Comments on: Tiger Woods Must Keep His Mouth Shut

By: guest

guest — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:17:58 +0000

Tiger must remain silent because, as a black male, he (1) got his ass wooped by his white woman, who (2) is now going to take him to the cleaners.
The hissing sound you’re hearing is the deflation of the value of his right to publicity. Think OJ, except that Nicole fought back successfully.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:42:14 +0000

can we get back to the ‘brand management’ issue? I believe ‘standing by your [wo]man’ is a better longterm strategy on this front …
And I’m also a lawyer, and imho the entire spousal privilege stuff has been upended in these new domestic violence laws, so silence is prudence.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:32:17 +0000

Whoops, that last comment should be acerbically directed at 133/134, not 137/138.
-160

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:40 +0000

137/138-
Seriously? Tiger wouldn’t be a defendant in his wife’s domestic violence case. He is a defendant in his “careless driving” case. You can’t use the party admission rule to get his statement in for the purpose of his wife’s case because he is not a party to that proceeding. Even then you would need some sort of theory of conspiracy in order for it to be admissible against her as co-conspirator acting within the scope of the conspiracy.
Can you imagine if the prosecution was allowed to use the statement of any person who ever had been prosecuted as an “admission of a party opponent?” It would make nonsense of the rationale for the rule – that the statement of the person being prosecuted should be admitted because the defendant said it, and is therefore stuck with it.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:13:28 +0000

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2753973/Waitress-Jaimee-Grubbs-claims-affair-with-Tiger-Woods.html The Jaimee girl is butt ugly. While there can be a legion of explanations, two dominant ones stick out that would best account for Tiger's transgressions: 1, wifey doesn't give head/gives shitty head or 2, wifey isn't giving Tiger any.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:03:53 +0000

157 – stop, just stop. Save that comment and re-read it after you’ve been in practice for a few years. So much wrong with that.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:36:42 +0000

75 – if Tiger were called to the stand as a witness against his wife, which he may be depending on whether he consents and the privilege rules in the state, his hearsay might be admissible for its truth, even if not under oath, as prior inconsistent statements if he denies those facts on the stand, depending on the state again.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:31:36 +0000

If there is a spouse with scratch-like wounds not consistent with the fender-bender given as an explanation, plus hearsay evidence of a marital spat, that is enough for PC on DV. PC is a low standard–enough for a reasonable person to find a fair probability of a crime under the totality of the circumstances. Bottom line: if we are all talking about the situation as if this is probably DV, and that Tiger is smart to keep his mouth shut, then there is PC. Still, the police may not arrest if they think they won’t get enough for a conviction. And without the testimony of the victim, they won’t get a DV conviction unless they have witnesses to an actual assault. Tiger doesn’t want to alienate his wife right now by testifying against her. She’s already going to get half. Why make it 60%?

By: guest

guest — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:33:49 +0000

sorry, that should be 106 = fail
155 = fail

By: guest

guest — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:31:07 +0000

103 = fail.
Read 95 again: he, for some idiotic reason, claims to usually be an Elie booster