> sorry gg but I am not. it's called "acting under the advice of counsel."
> and it applies exactly to a situation like this. in other words if your
> lawyer says, "you need money to pay my bill, why don't you go out and rob a
> 7-11" and you do it, well that just doesn't apply. however if your going to
> a deposition and you say, "yeah, I was having cigar sex with this dirty
> little whore" and your lawyers say, "we've looked at the definition as it
> would apply and we advise you to say you weren't having sexual relations
> with her", then that is what you say. later a OIC report comes out
> accusing you of perjury and your lawyers take a bullet for you and say, "we
> advised him to say that" that's it, game over. circle gets the corner
> Circle Boy,
> It's one thing to circumvent telling the truth by splitting legal hairs. His
> attorneys will both be disbarred it they told him to LIE.
Wrong. They gave him their best advice based on the definitions set forth
in the Paula Jones case (which everyone seems to be forgetting was thrown
out for being without merit), with consideration of their clients interest.
So the worst that would happen is lose their licence to practice in DC. BFD
they move to Ny or LA.
But I feel we should keep going on this. After all North Korea is launching
two stage missiles, Iran is about to go to war with Afganastan and Ram is
up to $2 a meg.
when you want it it goes away too fast, when you hate it it always seems to last. - Marilyn Manson
<> email@example.com <>