from FoleyHoag's recent filings (yesterday, November 3rd) filings in US Federal Court. [Observation: they "read" and "smell" a lot like WilmerHale's earlier pleadings in this litigation.]
"Second, even assuming that BTU’s Stephens placed a dictaphone in Betancourt’s office in an amateur attempt [Observation: look out, Christina Stephens wannabes... you are expendable... that potential $90K-$95K salary to become WAM's potential chief tea-maker will seem small right about.... NOW] to record his conversations,7 Stephens indisputably [Observation: ???] never obtained any recording from any such device, S.M.F. ¶ 42. Even putting aside the testimony of both Stephens and Almazeedi that she was never authorized by BTU to play Nancy Drew in this fashion, id. ¶ 36, Betancourt has no claim against BTU because there was no recording (the only means of “interception” by a dictaphone, the only device in Stephens’s possession, id. ¶ 41)." [Observation: BTU claims there is no "interception" because Wael Al Mazeedi and Christina Stephens say there is no "interception". Kind of like the "fox's" lawyer saying that the fox did not eat any chickens in the coop because the fox said he didn't. THIS is supposed to be an indisputable fact!!!]
"Whatever Stephens may have incompetently attempted,[Observation: this is where the bus hits the target] there is no liability when, as here, there was no recording or other interception."
FoleyHoag acknowledges in this small footnote (we've blown it up) that there may be ISSUES with regards to Christina Stephens.
7 Such an attempt would be criminal under state law, see Mass. Gen. Laws c. 272, §99C(1), and would explain Stephens’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment at her deposition when she was asked about any such attempts, Affidavit of Brian P. Bialas (“B. Bialas Aff.”) Ex. 4 (Deposition of Christina Monica Stephens) (dated July 13, 2011) at 41:21-42:5.
8 comments:
I bet Murphy's can answer that question and the other person in the office that night.
Murphy was there, Stephens was there and another person was in the office who knows that Christina entered a "locked" office.
Murphy will disclose in Federal Court, if asked.
Mr. Martin Betancourt's office.
Why haven't Mr. Murphy been deposed yet by Al-Mazeedi's lawyers? Are they afraid that what he said would be provided to Mr. Betancourt's lawyer(s)?
Blogger, is it true the Murphy case was dismissed?
I've heard directly from Mr. Murphy what he saw and who he saw doing it... this conversation took place a day or so after the fact... This was about a year BEFORE he deposited the video in the custody of US Federal Court.. Smart, and necessary, move given Wael Al-Mazeedi's and his lawyers (WilmerHale, FoleyHoag, Maples & Calder, Burns & Levinson, Leonardo Lenny, etc. TRACK record of being witnesses to information and evidence that JUST disappears)
Christina plead the 5th. If she was so certain that the video did not show anything she would have said as much. C Stephens and WAM probably have some kind of unspoken agreement about what will be said to the courts (and how this will result in $$$ flowing to Christina)... Wonder if Wael is paying for her lawyers as well... if he is paying for them, what does that say about everything, especially considering that he ostensibly "threw her under the bus"
bottom line... WAEL is using his lawyers (currently FoleyHoag and Leon Lenny) to try to pull a "fast one" under the eyes of US Federal Court... funny thing that Leonard Learner's first name originates in the Latin for Lion or Heart of Lion... just can't picture LL as being anything other than a 3rd rate lawyer riding on the coat tails of everybody else...
YES, Mr. Murphy's case was dismissed August 11, 2011. We don't know the specifics of the dismissal because it was not done pursuant to an order from the judge but rather, pursuant to stipulation of the parties. We'll post everything we know about this dismissal when we get a chance.
yeah, Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of OZ
Post a Comment