I don't know if this is to be believed or not.
Any comments/thoughts/rebuttals welcome.
84 months? One legitimate complaint that Jesse Jackson et. al. have is the fact that if a black kid robs someone of a few hundred bucks, they get longer in jail than people who steal millions.
OK, everyone here knows that I have been a vocal critic of Miers, but I will defend here here. Partnerships can be dangerous sometimes. All of the partners of a firm will be hit hard if one partner does something wrong. If one partners was determined to engage in this kind of behavior, there is no way that the firm could have stopped him/her.
Now, it is possible that there were red flags, and associates going to Meirs telling her of the illegal work. If that is the case, then that would be a problem. But absent that, we can't assume that the illegal work of one partner should be blamed on her.
As for her defending the firm against the charge, that's her job.
"This editorial is from the same guy who wrote the book that help defeat John Kerry -- UNFIT FOR COMMAND."
It would be more accurate to say he had a hand in assembling and editing some of the material.
hoo-boy. Here we go...
Notice something missing from this article? Like the, um, relevant fact as to whether Miers was a partner who actually worked on the Austin Forex matter?
Smear.
He also came on Free Republic and, using his real name, trashed the Catholic Church about a year ago. His comments here were used by the Kerry Campaign.
Jerry doesn't post here anymore...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=jrlc
As you can see from my other recent posts, I am not supportive of this nomination. However, to attack Miers on the basis of this civil lawsuit is off the mark. I am familiar with lawsuits of this sort. Most such suits against law and accounting firms are little more than deep pocket searches by amoral plaintiff class action attorneys. It is very unlikely that any attorney in her firm had any knowledge of the fraud or any reason to believe the fraud was taking place.
I once applied for a job with Austin Forex (never heard back from them) and I followed this case quite closely when it broke. All of the factual details given above seem correct to me. What isn't said is the level of Miers' involvement with Austin Forex other than her being the managing partner who was chosen to be a spokesperson for the press.
Managing a law firm that advises a Ponzi scheme on how best to defraud investors of $33 million is hardly an admirable credential for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm very disappointed so far in Miers because I wanted a Scalia clone. But.......
That sentence sounds like a very cheap shot. If it was true, one of the firm's lawyers should also be in jail. If they were, you would expect the article to say so. I seriously doubt that the law firm actually instructed their client on how best to steal the money. "Listen up, this is how we are gonna rip off all the old people. Sounds far fetched.
This guy is making the case that the lawyers not only knew what was going on, but that they were in some way the masterminds, and that Miers had some sort of full knowledge. Exaggeration like that raises doubts, for me anyway.
handy
Erxleben was punter in the NFL and Jerome's little smear job of a Christian lady is beyond contempt.
This is a problem - all other idealogical considerations aside, I would never support a Democrat SC pick for this reason alone, why should I support a Republican pick under the same circumstances?
This whole process is beginning to resemble a knife-dropping contest.
Comment: A freaking disgraceful article.
Thought: Corsi should be ashamed of himself.
Rebuttal: There is nothing to rebut, he attempts to slime the lady through association and provides none, nada, zip evidence of Miers complicity.
The defendant had to pay 28 million in restitution, and the firm agreed to pay 22 million, all for a 33 million dollar fraud -- so shouldn't that have pretty much meant that no investor would be "out of their life savings?" from this? Shouldn't that 50 million been enough to cover the 33 million invested?
What am I missing here?
As far as the firm entering into a $22 million settlement, this is what I posted in the earlier thread:
This is a pretty large settlement, but it is likely most of the money came from the firm's malpractice carrier. The simple fact of life is that when a firm's client loses (or steals) money he has raised from third party investors, often the only way for those investors to get anything back is to sue the law firm and/or the accounting firm. These are usually the only "deep pockets" around. Resolving such suits is considered, to some extent, a cost of doing business.
Interestingly, a large legal malpractice insurance company reported in 2004 that a study of legal malpractice awards and settlements in excess of $20 million showed there were 32 such cases, of which 26 involved a dishonest client of the firm who had raised investment money from third parties.
Joe Farah is an idiot, and because he runs WorldNetDaily I never read the rag.
This is a problem.
This is about as credible as Chairman Hao's recent "salami" insinuation.