Skip to content

Dodgers fans: you do NOT want Jamie McCourt owning your team

Sep 20, 2010, 6:00 PM EDT

I’ve gotten a ton of digs in at Frank McCourt recently — and they’re legitimate digs, I think.  But while I think that McCourt mismanaged the purchase of the Dodgers and has taken a approach to his asset that is not conducive to building a strong baseball team, at least there’s a sense of competence there. Based on Josh Fisher’s* dispatches from round two of the McCourt trial, however, I don’t think we can say the same for Jamie.

Her testimony today, if true, makes her out to be astoundingly dim for a trained and experienced lawyer, which is what she is. At issue is the big document in which she is alleged to have signed over the Dodgers to Frank.  About that: Jamie testified that she doesn’t read legal documents.  Why? “They’re boring,” she said. The content “is over her head,” she says.

Again. The woman is a lawyer, who has held the title of CEO in a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The only thing that saves her intellectual reputation on this score would be if she really did read and understand the documents but is attempting to claim she didn’t in order to win this case.

That, however, would be perjury, and I don’t assume that good, right-thinking Americans perjure themselves without proof, which we do not have here. Nope, we have to assume that what she says under oath is true: that she’s none-too-smart for a person of her education and experience, and that if she were in charge of a big business like the Dodgers she’d stink on ice.

*Note: Josh and his coverage of the McCourt divorce was written up in the New York Times today.  Great going Josh!

  1. RichardInBigD - Sep 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

    Craig, please don’t take this personally, because I get the vibe from you that you are the exception, rather than the rule, and as far as I know, you never practiced as a divorce attorney. The two most vile creatures on earth that have not taken a life are 1 – the divorce attorney, and 2 – the woman going through a divorce. Lying is ahead of breathing for these people, and that’s where the lawyer comes in. Their advice centers around what lies can not be proven to be perjury, and will be beneficial to the soon-to-ex missus. I’ve been through it. I know.

  2. beezo - Sep 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM

    I would imagine her lawyers advised her on what to say and what not to say while on the stand, and I think this might just be part of her strategy. Why would any lawyer advise her to make herself sound like an idiot unless it would help their case. And yes, it would be perjury if she actually did read and understand the documents, since Jaime is the only person who can ever really know if she understood them, I think she’s safe there. But the McCourt’s have done so many other illogical and idiotic things, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised.

  3. John_Michael - Sep 20, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    That defense sounds eerily similar to what Jeff Skilling said about Andrew Fastow and Bernard Ebbers about Scott Sullivan in their trials, in effect, ‘Yea, sure I run the place, but I have other people that handle the details. They’re the ones responsible for that.’ They’ve basically set up a corporate structure where they’re (potentially) strategically ignorant of a variety of key facts. This allows them to raid coffers and then say, ‘Well, if spending a gajillion dollars on personal stuff while we were hemmorhaging cash was bad for the company, blame my CFO. He should have told me before or while I was doing it.’

  4. JimmyY - Sep 20, 2010 at 6:32 PM

    Hmmmmmmmm, leads me to suspect what other lawyers out there may not be as smart as they THINK they are Craig? Just sayin’.

  5. Terry - Sep 21, 2010 at 6:38 AM

    The ONLY thing that saves the Dodgers if for the Judge to rule that the team IS Community Property. Since neither Party can afford to buy out the other, the team would undoubtedly be sold to more competent ownership group.

  6. Dustin84v - Sep 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM

    Jamie should accept a legitimate offer from Frank. This civil case is confused and economically down scaled. His settlement would allow her to invest money. There is no reason to tie this up with litigation.

  7. Jonny5 - Sep 21, 2010 at 9:56 AM

    Can’t we just all agree to hate both of them equally? Although, it is Franks fault if Jamie ever was in the position to run the Dodgers.

  8. Cleareye - Sep 21, 2010 at 7:29 PM

    We have all known people just like this couple. They had many great times together, love their mutual kids, have similar ambitions, agree on a life style but…. they are getting older every day, and that scary reality makes people do things that no one can explain. Her absurd affair with her driver, his absurd need to squander cash trying to impress LA in order to prove to Boston they made a mistake by letting him go. All the rest of this absurdly juvenile and embarrassing theatrical event has been doen before, many times. Truth will not rise to the surface very often, he judge knows that. He will give it his best shot. The Dodgers will be sold and the fans will come again next year… until Vin Scully retires, then all bets are off!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Yet another WS run for the Giants
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. Y. Molina (2590)
  2. T. Ishikawa (2492)
  3. M. Bumgarner (2363)
  4. J. Shields (2084)
  5. L. Cain (2081)