The other red flag, aside from her sitting on these allegations during the Ten Commandments case when such a well connected Democrat could easily derail the whole thing and get points with the party ... you say the guy raped you and signed off on your divorce papers. If he raped you, you’d remember the name, the man, and challenge him ruling in ANYTHING regarding you. Your personal horror is the basis for the appeal. And she said nothing.
The other red flag, aside from her sitting on these allegations during the Ten Commandments case when such a well connected Democrat could easily derail the whole thing and get points with the party ... you say the guy raped you and signed off on your divorce papers. If he raped you, you’d remember the name, the man, and challenge him ruling in ANYTHING regarding you. Your personal horror is the basis for the appeal. And she said nothing.
Along that same line of thinking, wouldn't the divorce attorney know which judge is schedule to hear a case and would the attorney not inform the client? If the attorney discussed it with the client, she would surely recall the high-school event and tell the attorney that she and the judge have a history -- at which point, the attorney should seek a recusal.
The whole thing smacks of fake evidence and set up as soon as Allred entered the picture -- especially when she said on Day 1 she would not release the yearbook, that is was only being shown to back up her client's story.
Allred does not want to present the yearbook in a court room, because that would make it evidence and the opposition could request forensic validation. Instead, she wants a Senate committee to investigate? What a farce.