reply to post by JoshNorton
That's
exactly what the attorney representing Wet-A-Line stated. He also says:
A few observations should be known. First, the two deponents had an all expenses paid vacation in the U.S. compliments of Philip Marsteller, for
over 30 days, in exchange for their sudden willingness to tell a story they never had any interest to tell until immediately after they were fired by
Wet-A-Line Tours. To say that they are disgruntled former employees who, for money, would lie under oath, is an understatement since they testified
they are willing to engage in criminal behavior as long someone is paying them to do so.
I have to agree with Mr. Chaiken here. We are talking about a man who had no qualms in working for a company allegedly engaged in pedophile
prostitution. He even stated that one of the girl was as young as 9 years old.
9 years old!! Yet, he stood by and watched complacently in
order to cash in his paychecks. The deponent also claim to have 12 and 14 year old daughters himself, which makes his prior silence even more
sickening.
Of course, I shouldn't judge a man before having walked in his shoes myself, but it's pretty evident that the jury will also take this into
account.
He also (rightly) points out, as JN did above:
You also make the very dangerous, irresponsible and inaccurate statement that there are photos showing Masons having sex with teen prostitutes in
Brazil. In litigation, parties are required to produce their evidence, and Marsteller and Amazon Tours, Inc. claim they have produced every photo or
videotape they have. If the photos you are referring to are photos which are alleged by Marsteller to exist in our case, you might find it interesting
to know that not a SINGLE photograph or videotape of ANYONE having ANY KIND of sexual contact has ever been produced. You might also wish to know that
while Marsteller is happy to publish depositions and affidavits that are of highly questionable credibility, he has asked the Court to seal from
public view the photographs he has produced, because he knows that when the public sees the photos, they will know that what he claims they show, they
do not show. Are their photos of girls in Brazil wearing bathing suits on the river? You bet. Are their photos of sexual behavior. NO-- there is not.
sourc
e (scroll down for comment by Kenneth Chaiken)
Albeit, it'd be quite strange for a client to provide incriminating evidence against himself. And allegations of pedophile activities should not be
taken lightly. Personally, the pictures are a bit unsettling but only because of the age difference. - but I really can't tell if they are underage
or not.
Strangely, the "investigative journalist" who is covering the story on Newsvine, doesn't seem to care much for the actual facts of the case. To
the attorney above she writes:
Ken,
Please discuss your account with our moderator.
Your representation of and lobbying on behalf of your clients is commercial activity and as such, is prohibited.
This is not the place to try your case.
Sandy
You'd think a journalist would try to get an interview with the attorney representing the defendant's case, but oddly she simply rubs him off. I
think Ms/Mrs Frost has an agenda against the Jesters. Perhaps she got a few tires slashed herself?
[edit on 11/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]