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

By: Cleareye

Cleareye — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:29:42 +0000

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!

By: Jonny5

Jonny5 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:56:04 +0000

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.

By: Dustin84v

Dustin84v — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:12:43 +0000

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.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:38:10 +0000

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.

By: JimmyY

JimmyY — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:32:42 +0000

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

By: John_Michael

John_Michael — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:31:16 +0000

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.’

By: beezo

beezo — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:28:39 +0000

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.

By: RichardInBigD

RichardInBigD — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:27:31 +0000

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.