Comes now this Blogger, Mark S. Timmons, proceeding pro se, and under the authority granted to me by myself, I do hereby swear and affirm, under the penalties for perjury that the following is a true and accurate representation of the facts of this case:
Statement of the Facts
- Frank McCourt (hereafter “Mac”) asserts that he is the sole owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers;
- Mac alleges that his wife Jamie McCourt (hereafter “the Fool), and himself agreed to split their martial assets at the time they purchased the Dodgers, with the Idiot receiving most of the marital assets (property, cars, paintings, et al), except for the Los Angeles Dodgers;
- Mac was then declared and listed as the sole owner of the Dodgers (the MLB Franchise is in his name alone);
- Mac allegedly had all the appropriate documents signed by the Idiot, granting him full ownership of the Dodgers, and there is an alleged paper trail that will show that to be so;
- The Fool is an accredited lawyer (is that an oxymoron?), and chose not to seek legal council even though she was advised to do so;
- Subsequent to this, Mac and the Fool contacted an estate-planning attorney who will allegedly testify that Mac intended for the Dodgers to be community property; and
- The Fool is seeking to be declared fifty percent (50%) owner of the Dodgers, with the idea of buying out Mac’s fifty percent (50%) interest.
The key witness in this case has to be the estate-planning attorney, who could conceivably saythat Mac intended for the Fool to own half the team. Whether he will be allowed to testify is the key issue. If he was hired by both Mac and the Idiot, or hired by Mac, it is likely that Mac will maintain that any communications with said attorney are privileged and therefor should not be allowed. The Fool will also claim that she was not represented by legal council, and therefore, any agreement should be held null and void, and totally unenforceable. That, in and of itself would not meet the requisite legal threshold of requiring that the agreement be declared null and void, in my opinion. The Fool needs the testimony of the estate-planning attorney, but it is likely that his testimony could be disallowed. If this is the defense against the agreement that the Fool chooses to utilize, in my opinion it shows her level of incompetence, because any competent attorney would seek council in such a situation.
An attorney who represents himself (or herself) “has a fool for a client.” So, if the Fool chooses this line of defense, she can win and be deemed a “Fool,” or lose and be deemed a Fool as well. I will not predict if the Court will allow the estate-planning attorney to testify, but I am certain that Mac will do everything in his power to prevent it and the Fool will do everything in her power to have the testimony allowed. On that key legal issue – the testimony of an estate-planning lawyer, hangs the future of the Dodgers.
I do not look for any major changes in the Dodgers operation and I think that it is “business as usual” for the foreseeable future, but you never know when the Court and Attorneys are involved… My first guess is that the estate-planner testimony will be disallowed, but that’s an issue that could be argued for days.
P.S. I am not biased, and anything I wrote should not lead you to believe that I am against the Fool and in favor of Mac!