Roger Clemens Wins Part One: Federal Judge Rules, "Hardin Stays."
Washington, DC - May 6, 2008.
Judge Ellison (Democrat) ruled today that Roger Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, may stay on, and represent him throughout the civil suit, much to Brain McNamee and Richard Emerys' dismay.
Emery argued that because Hardin represented Andy Pettitte, that Rusty would attack Pettitte on cross examination, and Andy should be protected under Attorney Client Privledge. Pettitte didn't seem too concerned though, as he sat the issue out altogether.
Hardin responded citing that he didn't know anything more about Pettitte, than what Pettitte had said publically. Rusty added that he and Pettitte were never in a legally binded contract, and that he never asked for, nor accepted any monies from Pettitte. Hardin contends that he told Pettitte he could not represent him after hearing Pettitte's story, but did refer him to a NY lawyer.
Rusty Hardin was delighted to have the issue go before a real court, and put the Congressional Hearings behind him, referring to the malay as a "circus", with the ring leader, Henry Waxman, calling the shots.
Judge Ellison stated in the 13 page brief, that "it would only be an issue if Hardin represented McNamee, not Pettitte." In other words, Emery was trying to represent Pettitte, and not his client, McNamee. A sign of desperation? If Pettitte were concerned he would have showed up and filed a brief. He is not concerned. Therefore Hardin has won the first legal battle in the Defamation Suit. This maybe a sign of things to come, that many "McNamee band wagoners" will be embarrassed after all. A very small minority of writers predicted that Hardin would win the first hearing of Clemens' Defamation Suit against McNamee.
This decision took almost a full month as it was heard on April 9th. The ruling coming down from Judge Ellison is an an indication that the Civil Suit, now having merit, will move forward. Clemens is not a Federal Prosecutor, and does not have to abide by any "deals of immunity" relevant to McNamee. The next ruling is regarding Emerys' Motion to Dismiss the Suit altogether. But don't underestimate the courts' eagerness to hear legal cases in full.
In Febuary Hardin predicted, ""You are about to see the second edition of the Duke case. I warn you, in five, six or seven months, any of you on the bandwagon about Roger Clemens taking steroids is going to be embarrassed."
Clemens now has 20 days to respond to Emerys' second motion, whether or not to dismiss the case entirely. After filed, the ruling should not take as long as the first because the Judge now knows the background, and issues relevant to the suit.
Emery argued that McNamee was "only compelled to speak by the government, who offered him "absolute immunity." McNamee, during the Congressional Oversight Hearings, testified to not having any deals on the table from Federal Prosecutors' Office. "No deals of immunity," blurted out McNamee in response to one congressional Democrat, who also asked Clemens "What Jersey will you wear into the Hall of Fame?" The contradiction made by McNamee over immunity alone, should be cause enough to move the suit forward.
Afterall, Clemens does not represent the Government, renegotiating its' deal of immunity. Rather, he is a private citizen seeking out the protection offered all Americans in the The Constitutional, in legally challenging "false accusations."
No doubt Ellison has read Emery's recent rantings in the media, which may well continue, and only serve to make Emery appear more, and more desperate. While others' say Hardin talks too much, though judging by his success rate, he talks just enough to win.
If found liable, McNamee would not go to jail, unless the Feds find (as result of this case) that McNamee "made false official statements to a Federal Investigator," such as Clemens having an abscess. McNamee made this claim in the Mitchell Report, and was properly refuted by several witnesses making official statements to Federal Investgators, and by evidence of Clemens' MRI which proved McNamee was misleading, at best. What else is Brian McName misleading about Clemens?
Clemens has been affected financially by McNamees' accusations. He has yet to pick up his glove, and head back out to the mound. Last year Clemens made 28 Million dollars playing baseball for the New York Yankees. That part of his life was raped away from him by allegations in the Mitchell Report. He is already going through hell, especially considering all of the "Tabloid Like" headlines offered us in return for big circulation and big advertising money, regardless of children being hurt.
Dropping the suit would not eleviate any pressure placed on Clemens by the likes of Mike Lupica, of the Daily News. It might well embolden more harassing "tabloid-eque news." Therefore, the suit should move forward.
In other related news.
Canseco is being questioned on the rumors that he "blackmailed" Magglio Ordonez. The Feds want to know if Jose threatened any player by naming him in the next book, if they didn't offer finance for his developing movie "Juiced." Though I am not sure what this has to do with Clemens Perjury Investigation, other than the Feds trying to discredit a Clemens witness, which of course would be biased for an objective investigator to do.
Judge Ilston, of the Balco trial, remains suspicious of the Feds' "motives and tactics" in their investigation of steroid use in baseball. Canseco's attorney, Emerson, thinks that the Feds are shooting the messenger. Regarding McNamee, Canseco calls him a "dirty liar," who is just lying to avoid jail time.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?