Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
FR
ES
Senal en Vivo
VIDEO
RADIO
FRIENDS SITES
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel

by : Bob Egelko
Monday April 18, 2005 - 04:40
9 comments

London groping case dogs governor
British libel law seen as benefit to TV host’s suit

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s treatment of women he encountered as a movie star has largely faded from public discourse, aside from the occasional Doonesbury cartoon that depicts the governor as a giant hand addressed by reporters as Herr Gropenführer.

But there’s one incident that refuses to go away. A British television interviewer, Anna Richardson, says Schwarzenegger pawed her during a publicity stop in London in 2000 and then libeled her through statements made by campaign staff that appeared in a California newspaper article five days before the 2003 recall election that vaulted him into office.

Specifically, Richardson says she was defamed by a movie publicist, in a statement arranged by Schwarzenegger’s campaign spokesman. The publicist, in an article published in the Los Angeles Times, accused Richardson of engaging in sexually provocative behavior and of fabricating the claim of harassment. She is suing Schwarzenegger along with the movie publicist and the campaign spokesman — both now on the governor’s paid staff — for damages.

Schwarzenegger, who has acknowledged "behaving badly sometimes’’ toward women, has denied groping or defaming Richardson. The two aides have also denied liability. But the libel suit, filed in London, has withstood all attempts at dismissal, shielded by a plaintiff-friendly British libel law under which Schwarzenegger himself once filed suit.

Unless the governor wins a late judicial reprieve or reaches an out-of-court settlement, he may find himself spending part of the 2006 election year — his re-election year should he choose to seek another term — in a witness box, answering questions under oath before 12 British jurors and a bewigged judge.

"It would be difficult, at this stage, to think of other motions Gov. Schwarzenegger could bring which would dismiss this case without a trial,’’ said Kevin Tierney, a law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and also a British barrister.

"He’s going to have to fight this here or he’s going to have to capitulate,’’ said Mark Stephens, a London libel attorney who is not involved in Richardson’s case but who faced Schwarzenegger in another suit more than a decade ago. In view of the governor’s tough-guy image and his aggressive approach to litigation, Stephens said, "my expectation would be that he would come and fight it.’’

Other analysts predict a settlement, noting the risks of a trial or a prolonged lawsuit for any chief executive.

"There’s a tremendous imposition on (Schwarzenegger’s) time, on his attention, on his energy, the damage to the dignity of the office,’’ said Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia and a libel law expert. "It’s very difficult to imagine this (trial) actually going forward.’’

Schwarzenegger’s longtime California attorney, Martin Singer, said there have been no settlement discussions and he doesn’t know whether the case will go to trial. "There will be other procedural motions’’ to challenge the suit, he said, without giving details.

Richardson’s lawyer, Graham Atkins, said his client is not talking to the media about the case.

Richardson — regularly described in the British media as a vicar’s daughter — is a London television producer who hosted a late-night movie review show called "The Big Screen’’ when she interviewed Schwarzenegger in December 2000 during a tour to promote his new film, "The 6th Day.’’

Her version of the events was published in 2001 in the British magazine Premiere, along with similar accusations against Schwarzenegger from two other British female interviewers, neither of whom has sued. Richardson’s libel suit, filed last May in London’s High Court, quotes an account she gave to the Los Angeles Times in October 2003, when she was one of six women accusing Schwarzenegger of sexual misconduct in an article published five days before the recall election.

According to her account, Schwarzenegger, who had behaved as a "perfect gentleman’’ in her previous interviews with him about his films, kept staring at her breasts during the 2000 interview at the Dorchester Hotel.

"I went to shake his hand and he grabbed me onto his knee and he said, ’Before you go, I want to know if your breasts are real,’ ’’ Richardson told the Times. She said they were real and looked around for help, and "at that point, he circled my left nipple with his finger and he said, ’Yes, they are real.’ ’’ Then, she said, he let her go.

Campaign spokesman Sean Walsh, responding to the allegations, told the newspaper that Schwarzenegger had not behaved improperly toward Richardson or any of the other women but was being attacked for political reasons. Regarding Richardson’s accusations, Walsh referred the Times to Sheryl Main, a studio publicist, who accompanied Schwarzenegger on the movie tour and described Richardson as the instigator.

According to Main’s account, as quoted in the Times, Richardson stood up after the interview, cupped her right breast and said, "What do you think of these?’’ She then sat on his lap and was immediately escorted out.

Richardson did not sue over the hotel incident. But she sought unspecified damages from Schwarzenegger, Walsh and Main for the Times story, which reached Britain via the Internet and was widely reported in the British media.

The allegations "struck at the very heart of (Richardson’s) reputation and integrity,’’ her suit said. "It is a matter about which she has frequently been asked by family, friends and professional colleagues, as well as complete strangers.’’

Richardson also said Schwarzenegger’s lawyers wrote to her lawyers in November 2003, accused her of fabricating her account for self-promotion, and threatened to sue her in California if she sued the newly elected governor, warning her, "You proceed at your peril.’’ No such countersuit has been filed, but Richardson said she was offended by the lawyers’ "bullying, high-handed and gratuitously rude tone.’’

Schwarzenegger’s response, so far, has been that he is being sued in the wrong country over statements for which he is not responsible.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger did not make any of the statements that were attributed to his aides,’’ said Singer, the governor’s lawyer. "He didn’t ratify or authorize the statements.’’

Singer said Walsh, the governor’s chief campaign spokesman, merely referred the Times to a witness, Main, who did not work for the campaign and was employed by the film studio, not Schwarzenegger, at the time of the incident. Walsh is now director of the state Office of Planning and Research, and Main is on Schwarzenegger’s communications staff. Neither was available for comment.

The pre-election Times story had little apparent impact on Schwarzenegger’s easy victory over then-Gov. Gray Davis. Schwarzenegger dismissed the article as an 11th-hour political hit piece but issued a general apology for past misbehavior and promised to act as a "champion of women.’’ He also pledged to order an investigation into the women’s accusations, but backtracked after taking office.

After the suit was filed, all three defendants challenged British jurisdiction over a case based on statements by U.S. residents to a U.S. publication. But Justice David Eady said British courts could hear the case because the article had been posted worldwide on the Internet and had allegedly libeled a British citizen with an established reputation in her home country.

Walsh and Main have unsuccessfully appealed the ruling; Singer said Schwarzenegger has not decided whether to appeal.

Eady also said the case would be judged under British law, a crucial point. Constitutional protections for libel defendants in the United States, developed by the Supreme Court since 1964 to promote free speech and the right to criticize public figures, are nonexistent in Britain.

One important difference involves the burden of proof. If the case were being tried in the United States, Richardson, the plaintiff, would have to prove that the statements made about her were false. It’s the reverse in Britain: Once Richardson showed that the statements harmed her reputation it would be up to Schwarzenegger, Main and Walsh to prove they were true.

"In a ’he-said, she-said’ case, that can be critical,’’ said Smolla, the University of Richmond law dean.

If a defendant tries to prove a defamatory statement is true and fails, damages are increased — typically threefold, said Stephens, the London libel attorney.

In addition, British courts lack protections provided in U.S. courts for anyone sued for libel by a prominent person, in this case Richardson. If Richardson were suing in a U.S. court, she would have to prove that the defamation was either a deliberate lie or made with reckless disregard of the truth. Not so in British courts.

That was the standard Schwarzenegger used last year to win dismissal of a libel suit in California by Rhonda Miller, who accused his campaign of falsely suggesting she had a criminal record after she told the Los Angeles Times he had groped her on a movie set. A judge ruled that Miller had become a public figure by publicizing her accusations and was unable to prove that the misstatements were deliberate or reckless.

The differences between the two nations’ laws are so stark that U.S. courts have refused to enforce British libel judgments, said Robert Balin, a New York libel lawyer who has been involved in two such cases and has written about the issue. That means that Richardson, if she wins damages against Schwarzenegger, will probably be unable to collect them unless he owns money or property in Britain.

Stephens said damages in British courts are typically much lower than in the United States.

He said the governor could be helped, if the case makes it to trial, by another difference between the two nations’ laws: A British judge generally would bar testimony by other women who accused Schwarzenegger of groping them, unless he raised the issue himself by insisting he would never engage in such conduct. Similar evidence is often allowed in U.S. trials, like Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial, in which jurors have been allowed to hear from other accusers.

Schwarzenegger has been through the British libel system once before. In the early 1990s, he sued the British tabloid News of the World and Wendy Leigh, a writer living in Florida, over an article that he said falsely accused him of holding pro-Nazi views.

The newspaper paid an undisclosed amount to settle the case. Leigh, the source of the tabloid’s article, issued an apology and also made some changes in the then-upcoming British edition of a book she had written on Schwarzenegger, said Stephens, her lawyer.

"He was one of the first to open the floodgates of people coming to London to sue for libel,’’ Stephens said.

Singer bristled at any comparison of the suit Schwarzenegger filed and the suit he now faces. "How can you say there’s any analogy?’’ he asked. Unlike Richardson, who could have sued in California, Singer said, "we could not have sued in the U.S.’’

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...



Leave a comment
Print this article


Commentaires de l'article
 

> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Monday April 18 - 12:42 - Posted by 1ebd73fbe1f545ca...

Vat is wrong viz you girlie men ? I am ze gropenfurer general.




> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Monday April 18 - 18:16 - Posted by d42fec9dbadfce25...

If groping and libel are bad, what is Senator Kennedy doing running around loose?




> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Wednesday May 18 - 17:57 - Posted by fa15e807419754e4...

Pointing out the hypocrisy of dillweeds like you.



> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Saturday May 21 - 00:47 - Posted by b0f6e0a86c2c5d8a...

It’s up to Senator Kennedy to point out hypocrisy? Lord, help us. I always liked the old pro-2nd Amendment bumper sticker: "Senator Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun."

FYI, Sen. Kennedy, who says rich guys like him don’t pay enough in taxes, shaved over $4k off of his income tax bill last year by declaring his Washington D.C. house his permanent residence. This means he’s either a tax cheat or he is ineligible to continue to represent the people of Massachusetts, but, oh well, no one cares. Tax laws are only for little people, not senators.



> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Tuesday April 19 - 01:11 - Posted by 2959eb8dfd5c6566...

diebold was fined millions in california for "poor security" in their election software, good thing they make ATMs.




> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Tuesday April 19 - 04:41 - Posted by 36128142307874e0...

GET-RID. GET-RID




> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Thursday April 21 - 23:30 - Posted by 36128142307874e0...

Could he be any more disgusting??? He keeps saying close the borders, then when his Nazi tactics backfire, he says "its a language problem. "Steroid Joe" probably has brain damage.



> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Thursday April 21 - 23:31 - Posted by 36128142307874e0...

Would someone please buy Arnie a bra, he is starting to look like Dolly Parton.



> Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel
Friday May 6 - 15:13 - Posted by dec31ab5e4b7149f...

What has happened to the buff Ah-nuld. May I offer him some advice - always wear a shirt!







Public Apology to Women of the World from The American Republic (Hypatia of Alex
Monday 31 - 15:21
by Willam Morgan
YES, THERE WILL BE ELECTION FRAUD, AND ON A GRAND SCALE
Sunday 23 - 18:32
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Hillary Clinton will be first female President 2017
Monday 10 - 17:21
by Willam Morgan
Police Shootings: Law, Policy, and Accountability
Thursday 6 - 14:22
by William John Cox
AMERICA DESERVES BETTER, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WORLD DESERVES BETTER
Thursday 29 - 18:02
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Back to School for Fascist Dupont-Aignan
Thursday 15 - 11:32
by Nouveau Comité de Vigilance des Intellectuels Antifascistes
The Presidency: Character Matters
Friday 9 - 15:06
by William John Cox
WHY HILLARY IS THE PERFECT PERSON TO SECURE OBAMA’S LEGACY
Tuesday 30 - 18:08
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Remake of Ben Hur in 2020 planned by new motion picture studio
Friday 26 - 15:50
by Wallace
THE CASE FOR DONALD TRUMP
Monday 22 - 19:32
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS DEAD
Thursday 11 - 06:42
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
DONALD TRUMP AND THE GENIUS OF IDIOCY
Friday 5 - 00:47
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
FOOLING MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME IS WHAT AMERICAN POLITICS ARE ABOUT,
Friday 29 - 18:13
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
A message of your fellow striking workers from France
Tuesday 12 - 20:49
by Info’Com-CGT
The Right to Vote, Effectively
Friday 8 - 22:20
by William John Cox
Fourth of July Lies
Sunday 3 - 19:41
by June C. Terpstra
Who Should Make Political Policy, the People or the Politicians?
Friday 24 - 15:14
by William John Cox
Hollow Women of the Hegemon Part II: Atrocity Enabling Harpies
Tuesday 21 - 18:49
by Dr. June Terpstra
The American Republic Manifestum book is being made into a Movie
Saturday 11 - 15:54
by William Morgan
Write-in Voting and Political Protest
Wednesday 1 - 15:05
by William John Cox
Yves Bouvier art battle plays out in online and social media arena
Tuesday 31 - 21:12
by Dean Bagley
Damaged Candidate Clinton Can’t Call Out Trump
Friday 27 - 13:53
by Daniel Patrick Welch
PLEDGE OF THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY
Tuesday 24 - 21:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
LET TEXAS SECEDE
Thursday 19 - 00:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
LAS TRES ERRES A LA ENÉSIMA POTENCIA.-
Monday 16 - 15:35
by FREDDY SUBDIAGA
DEMAGOGIA POPULISTA...
Monday 16 - 15:26
by FREDDY SUBDIAGA
Oligarchs Won’t Let You Vote Their Wars Away
Wednesday 11 - 20:24
by Daniel Patrick Welch
AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL: JOHN KERRY - FROM HIS REMARKABLE RECENT COMMENCEMENT ADDR
Monday 9 - 20:40
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton support the American Republic Manifestum
Monday 9 - 16:37
by William Morgan
Transformation: A Student-Led Mass Political Movement
Monday 25 - 19:28
by William John Cox
Algerian Feminists react to ’Hijab Day’ in Paris 2016
Monday 25 - 01:13
THE ILLUSION OF RIGHTS
Friday 22 - 18:45
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
US is real superpredator pretending to be victim
Monday 18 - 22:23
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Gaiacomm International has accidently created a fusion reaction/ignition.
Sunday 17 - 17:01
by William Morgan
Clinton’s Campaign Continues to Highlight Horrible Hillary
Saturday 9 - 00:57
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Armoiries racistes à Harvard : Plaidoyer pour la réflexion socio-historique
Thursday 7 - 18:56
by Samuel Beaudoin Guzzo
THANK YOU MISSISSIPPI FOR YOUR HATE
Wednesday 6 - 02:02
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
The PKK in Iraq: “We are ready to fight ISIS everywhere in the world”
Monday 4 - 14:33
by InfoAut
Clinton Crashes and Burns, Sanders Will Win (But hold off on the applause)
Friday 1 - 22:33
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Confirming Supreme Court Justices and Electing Presidents
Friday 1 - 20:59
by William John Cox

home | webmaster



Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En


rss FR / rss IT / rss ES



Bellaciao hosted by DRI

It is the responsibility of the intellectual to speak the truth and to expose lies. Noam Chomsky
Facebook Twitter Google+
DAZIBAO
I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name
Thursday 10 March
©Olivier Jobard/Myop I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM IS A RIGHT In the phrase « right to asylum », every word matters. Under the law, every person who is persecuted because of his or her political opinions or because of his or her identity, every person that is endangered by violence, war or misery has a RIGHT to seek asylum in another country The aim of this petition is to collect (...)
read more...
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
2 comments
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
read more...
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
1 comment
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
read more...
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
read more...
THE KU KLUX KLAN ONCE AGAIN CONTROLS INDIANA
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
7 comments
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
read more...
I’VE DECIDED TO "WASTE" MY VOTE
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART IV
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART III
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART II
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART I
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
read more...
ONE SOLITARY LIFE, PART TWO
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
3 comments
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
read more...
HOW MUCH CORRUPTION CAN DEMOCRACY ENDURE?
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
6 comments
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS, PART TWO
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
4 comments
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
read more...
PEOPLE WITHOUT SOULS
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
2 comments
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)
read more...