Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
This is my major gripe with the Democratic Party. Jack Connoly is a Democrat. He ran as a Democrat. The state party did not kick him out. In fact, they refused to endorse or support Jeannie until she won the primary. Jaxon Ravens even suggested that he would work for Connoly if Connoly had won the primary to help him win the general election.
Disgusting!
Connoly's entire political career has been based on attacking LGBT people. He tried to pass a city wide referendum repealing employment protections after the city council voted to protect LGBT people from workplace discrimination. His speeches- oh god, if you ever read them, take a shot every time he says that gay men are pedos. You'll be drunk off your ass in the first five minutes.
Ed Murray is a target just because he is a gay man. He is under attack by a career bigot the likes of which would put Lon Mabon to shame. If I could have one wish come true before I die (hopefully of old age), it would be to beat the living fuck out of Jack Connoly right in the middle of 6th Avenue.
What investigation did the Mayor's people conduct that fast to conclude that this is "political" -- meaning untrue with an alterior motive?
Did his spokesperson ask the Mayor about the mole?
The layout of the Mayor's apartment?
The 1984 sodomy charging documents from Oregon? (The conspiracy started REALLY early with a vision towards quashing gay rights -- when nothing is even on the ballot in Seattle -- in 2017)
The other man (victim) who described the mole?
The reality is that the Mayor is now desecrating the population he swore to protect: vulnerable, homeless, under privileged, susceptible teens!
Unless, of course, the accusations are true. Look, nobody cares if he had sex with men and paid for it. Really, if that was the story, nobody would care. But 15 years old AND he forced the guy to do things he didn't want to do? Different story.
I am not saying any of this is true. It is all "he says, he says" at this point. But to suggest that this is some grand conspiracy by Connoly to take down gay elected officials (one by one) seems highly unlikely.
You want some sugar coated spin like the Mayor is giving you? Some buttoned up suit and tie with talking points?
You (if you are a lawyer) and I and every other lawyer knows that your real leverage isn't so much the threat of winning the trial, but the threat of humiliating the mayor via the discovery process and a media strategy that will tempt you to strain against rule 3.6 of the rules of professional conduct.
Right?
@6, I looked that rule up. Good one: you know your stuff.
"(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."
I guess we've delved so far down the Trump hole we should all be judge based on the people we work with or that racist cousin in Alabama.
Does anyone care Murray has a pattern of doing this? As early as 1984? To young "troubled" (slick Eddie's words) boys?
What is the political slant? Beauregard is a closet right winger who is planning on installing a Trump or Pence puppet in Seattle as mayor? How can any normal seattleite believe that? Maybe it's just as simple as the facts that were pleaded.
The case originally sounded like I wouldn't bet against it, but now I would, based on batshitness of counsel.
How about; it was so cold last winter that I actually saw a lawyer walking down the street with his hands in his own pockets. Mr. Beauregard has taken this case on contingency, meaning that he gets a cut of any cash settlement, typically a third to a half of the total amount. And it could be a big check. One that comes with fifteen minutes of fame, win or lose. Opportunities like this don't grow on trees and my impression is that Mr. Beauregard isn't about to let this one get away. And a case in point as to why there are so many lawyer jokes.
Come on LincolnLawyer, if that's really you. Be professional and stop commenting on SLOG. Then wake up and distance yourself from the fucking Connellys. For the love of god.
Switch strategies, this one makes you and your client look thirsty.
I don't have facts so I don't know one way or another.
But I agree that there is a lot of loose talk jumping to conclusion that Murray is guilty. That's bad.
Duh
That's the whole idea
Likely as not it's a Republican attempt to destroy a liberal democratic mayor who supports sanctuary cities… Connect the dots, pal
I am not passing judgment but do feel something here does not pass the sniff test.
And a lawyer is saying "my client's story is true" and "we're going to win at trial"? There's nothing unusual about that. Are such statements likely to cause a jury to render a verdict on an improper basis? Nope, so that's probably not really prejudice.
NB: I am not an expert in attorney ethics, but I did have to study them at one time.
The same can be said of apartments. I've been in a lot of them, and I can tell you all about their layout.
I don't know what Murray did or didn't do, and I'm not commenting on that. I'm just saying that in a community of men who enjoy the company of other men, people talk.
If the genital description was given in the past, that strengthens that case that one person saw his junk, but means others could have gotten it from there.
@trolls to state the obvious, no accuser needs to be taken as gospel truth on their bare word, but every accuser should be listened to and rejected individually on their merits.
The accuser has unprovable allegations. He cannot prove there were cash payments. He was an admitted prostitute so maybe there was sex but he cannot prove it was at age 15. Did the anti-gay law firm know this and suggest to him 'maybe this was a few days before you turned 16?' (16 is the age of consent.)
One accuser says there's a bump on Murray's penis, another says it's on his scrotum. Nice guesses guys, thanks for playing. We don't know for a fact that there is any bump at all. The accuser (Simpson) who lived with Murray at 13 and actually reported something to the authorities at that time has the most credible accusation, but that was dismissed by the DA years ago.
The only thing certain is that anti-gay counsel (law firm of Jack Connelly) has been gunning for Murray all along and wants to take him down. If this came from a more neutral source it would have more weight. We should all wait for the truth to come out, whatever it is.
Impugning the victim's credibility because he was a drug addict is exactly why people like him are often targeted. They know people will dismiss their allegations, so they usually don't make any. I have no idea what your mayor may have done with this guy, but I do know that troubled gay youth are about the most likely folks on earth to be abused by adult men (double stigma means double easy for a-holes like you to disbelieve) and it's not exactly unknown for men to choose to work with troubled teens (of either gender) so they can take advantage of them.
On the other hand, if he wasn't taking advantage of a position of trust and didn't force anybody to do anything they didn't want to, I'd have a lot less of an issue with this. Statutory rape laws and laws against paid sex are (with some exceptions) mindlessly stupid. For me 15 and 30 is a problematic age gap, but at 16 if there were nothing else wrong besides the age gap, I wouldn't give a damn.
http://geov.org/gp/?p=697
I do think that, while the context he gives on the era is interesting, it's nothing but presumption as far as all that applying to the accusations against Ed Murray.
Read the story.
There is nothing in it except a lawyer filed a claim. BFD.
Wait until we have facts before making any conclusion.
What about it?
Assuming it's not proper, Atty General should take appropriate action.
It has nothing to do with DH's case tho of course has court of public opinion impact.
ALL I am saying is that we should be cautious in making judgements because we don't have much byvesubif facts.
What about it?
Assuming it's not proper, Atty General should take appropriate action.
It has nothing to do with DH's case tho of course has court of public opinion impact.
ALL I am saying is that we should be cautious in making judgements because we don't have much byvesubif facts.
"But there’s this: by 1986, a lot of the young men trading sex for money (or drugs, or housing, or whatever) were dying – because gay men who knew or suspected that they might be infected, and didn’t wish to harm their usual lovers, often turned to desperate – and usually drug-seeking – sex workers instead.
"I hope the gay men who inevitably react to this story as an anti-gay smear remember that the sorts of teenage boys Murray allegedly groomed were often themselves gay.
"And I wonder how many other 40-something men might also be accusing Mayor Murray if they had lived."
Yeah. He and Foghorn Leghorn used to do moot court cases at Duke.
Lincoln Beauregard, apparently is a well regarded lawyer. In this case, we might as well consider him a hero.
Conspiracy for political revenge? Really? To what gain? That's just preposterous, BUT how would these people who support this theory know? They Don't. They just don't care. Hopefully this doesn't speak for the community as a whole, because it sure puts the community as exceptionally self centered, and uncaring for victims of sexual exploitation.
@62 Yeah right, he's headed for a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. Get over yourself, and your chosen Icons ( ones that apparently have no integrity, which is ironic, because the claim is his integrity is what he values most! )