Logic-lady
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 138
Yeah, that thought had gone through my head also but it appears that the reference to Tenessee was direct from the statement that MM gave in the initial court case. I would suspect if there is a question over this, the question has to be raised to MM as to why she gave that evidence in the first place. Maybe that was where it was initially and then subsequently moved to NC, maybe even into a friends property. I cannot tbh seeing this really as a reason to vacate the entire judgement as the judgement was given on the basis of the action of removing the items. But nothing really would surprise me in this case, there seems to be a lot of game playing on the side of the Martens.
Doesn't make sense as to why a lawyer would hold their hands up to advising on a matter while in doing so they will also have to admit that they advise on breaking an existing court order. None of this was mentioned until the judgement this week was handed down, prior to this judgement the whole case was focused on the fact the MM claimed to own the property.
Thanks Frizby! I just read the judgement that Stephanddoody posted....interesting that Judge Shipwash has obviously lost all faith in her legal counsel also 'All assets previously ordered to be held by the Respondent's counsel in trust persuant to the terms of the Consent Order, including all insurance proceeds, shall be turned over immediately to the Court...' I guess judges must be used to seeing a certain calibre of lawyer using dirty tricks to get what they want!
I was initially surprised when I saw that Holton had taken up her case, as I believe he normally defends law enforcement and judges etc when it comes to trial and has a healthy record of winning. I wonder if it is significant that he is now defending Tom Martens in the criminal case? Perhaps he can also see the writing on the wall in terms of Molly and is just trying to keep her name viewed in some positive light until the trial?