Per an anonymous commenter on this site, Philip Spector, convicted in Los Angeles of murdering failed movie actress Lana Clarkson, has been granted extra time to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.
According to SCOTUS docketing information, the extension request was filed by Spector appellate counsel Dennis P. Riordan, and was granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until December 15, 2011.
This signals that the United States Supreme Court may soon review what some, including this blog, have viewed as a tainted judgment of conviction infected with structural error by the trial court.
Stay tuned……
51 comments:
Hopefully this case that oozed bias from day one, a violation of due process, must be overturned and remanded for a new trial, per S Ct. case Caperton v. AT Massey Coal, and that in my humble opinion should also be held out of LA county as well to ensure due process.
Frankly, a vote by SCOTUS to entertain the case on its merits is such a longshot at this point that a venue change on remand--let alone a reversal of the conviction--is getting ahead of ourselves.
Let's take it one step at a time.
We looked at the Massey case. Although it reiterates the objective federal standard for when a judge should recuse himself (“objective standards that require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable’”) the case itself involved an appellate judge who had received significant funding to his judicial election campaign from a party to the appeal in which it was held the judge should have disqualified himself.
I wonder, anon @December 19, could you share your reasoning about the application of Massey to Phil Spector’s direct SCOTUS appeal?
Second, have you seen the SCOTUS petition for cert. and if so what issues does it raise?
Does it reiterate the pretrial DQ motion (and following writ application) based on actual bias, or is Massey raised in another context?
Much obliged.
The significance of the Caperton case is, that if you read the dissent Justice Roberts felt although for the most part the case was reaffirming all of the cases on judges recusing themselves, Litkey etc., that Caperton now opened the door for any acts of bias of the judge to now be a violation of due process and all rulings void ab initio, which in this matter would be a new tial and new Judge. The Spector case is just that, wherein Judge Fidler's bias did create a violation of Spector's due process rights, his testifying, his ruling on his own disquliication etc, the list goes on. Justice Roberts in the dissent is chomping at the bit to get another "Caperton" issue case before him to narrowly tailor Caperton. I think they will take Spector's case and I had urged Spector's peeps to make sure the bias issue was fully briefed and it was under state stautes and I think one US S Ct. citation in case the matter was going to be reviewed by the Supremes, in light of Caperton.
I have not seen the writ of cert.
Interesting.
I am just struggling with the idea of an appellate standard that would allow the Court to infer from a cluster of adverse rulings in a case (as distinguished from some express bias or pecuniary interest) that "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable".
Not to say I do not believe that there are not viable federal questions implicated by the case at hand--in part relating to the Fidler testimony issue.
I believe the totality of the trial circumstances rendered it fundamentally unfair to Phil Spector; whether there is a hook alluring enough to motivate a critical mass of justices to vote for cert. is another matter.
I think that there were two motions to recuse Fidler. I know for sure that Doron had filed one before the second trial began and Fidler ruled on his own recusal and of course he did not recuse himself. So how Caperton applies is that once he ruled on his own recusal which he shouldn't have done, there is a plethora of rulings on that and you see this pattern of his bias and bizarre acts, testfying from the bench, etc. these acts all became a probabiity of bias and that is what happened here Fidler didn't recuse himself because he said he could be fair and he wasn't and now his bias became a due process violation. That's all it takes for a Caperton arguement. You don't have to prove intent or actual bias of each adverse ruling it's the "probability" of actual bias and the probability was too high since Fidler's acts from the first trial wherein he ruled again on his own recusal and then acted biased, my favorite being when he found out that the jury was split 7-5 and he rewrote the jury instructions to ensure a guilty verdict. This probability of actual bias was established in the first case hence why Doron tried to recuse Fidler before the second and under Caperton that should have ended Fidler from this case the fact that he went on to hear the second trial and acted with bias is sad and proof of his bias but not necessary for Caperton to apply.
I also think that this is why Justcie Roberts wants to rein in Caperton because the probability of actual bias is too broad for his taste.
I only recall one DQ motion, filed by Doron Weinberg and Dennis Riordan prior to the commencement of trial #2.
If memory serves, Fidler struck the DQ motion as untimely filed. In CA the exclusive means of appellate review following the denial of a DQ motion is by writ application—which was done. The writ was denied.
Therefore, the disqualification issue has never been considered or decided by any court on its merits.
I question, though, whether any appellate court would hold that actual bias can be inferred from a series of trial court rulings on evidentiary and instructional issues alone.
If I understand you, though, you believe that this issue might serve as a hook to get the court to grant review.
Yes it could be the hook and his saving grace.
The review of the state CCP Sec. 170.1 et seq. motions are different from Caperton. The motion and writ for recusal before the second trial does not limit Spectors rights to have the Federal court review the probability of actual bias that created a due process violation per Caperton it is a different review.
My recollection of Caperton was that Caperton won a 50 million dollar judgment against Massey Coal, they appealed. The justice on the panel had recieved 3 million dollars for his foundation from Massey and Caperton filed a recusal motion and he denied it. The justice then ruled in Massey's favor and that overturned the judgment to the disbelief of his co-justices. The case went to the Supremes and they found that a probablity of bias existed and was intolerabe etc. they didn't go over the rulings they just found that the justice was likely to be biased based upon his past relationship with Massey.
One could come to the same finding in this case with Fidler's acts from the first trial, like the jury is split so I'll rewrite the jury verdict and try to force a guilty verdict, this showed a probability of actual bias on Fidler's part in the future since it was outrageous and defined his relationship with Spector and of course we have benefit of the record in the second trial and more of Fidler's biased acts, like testifying to the location of blood spatter that in the first trial Dr Herrold testified that because of its location she could not rule out suicide but in the second trial and after Fidler testified to Lintenmoots testimony, that she gave outside of the precence of the jury, that the blood spatter was consitent with Spector shooting Clarkson, now Herrold changed her testimony that no suicide happened and he was convicted.
Should have taken the deal. The scumbag lawyers probably told him "we'll win this for ya Phil" while sucking his life savings out and depositing it into there accts.
Oh I know, Phil was in charge. Sure he was. And the scumbag lawyers who show zero integrity let him lead.
If they had integrity they would have point blank told Phil, this is what we're doing and if you don't agree get yourself another lawyer.
But they're typical sleazy scumbag lawyers whose only loyalty is to themselves. No surprise there.
The fact is TWO jerk offs in the wee hours who were both DRUNK and one of them turned up dead. Suicide? Sure and I'm the King of Siam too. Believe that and I'll entertain you with lots more b/s.
The head jerk off who claims " I don't have a drinking problem" in his depositions should have never seen a trial. He claims they offered him 8 years.
He would have done what, 3 years and then out on parole? But no, they had to take it to trial costing the state of california millions for this show of nonsense and it ended where most people thought it would end, with Phil in prison the rest of this life.
The horses head was not in charge. The horses ass was and that's why we are where we are while the illustrious Dennis Riordan will dine on caviar and kobe steaks, Phil will be trying to protect his asshole anyway that he can.
Now if a deal was not on the table you gotta do what you gotta do but when there's the potential of a million dollar payday for these glorified car salesmen, it's obvious who was in charge and for that alone this "conviction" should be overturned and Phil given the chance of a deal again.
When presented with a deal of only 8 years max for murder, you don't fuck with the state,you take the deal.
Do you have a link that the prosecution ever offered a plea deal to Spector, let alone a deal that would have resulted in 3 years behind bars?
We don't believe any pretrial offer was ever made to Spector.
Why would you plead to a crime you didn't commit?
Phil Spector himself made claims to an 8 year plea bargain offer. It's in the film "the agony and ectasy". Are you suggesting that Phil is lying or are you so enamored by the alleged greatness of this lawyer that you can no longer see the forest for the trees?
Far as pleading to a crime he didn't commit mr/miss anonymous, please, who didn't commit the crime here? I see a conviction and a couple of appeal rejections.
Thou shalt not fuck with the state unless you is absolutely innocent.
Just as an asides, NOBODY will give Mr S the latitude I will. Nobody.
However the FACT is Mr S has shown 100% of the symptoms of an alcoholic. Not 10%, not 50%. 100 fking percent.
Mr Spector has been profesionally jerked off and ripped off by "professional medical health" advistors since at least the early 1960's with DR Asshole in NYC who apparently did pretty good on the back of young genius Phil Spector. This is all well documented and any defence attorney would bring in an ARMY of witnesses thruout Phils life to portray a sick man who is an alcoholic. This doesn't mean anything anymore in the illustrious "justice" system? Pick a better lawyer as this mooch only did one thing, he succeeded in getting Phil the maximum. I wouldn't hire this lightweight riordan to defend a traffic ticket after watching this one. Now that guy in Florida, that's a FAR better lawyer than this parasite in san fransico can even dream of being. He got this pos off didn't he?
I digress here. Phil has had a long history of alcohol abuse. He has an even longer history which PROVES the alocoholism beyond a reasonable doubt. Why wasn't any of this utilized in helping this man stay out of prison for the rest of his life?
Because riordan is either incompetant ( jury is still out on that in my opinion ) an evil lawyer who only had money on his mind ( In the realm of possibility? ) and saw an easy mark to grab 7 figures or he just didn't have the integrity to say, wait a minute Phil, this looks like the reality of it and if you're not willing to face the music than I have no choice but to leave you to find new counsel". THAT would have infinitely been more honest than this ridiculous nonsense of naming the judge as Phil's reason for being in prison.
Now what to do is a different story as even if my theory is correct how could it be used to get the guy another shot as if the only shot for Phil Spector to see daylights again is with dennis riordan, I think he's gone for good and that's a crime in and of itself and a reflection of the travesty of this trial.
Anonymous 12/23/11 2:07 PM,
Why don't you visit the Innocence Project website to get an idea of how and why innocent people get sent to prison? Then, if you happen to have some spare time on your hands, you could read John Grisham's book, The Innocent Man. Afterwards you could view the documentary Deadline and listen very closely to what the former Governor of Illinois says at the very end of the film regarding the criminal justice system. It all very enlightening. Just remember, Phillip's rights are our rights.
I too think that Riordan has come to see PS as his personal cash cow and is using his cloak of "the best appellate lawyer" to steal the man blind. Who would question it---he is only following orders!! Would that he would take on more worthy cases like the recent one he did where 4 young men were released for the murders of those young boys. My guess is that he did that pro bono, because if you saw the documentaries and the people involved, you know there was and is no money to be had there. Presumably, PS indirectly funded that one and I have no problem with it.
Spector is not going anywhere...this is a very conservative court and the they care little about a convicted murderer.
Regardless of the percentages, I believe that there are good and meritorious federal questions over which the SCOTUS has discretionary jurisdiction.
Notice I said “issues”.
The United States Supreme Court does not concern itself with the justice of an individual civil or criminal judgment. Cert petitions are not granted or denied based on who can present the most sympathetic picture as a litigant. Rather, the Supreme Court takes on cases (and very few at that) to settle important legal questions or to resolve conflicts among decisions of the intermediate federal courts of appeal.
Second, Dennis Riordan is very conservative when asked by appellate clients what their chances are on appeal. Riordan has said to the national media on at least two occasions that criminal appeals, Spector case included, are a longshot.
Third, Phillip Spector is a very sophisticated business man who’s estimated net worth (north of $50,000,000.00) is not likely to significantly dented even at Riordan’s $600 and hour. Spector is a big-boy and can certainly make up his own mind about whether he prefers to spend $300,000 or $400,000 throwing the dice on appeal OR to die in a 10 X 12 prison cell with a toilet in the middle of the room.
I have visited clients at San Quentin, Folsom, the Duel Correctional Institution at Tracy, and at several big city (and small town) jails.
Many such places have inadequate heat, antiquated plumbing, and are overcrowded. But what you never forget—even as a visitor with the freedom to leave anytime you want—is the constant noise and the smell of body odor, stale air and feces.
I am quite confident that if you were doing a virtual life sentence in a joint as a convicted murder you would spend your last dime on the best appellate lawyer you could afford.
Because all the money in the world will never do Phillip Spector (or anyone else) any good as long as he remains incarcerated.
It is much better to be broke and free, or at least to keep hope alive, than the alternative.
I am not saying that Spector does or does not deserve to be where his is.
But I do not believe that he was tried in a fair and impartial trial atmosphere and I care about our justice system and our constitutions.
And no one is taking advantage of anyone here. Just a wealthy and sophisticated client obtaining the best legal services that money can buy.
A lawyer of Riordan’s caliber honestly and accurately lays out the pros and cons of the options and the client decides what to do. That is how it works.
Finally, unless those critical of trial and appellate counsel here and elsewhere were in the room when lawyer and client discussed the pros and cons of the options at each stage of the process, you have inadequate information with which to judge the situation.
I wish all of you, even those which whom I disagree, a Merry Christmas.
I agree the prison system is not acceptable......but nowhere is that argument amoung those presented by PS legal representation. It is a bit of a red herring to suddendly toss it in here. I think this sort of case (filing hopeless appeals) degrades the reputation of the "best appellate lawyer on the west coast" or whatever he is.
A super-sophisticated business man does not put a rookie "singer" in charge of his finances....or even allow the implication to be put out there in countless interviews. Between the lawyer(s) and the "singer" he will be bled dry.....why do his supposed supporters go along with it? AFTER the money is gone they will be hollering to high heaven.
It is not a meritless appeal the Second Appellate railroaded Spector with that generic threat crap as a basis for not over turning the conviction. Oops you were drunk 30 years ago and said she deserves a bullet in the head and that is the intent for your acts in 2003 except there is no forensic evidence that you pulled the trigger but you made that statement 30 years go you're guilty! If that isn't a federal issue I don't know what is and God help us all if we now have to monitor our speech because at a later date it can be used as proof of intent to convict us of a crime!
Blogonaut, is there any news on the civil trial? I thought it was suppose to start in January 2012.
Blogonaut, how do you know how much Phil Spector's estimated net worth is? I only recall his wife mentioning a $50 million dollar amount in an early interview after he was convicted.
The trial has been stayed and there is a status conference scheduled for January 26th.
January 9, 2012 1:28 PM:
We don't really know. We read the figure in a mainstream media publication and to us it sounded about right.
We have since read that there has been renewed interest in Spector's music library so we assume the $50M figure to to be conservative.
Was it really smart for the "singer" to pronounce a big net worth for this man knowing that a wrongful death lawsuit was filed against him in 2005? I understand the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case have a great nose for sniffing out hidden assets and its gonna get interesting once they uncover it all......watch out "singer", Taylor and Ring are coming attcha...
Watch out Taylor & Ring when Spector takes the stand and the jury finds out that Spector witnessed Lana killing herself, as the forenscis establish and that greedy Donna Clarkson wants millions for her $9 an hour hostess daughter, when she already has a murder conviction/justice.
I believe that the jurors in the OJ and Blake civil cases awarded high amounts only because they had been acquitted. Don't be surprised if this case gets defensed if the jurors smell greed, Spector makes quite a pathetic figure now, incarceated for almost 3 years, old and frail.
Damn it! Anon at 9:30 PM did the Pharmacist forget to put the warning label on your anti-psychotic drugs that instructs you NOT to take the meds with the Spector koolaid?
In a wrongful death case it is all about sympathetic that jury is to the plaintiff. Here there are negligible economic injuries but probably not the kind of intentional conduct that would justify an appellate court allowing the jury to take 100% of Spector's net worth.
I don't see the case as comparable to either OJ or Blake, since those juries found a calculated, premeditated murder.
I do not agree that Spector is particularly sympathetic. In a way his eccentricity works against him.
Not having seen Mrs. Clarkson I have no feel for whether a jury might or might not like her.
Mrs. Clarkson is a nice looking older woman she is rather attractive and looks younger than her age i don't think that the jurors will dislike her, but I don't see them buying that she should get millions for her duaghters death. I feel that since there has been a murder conviction that the jurors will feel that justice has been done and that they will stick with the nine dollar an hour, you had no depedents and you were estmated to make x amount for the next 30 years, approx. five hundred thousand and I think she may get A million ith most going to the lawyers.
Anonymous at December 23, 2011 4:32 Thanks, I'm aware of the his rights are our rights. Rights? Those silly things? Sorry, after watching the, "debates", I'm starting to fully realize how rotten and corrupt the establishment is. I see no difference in the judicial system whatsoever , hence the remark I made which I stand by 110%
Spector civil matter continued until 2/3/2012, anyone know what happened, why such short continuance?
Spector's Writ for Cert was distributed today for Conference set for February 17, 2012.
No. 11-761
Title: Phillip Spector, Petitioner
v.
California
Docketed: December 19, 2011
Linked with 11A465
Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District
Case Nos.: (B216425)
Decision Date: May 2, 2011
Rehearing Denied: May 26, 2011
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: August 17, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 4 2011 Application (11A465) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 15, 2011 to December 15, 2011, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Nov 8 2011 Application (11A465) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until December 15, 2011.
Dec 15 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 18, 2012)
Feb 1 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.
Blogonaut, could you explain what the following mean:
Dec 15 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 18, 2012)
Feb 1 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.
Thank You
Dear Anon my understanding is that Spector's lawyer, Riordin filed a Writ for Cert, a formal request asking the Supreme Court to hear his case. They gave the people of California until January 18, 2012 to put in an optional Response to Spector's Writ. When the people did not file a Response then the Writ was ordered/distributed on February 1, 2012, to the Justices for Conference on February 17, 2012wherein they decide if they will hear the matter.
I believe that it takes four of them to agree to grant Cert. If it is granted then a briefing schedule will be set and the parties will brief the case and then there will be oral argument. If they deny Cert then Spector has maybe one more motion, a Petition for Reconsideration? and if that was denied and then his remedies would be over. Blogonaut please enlighten us on what happens after Cert is denied.
Thanks
We are not appellate specialists here.
However, we do have a civil litigation client for whom we retained appellate counsel to appeal an unfavorable 11th circuit court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court of the United States last year.
When the client lost we considered it to be the end of the line.
However, when the client is doing a life sentence there is no "end of the line".
We really don't know what the next step would be.
The issue of a trial judge testifying in his own trial certainly is the kind of "structural" error that might interest the Supremes (Motown pun intended), but appeals at this level are way beyond our level of competence.
I guess the Innocence Project would know more about alternative remedies since they have gotten numerous innocent persons freed after they have exhausted their appeal remedies.
Thank you for the replies. Jan 27 Anon mentioned the civil suit and the date Feb 3 for continuance. Is there any news on this? How would his waiting for the Supreme Court affect the civil matter?
This just in:
According to the LA Times, on the ninth anniversary of the murder of Lana Clarkson, Phil Spector settled the civil suit brought by the victim's mother Donna Clarkson.
As usual, the terms of the settlement are confidential. Of course, sources report all parties are pleased with the settlement--but we know that's bullshit; afterall, Lana Clarkson is still dead...and Spector will most likely spend the rest of his life locked behind the walls of a maximum security prison. Oh, well, as my dad used to say: Life is full of little trade-offs!
No doubt Mrs. Clarkson didn't want to go forward with the civil trial where Spector would of had to testify about her daughter killing herself in front of him, as the forensics show, after they drank excessively and she had sexualy pleasured this virtual stranger, better to take the peanuts that the insurance company threw her!!!!!
The insurance company threw her??? They would pay on a client found guilty of murder through his homeowners insurance?? Or is it actually coming out of Spector's pocket? What are your thoughts Blogonaut as a civil attorney and the undisclosed settlement? Why can't it be disclosed on Spector's part after he writes the check, if it is peanuts in the end what could they do, sue him again.
Thanks
Spector would never testify...still hiding behind his right to not self-incriminate while his criminal case is on (endless) appeal.
I am sure the settlement was made cause the likelihood of a huge win by the plantiff was obvious to all.... how could "his side" think otherwise?? I see we STILL have some Spector Fool-Aid drinkers out there who will buy anthing this gun-totn' mess-of-humanity puts out there.
By the way, if you want to understand PS's fear of abandonment and his paranoia of humankind, read the Lieber and Stoller autobio "Hounddog"....it will enlighten you. Some of you fools could use some learnin'.
Dear Anon,
The insurance company owes a duty to defend it could be alleged that after this drugged up tequila saturated Clarkson went through his drawers and we mean all drawers, both mobile and stationery, and in one drawer found a loaded gun that was the gun that killed her, the insurance comapany could have settled under the homeowners policy for negligence finding that it was negligent and forseeable that the loaded gun could be found and used accidently.
If Mrs. Clarkson had insisted that Spector killed her daughter and went to the civil trial she was risking that a civil jury might see the forensic evidence and his testimony proving his innocence. Also insurance companies do not pay for intentional acts so it is likely that it was a negligence settlement.
There is no way that Spector would be signing a release in the civil matter and admitting within that he killed Lana when he has maintained his innocence and is appealing his conviction. The case was settled for nuisance value. The insurance company settled for what it would cost them to defend and or negligence. Like if you had an uneven paver in your driveway and you got estimates after you tripped and fell on it to fix it and you never fixed it and now an invitee comes up your driveway trips and falls and breaks bones and has a head injury that is negligence, it was forseeable that the paver was dangerous.
While it is fun to speculate, the bottom line is that the wrongful death case is not one that either side wants to take to a jury; nor, we are confident, was this case settled for "nuisance" value.
At time of settlement there was a final and binding conviction for murdering the victim - albeit without premeditation - that the defense would have been required to live with. This means that liability would have been assumed and suicide could not even be mentioned.
Let us put tis into perspective.
We were retained to defend the driver of a big-rig, charged with homicide, who crossed into oncoming traffic in Sonoma and killed a man with a wife and four children.
I obtained a voluntary, unilateral, pretrial dismissal of the criminal charges; the DA dismissed, no plea not even to a traffic offense.
Nevertheless, the civil wrongful death case settled in the eight figure range - even though there was strong evidence that the accident was caused by matters beyond the control of the driver and the trucking firm that employed him.
99% of all civil cases settle in this state.
This is especially, but not always, true in wrongful death cases.
All one can say about the this case is that it settled. But no way did it settle for "nuisance" value - unless "nuisance" value is in the $1 Million to $10 Million range.
If the criminal conviction is on appeal are you saying that the civil court would still find the conviction as proof of complete civil liability and how would Spector who asserts his innocence sign off on a release that would surely state that he had murdered Lana and not be taking a risk that the settlement agreement would not get leaked as they often do and be used against him if he is granted a new criminal trial?
Also it sounds like you have personal knowledge that the Clarkson settlement was over a million dollars or was that speculation? So if I'm understanding you then if the criminal conviction is automatic civil liability then the civil matter would have become one of only damages, and since Lana was unmarried and had no kids and was making $9.00 an hour and was 41 when she died I don't see a jury awarding more than a million and only becuase she was famous and allegedly murdered by the rich Spector.
Blogonaut, please forgive me, but I don't understand, by the way the other commenters are commenting, are we to take away that his homeowner's insurance company paid this settlement not Spector out of his own pocket for a conviction of 2nd degree murder taking place in his home??? That's not exactly tripping over a paver you never bothered to fix.
Spector would have had to have agreed to the terms and amount of the settlement and signed off on it correct?
So the Clarkson's had attorneys at their disposal for 6/7 years, since 2005 if I remember right. I don't know how often the attorneys or their representatives were attending the criminal court trials, and considering attorney's fees for their work alone, if you took an educated guess what would the bill likely come to?
Do you pay taxes on settlements?
When a settlment is reached between the two parties is a check written right there and then or the transfer of funds to settle the suit? Can it come by the way of objects...this car is worth this much, or is it money only?
Lots of questions I realize, so thank you in advance for any answers you can provide.
Typically, a wrongful death lawsuit would be handled on a contingent fee basis - a percentage of the recovery if and when that occurs.
As to the manner in which the settlement was structured and funded, that is unique to each case.
It might have involved a lump sum payable on a date certain - with the ability of the court to enter judgment if the money is not paid on time, periodic future payments over many years through the purchase of an annuity, or a combination of the above.
The homeowner's carrier may have contributed all, some, or none of the settlement funding. There is no way for the public to know.
Apparently today is judgement day for Spector. Yep, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 is the day the Supremes will decide wether or not they will hear Spector's case. So, what do your guys think: will the Supremes hear his case or will they tell Spector that he's going to die alone in a dank prison cell?
The Court---or more specifically, the law clerks who determine such matters---turned down the appeal. As I stated earlier, Spector isn't going anywhere, and if he does not unload the "castle", neither is the trial-bride who can continue to live there (til the money runs out). KARMA has finally caught up with this bully=punk who shoved guns in peoples' faces for years and years.
It is a great day, isn't it?
Hmm... Before 11 AM PST, and without comment, the Supremes denied Spector's petition. By 11:01 AM, Rochelle realizes he’s no longer a threat to her. Afterall, she has ALL of his money. So, what are the odds that by noon the trial bride filed for divorce?
Post a Comment