Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3235
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#651

Post by tek » Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:16 pm

but but but didn't GIL just sign up with Corsi? Surely he's not THAT busy?
But I'm strong, strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 11886
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#652

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:50 pm

Since he's NOT actually doing anything for any of them, except making press releases for himself, I can't really see that it matters.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3543
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#653

Post by Azastan » Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:16 pm

Klayman claimed Baron Cohen’s legal team was trying to get the case moved to New York. “They think they’ll come up with a leftist judge there that’ll help them…but since judge Moore was interviewed in Washington, DC and all the events took place in Washington, DC, the case belongs there,” Klayman continued. “It’s a simple case of forum shopping.”
Could someone explain to me why Klayman thinks that having a trial in Washington DC would be better than a trial in New York?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7763
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#654

Post by Northland10 » Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:52 pm

Azastan wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:16 pm
Klayman claimed Baron Cohen’s legal team was trying to get the case moved to New York. “They think they’ll come up with a leftist judge there that’ll help them…but since judge Moore was interviewed in Washington, DC and all the events took place in Washington, DC, the case belongs there,” Klayman continued. “It’s a simple case of forum shopping.”
Could someone explain to me why Klayman thinks that having a trial in Washington DC would be better than a trial in New York?
He is still a member in good standing of the DC Bar, for now, but he would have some problems getting PHV admission in the Southern District of New York. In that district, he once had his PHV revoked for unethical behavior and the judge stated he would deny future petitions. The Second Court of Appeals upheld the judge's order. He was also denied PHV admission in the New York Supreme Court (equivalent to other states' superior court) in 2007 for multiple issues of poor behavior in other courts around the country.

https://casetext.com/case/stern-v-burkle-1
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
My current avatar is of an ancestor who came to the US in 1805 and never spoke anything but German.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26278
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#655

Post by bob » Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:27 pm

Too also: He drew a Reagan judge.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3543
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#656

Post by Azastan » Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:43 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:52 pm

He is still a member in good standing of the DC Bar, for now, but he would have some problems getting PHV admission in the Southern District of New York. In that district, he once had his PHV revoked for unethical behavior and the judge stated he would deny future petitions. The Second Court of Appeals upheld the judge's order. He was also denied PHV admission in the New York Supreme Court (equivalent to other states' superior court) in 2007 for multiple issues of poor behavior in other courts around the country.
Ah, ok, I was thinking about GIL's comment about 'forum shopping' and wondering why he thought he would get a better 'forum' in DC versus NY. I guess still being a member of the DC Bar is better than not being able to act as a lawyer in the SDNY!

bob wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:27 pm
Too also: He drew a Reagan judge.
That's a good point.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7763
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#657

Post by Northland10 » Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:26 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:27 pm
Too also: He drew a Reagan judge.
Speaking of Reagan judges, I got a bit a giggle when the judge in Stern v Burkle cited GIL's favorite.
3. In 1999, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that he had "grown weary of [Mr. Klayman's] use-and-abuse-of the discovery process. The court has already sanctioned [Mr. Klayman] for making representations to the court, allowing the court to rely upon those representations in a favorable ruling, and then later contravening those very (mis)representations." Alexander v. FBI, 186 FRD 188, 190 [D.D.C 1999].

Stern v. Burkle, 0103916/2007., at *2 (N.Y. Misc. 2007)
Too bad Lamberth let Alexander v. FBI go for over 10 years before ruling that "this Court is left to conclude that with this lawsuit, to quote Gertrude Stein, 'there's no there there.' " Alexander v. FBI, 691 F.Supp.2d 182, 197 (D.D.C.2010)
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
My current avatar is of an ancestor who came to the US in 1805 and never spoke anything but German.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26278
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#658

Post by bob » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:02 am

Deadline: Consent For Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘Who Is America?’ Was Fraud, Roy Moore Claims:
Golden Globe nominee Sacha Baron Cohen was all smiles at Showtime’s holiday party on Sunset Boulevard last night. But the Who Is America? creator can’t be cheered about Roy Moore’s contention today in his $95 million defamation suit that he was “fraudulently induced” to appear on the satire series earlier this year.

“There are at least two primary misrepresentations at issue,” reads the opposition by the failed Alabama Senate candidate and his spouse Kayla Moore to a motion by Cohen, Showtime and CBS to have the matter [transferred].

“The first misrepresentation was that Judge Moore was being flown to Washington D.C. to receive an award for his support of Israel, when in actuality it was so that he could be falsely portrayed as a pedophile on national television,” the Moores’ lawyer Larry Klayman, who is also representing ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in his recent $300 million suit against CNN and others, states of the February 14 filmed session with a heavily made up Cohen. “The second misrepresentation was that the television segment was being produced by Yerushalayim TV, and not Defendant Cohen, Showtime, and CBS.”

“As such, the venue clause in the purported ‘Consent Agreement’ that Defendants wish to now enforce is clearly void and unenforceable along with the remainder of the ‘Consent Agreement,’” adds the nine-page filing [ . . . ], also noting that Yerushalayim TV is a fake entity. “Holding otherwise contravenes not only well established contract common law, but also the notions of justice and fundamental fairness.”

* * *

While it is true there seems to be no mention of Cohen, the cabler or its parent company on the agreement by “Yerushalayim Television, LLC,” it should also be noted that the Moores’ paperwork today misidentifies YT as being “incorporated in the state of Montana,” when in fact it is incorporated in Wyoming, home of that other WIA? guest Dick Cheney.

Typo aside, there’s also the fact that the consent agreement specifies that any dispute over Moore’s appearance would be dealt with in a New York court.

Yet, even when that change of venue was brought up by the defendants on October 23, nothing seems to have deterred the strident stance Moore has taken since he first filed suit September 5 in taking on trickster supreme Baron Cohen and the media giants behind him.

“Defendants’ motion is purely tactical, as they clearly perceive New York to a more favorable forum, where they will more than likely find a favorable left-leaning, pro-entertainment industry judge to rule in their favor,” reads the opposition from Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, in culture-war language that seems to play more to Moore’s base than legal reality.
Moore's opposition to the motion to transfer.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6843
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#659

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:22 am

Legal speculation, folks? :confused:

To this non-lawyer, it seems fairly fundamental that consent obtained through misrepresentation of both the situation and one of the parties must be very, very dodgy as an enforceable contract.

Surely legal systems promote honesty and generally disapprove of deception? Statutes don't usually include exemptions along the lines of "... unless in the furtherance of a prank, wheeze or scheme devised for humorous, ironical or satirical effect."

I don't see how any prior consent can be valid so consent needs to be re-obtained when both parties are fully and correctly aware.

Of course, the issue of whether any consent is actually required is anothrr matter. I have no problem with the child-molesting habits of anyone being exposed.

For once, Moore's attorney could be labeled "Grossly Appropriate Larry". Klayman has the relevant subject expertise.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7763
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#660

Post by Northland10 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:25 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:22 am
For once, Moore's attorney could be labeled "Grossly Appropriate Larry". Klayman has the relevant subject expertise.
I still doubt anything GIL and Moore say, even when in a court filing.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
My current avatar is of an ancestor who came to the US in 1805 and never spoke anything but German.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10348
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#661

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:18 am

I think the case goes to NY.

Moore claims that the contract was induced through fraud. Maybe it was. It seems very likely that there was at least some misrepresentation. Whether that misrepresentation was material enough to make the contract voidable is another question. The issue of the misrepresentation is in dispute, and it's a matter for a court to resolve.

The question is which court. Roy brought his suit in DC nominally because it's where some of the acts at the core of the dispute took place but really because its one of the few places left where Klayman has an unquestioned right to craptice law. For now. Until the appeals are done. The contract, which Roy admits signing but claims he wouldn't have signed if he knew who he was really contracting with, says disputes are heard in New York.

Putting clauses in contracts that specify where the case should be heard and what law should be applied is common, particularly with contracts where parties are from different countries. And there's no need to have a conection between the law or venue chosen and any location involved in the agreement. A shipment of goods can move from Malaysia to India under a contract that specifies that it is governed by New York law and any dispute will be resolved in the Commercial Court in London.

As a matter of policy, most courts will honor these provisions as much as possible. Allowing parties to a contract to agree on how to handle disputes gives (in theory) increased certainty. They can choose the rules that will be applied to interpret the agreement, and they can select a jurisdiction to hear the dispute where they're confident in the knowledgeability of the judges, understand the procedures used, and so forth. That's the theory, anyway.

But that's a policy that could be made effectively meaningless if parties could escape those clauses by claiming that the whole contract is invalid. So courts are generally not going to conduct a deep inquiry into issues like misrepresentation when deciding whether to transfer a case. Is this your signature? Does this say that disputes related to the contract are heard in New York? Is the question of whether the contract was entered into solely because of misrepresentation a dispute related to the contract? If the answer to all these questions is "yes" (and it is), and if the mere act of hearing the case in NY instead of DC isn't going to work some sort of massive injustice on Moore, then the case probably goes to New York.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7763
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#662

Post by Northland10 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:59 am

If Moore has a case, he has seriously damaged it already. You don't retain Klayman if you want to succeed in court or get a favorable settlement. You retain Klayman if you want to be seen battling (harassing) your enemies.

Then there is the matter of Klayman having so many active cases, it limits his ability to put appropriate attention to his client's' cases.

If he succeeds, it will be due the dumb luck or really bad defense strategy (including leaving a huge hole to drive a fraud/misrepresentation claim through).
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
My current avatar is of an ancestor who came to the US in 1805 and never spoke anything but German.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#663

Post by pipistrelle » Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:45 am

Is there any common sense standard that if someone asks you for an interview, you do a quick online search to find out if they're legit? I've been asked a few times, and that's the first thing I do.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#664

Post by Jim » Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:47 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:45 am
Is there any common sense standard that if someone asks you for an interview, you do a quick online search to find out if they're legit? I've been asked a few times, and that's the first thing I do.
What signs have you seen from Roy Moore that he has any common sense?

Asking for a friend

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7763
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#665

Post by Northland10 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:15 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:45 am
Is there any common sense standard that if someone asks you for an interview, you do a quick online search to find out if they're legit? I've been asked a few times, and that's the first thing I do.
Narcissists are an easy target. Due diligence disappears when faced with an opportunity to get in front of a camera.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
My current avatar is of an ancestor who came to the US in 1805 and never spoke anything but German.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26278
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#666

Post by bob » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:17 am

Cohen has been sued before and he almost always wins.* Because the contracts have an "integration clause," i.e., the contract says all terms are in the contract, and the parties are not relying on representations made outside of it. The venue paragraph too (also) has its own severability clause.

Klayman's going for a Hail Mary, because if loses now on whether Moore was fraudently induced into choice of venue, he's going to lose later.

I like THR's understated snark:
Moore includes as an exhibit the LLC operating agreement for Yerushalayim TV, which states the company was formed in Wyoming (not Montana). It is signed by a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer, Jenifer Wallis. Must be a real mystery whom she represents.

* IIRC, Cohen lost once because there was no signed contract.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8589
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#667

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:29 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:15 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:45 am
Is there any common sense standard that if someone asks you for an interview, you do a quick online search to find out if they're legit? I've been asked a few times, and that's the first thing I do.
Narcissists are an easy target. Due diligence disappears when faced with an opportunity to get in front of a camera.
:like:
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6843
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#668

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:38 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:17 am
Cohen has been sued before and he almost always wins.* Because the contracts have an "integration clause," i.e., the contract says all terms are in the contract, and the parties are not relying on representations made outside of it. The venue paragraph too (also) has its own severability clause. :snippity:
OK, I think I sort of get it. The contract says "yeah, we might have lied (we did!) about who we are and the purpose of this contract, but you agree that that doesn't matter". They will have set up whatever companies are necessary for the cover story to work. If they have said (outside the contract) that the television company is Israeli but the contract doesn't mention where or how the company is incorporated or trades, that doesn't matter.

I can see why integration clauses might be useful and benign in ordinary situations (so nobody can bring up long forgotten emails or start "he said she said" arguments) but allowing them to facilitate major misrepresentation doesn't seem tremendously good from a public policy point of view. But then I'm not a lawyer (or shipping clerk).

Moore and Klayman are both assholes; I'm sure they'll manage to lose, even if they have some legitimate gripe. F***'em.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26278
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#669

Post by bob » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:45 pm

Integration clauses create an important benefit: certainty. The contract is what the contract is.

The law presumes Moore could have bargained to exclude it. Or could have done his due diligence.

I have no doubt, on his two tours of SCOAL, that he voted to enforce some contact that someone thought was unfair.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1085
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#670

Post by Dr. Caligari » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:54 pm

The venue paragraph too (also) has its own severability clause.
THAT is why Moore loses this motion to transfer. The venue clause ("all disputes shall be litigated in New York") has a severability clause saying that, even if the rest of the contract is void, that clause stands. So, to keep the case in D.C., Moore would have to prove that the venue clause, standing alone, is the product of fraudulent inducement. And he hasn't even claimed that.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8906
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#671

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:50 am

bob wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:17 am
Cohen has been sued before and he almost always wins.* Because the contracts have an "integration clause," i.e., the contract says all terms are in the contract, and the parties are not relying on representations made outside of it. The venue paragraph too (also) has its own severability clause.

Klayman's going for a Hail Mary, because if loses now on whether Moore was fraudently induced into choice of venue, he's going to lose later.

I like THR's understated snark:
Moore includes as an exhibit the LLC operating agreement for Yerushalayim TV, which states the company was formed in Wyoming (not Montana). It is signed by a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer, Jenifer Wallis. Must be a real mystery whom she represents.

* IIRC, Cohen lost once because there was no signed contract.
Yes yes, of course this. This is my industry. This stuff happens all the time, dopes fall for whatever. People make fake business or personal accounts to fool and lure people in, but unlike that pretty-and-dumb Jim Hoft/Gateway Pundit Boytoy, Jacob Wahl, who hit the third rail for accusing Mueller, Hollywood lawyers draft these integration clauses year in, year out. Buddy of mine hit the jackpot on a movie turned into a TV show called CATFISH. It's how people lie about their identities for dating or whatever. Fun show, long shelf life. Those releases are slightly more tricky but there's years (decades?) of boilerplate. Parody, choice, whatever, it's really a waste of legal money to pursue this, but Viacom will use inside counsel, it's in a pile. Cohen probably doesn't even hear about it. But As bad as those are, they are nothing compared to a reality show contestant agreement, those own the talent. Maybe Roy Moore thinks he knows more than Cohen's lawyers at SHOWTIME (MTV Networks, Viacom) but he will soon find out he does not. CATFISH is also a SHOWTIME program. Unfortunately, Roy's lawyers are so dull the SHOWTIME lawyers won't even get a nice lunch out of this. More likely, all this (why $95 Million exactly? What's that about? I'd take the position that the filing must be a clerical error because Roy's reputation isn't really even worth $9.50. I'm mean like that. :P ) it's part of Roy's grifting strategy.

Quick aside: One of my favorite favorite people is a top female litigator at an entertainment boutique firm in NYC. I love her, she repped me for years. She is super fun and nice, but she began her calls with opposing counsel: "Hi blah blah, well, you know I wouldn't be calling if I weren't suing you." The reactions were awesome. Loved it!
Avatar Photo: Kellogg's commemorates Anna Von Strudel de la PopTart's descent into insanity with a new cereal!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 11886
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#672

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:05 am

I would subscribe to the theory that underestimating Moore's intelligence, legal knowledge, and legal strategy would NOT be a losing proposition. Then again he sill thinks he is relevant and that people take him seriously, which says a lot, too, also.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#673

Post by NMgirl » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:23 am

Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... otion.html
Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 11886
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#674

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:23 am

I really do like how they start right off with
Such a sophisticated jurist(Moore) must be well aware of the legal implications of signing a contract.
that just pretty much says it all. Speaking of damning with faint kindness.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6843
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Roy Moore - FORMER AL Supreme Court Chief Justice

#675

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:16 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:23 am
I really do like how they start right off with
Such a sophisticated jurist(Moore) must be well aware of the legal implications of signing a contract.
that just pretty much says it all. Speaking of damning with faint kindness.
To this non-lawyer, it's a nicely written document, making its points calmly and clearly.

I sympathize with lay people struggling with complex contracts, especially in a David and Goliath situation, but I think it is entirely appropriate that qualified lawyers, and especially senior judges such as Roy Moore, whether kiddy-fiddlers or not, should receive absolutely no sympathy for any "Waaah! I didn't know what I was signing!! Waaah! It's unfair to me!!" complaints. The reaction should be "You signed it. You should know better. More fool you."

The forum argument seems compelling. If it the contracted forum were outside the US there might be some possibly traction to it, but surely no other US court is going to say "oooo, yesss, good point, going to New York as you agreed to do is horribly unfair and the hearings might be dodgy".

Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”