Anyone else disgusted by John Edwards's alleged affair?

Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters

Apparently not. Must all be Democrats.

And I think "alleged" gives him more wiggle room than he deserves. He's a TRIAL LAWYER, for Pete's sake. He's become a millionaire by suing people. The Enquirer may be a tabloid, but they're not insane--which is what they'd have to be to libel a famous, successful, wealthy civil attorney.

He is what is considered as a public figure. In order to win a suit for libel or defamation, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence (note, higher standard than normal civil suit) that the statements were false and that the defendant (Enquirer) knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregards of its truth or falsity.

Based on the facts and circumstances these alleged pictures were taken and how and where this event occured and witnessed, overcoming this burden of proof on his part, will not be an easy task.

Really, it would be quite easy for him to prove that he is innocent. He just needs to insist on a paternity test.

I mean, give me a break, there have been rumors since August 07. The OW claimed at one time that he was the father, now it is supposedly a close friend of his.

Call me cynical, but meeting the OW and child at a hotel booked in someone else's name, by coming up the elevator through the back door at later than 2:00AM, staying a couple of hours, and hiding in the bathroom from the press sounds suspicious to me.

His wife has been his life partner and supporter and the OW is certainly a downgrade.

The whole thing disgusts me.

She even LOOKS skanky!

If you're talking about winning a civil lawsuit for dafamation or libel, it would not be easy.

He is what is considered as a public figure. In order to win a suit for libel or defamation, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that 1)the statements were false and 2)that the defendant (Enquirer) knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregards of its truth or falsity.

Part 1 might be easy, but part 2 not so much based on the circumstances he was witnessed.

I'm not talking about going to court, I'm talking about giving his wife some peace of mind. And backing up his protestations that he is completely innocent.

Trying to think of an alternate explanation for meeting a woman at a hotel, taking the back exit, having the room in someone else's name, and all at 2:00AM.

So far, his wife is silent, but I'm sure that she will be issuing a stand by her man statement soon,

Even if he is later proved not to be the biological father of this child, there are still questions as to whether he believed that he was the father, if so, it will be an implied admission to his infidelity, not to mention as you have stated above, a logical explaination as to why he was meeting a woman at a hotel, taking the back exit, hiding in the bathroom, etc.

As to her issuing a stand by her man statement, I think it might not happen because he is no longer running and I am sure due to this incident, he has been crossed out off the VP short list.

Edwards made a living selling bogus "Medical" proof to ignorant juries. He thus is one of those helping to increase the cost of medical care in this country. My wife, the Nurse, has to spend a great deal of time with extra (not needed) documentation just to CYA in case of a lawsuit.

I trust the man NOT.

Larry

His wife doubtless joins you.

Now I have a headache.

Funny how CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEYS have such a bad name...until the naysayers NEED ONE.

I'd love to know just exactly what "extra (not needed) documentation" is in a medical chart. Many I've seen are sketchy enough as it is.

Do you want to try a lawless society? Just leave lynch mobs? Or what. Our society is BASED on laws. There are crooked cops, greedy attorneys, bribable judges and juries, knife-happy doctors, negligent nurses. On and on. Yeah, let's just do away with the possibility of lawsuits altogether. MUCH less paperwork, what a relief.

What to say to someone who so completely missed the point of both posts? Read it again, maybe?

There was no general condemnation of trial lawyers in those posts. I have a civil attorney right now trying to get me back the $80-100,000 a dishonest contractor cost me. I'm very grateful to have him, too. But not all trial lawyers are created equal. Larry's wife is a nurse. So am I. We have REAMS of extra work to do in order to cover ourselves legally, time used for paperwork (or computer) which could otherwise be spent with actual patients doing real, physical patient care. Mostly to protect us from the sorts suits by which John Edwards made himself a wealthy man. Not everyone who wins a medical malpractice suit had a legitimate case. Sometimes they have emotional juries and shyster lawyers, a bad combo for any medical personnel involved. And I have done chart review in my specialty for a malpractice attorney. Some of the stuff I saw was unbelievable, and in at least two cases, I exonerated the physician being sued and explained why he was not at fault. Maybe that's why I don't review charts for him any more.

You need to read about John Edwards' most famous cases. Many people have become skeptical of him PERSONALLY because of them. But the point wasn't even whether he was a shyster or not. It was that he was successful. He is not an ignorant, inexperienced Joe Schmoe who could be intimidated into not fighting back if the law were on his side. He knows his ground and the Enquirer always knew he would fight FIERCELY to punish them if they presented falsehood about him as fact.

To translate this specific opinion about one attorney into a general call for anarchy seems either disingenuous or deliberately obtuse. Anarchy--bad. John Edwards--not so hot either!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-mistress-claims-hit-edwards-878277.html

look at how the main stream media ignored this story. Think there is not a liberal bias in this country?

Actually, the point of the THREAD was a discussion of a man's alleged infidelity. A man who happens to be a trial attorney and threw his hat in for the primaries. I believe the paths of discussion took off from there into what definitely appears to be a generalization of trial attorneys (more so from the other post than yours, but that comment about "alleged" giving him more "wiggle than he deserves," oh come on). I don't know why you are assuming I missed the point of both posts, unless it's just to support your position. Which is fine, albeit an incorrect assumption. Carry on.

Ummm, my OWN city newspaper refuses to report this because it is so left you can see the building lean. These rumors have circulated since the primaries.

BTW, I am extremely thankful for a trial atty that got my son his medical malpractice settlement, but lawyers like Edwards give me the creeps. There are bad doctors and there are bad lawyers.

At least now I know where to cast my vote

The point I was making is if someone is entitled enough to use bogus information to win a lawsuit, they would also not be the kind of person to be trusted in a marriage, imho. Oddly enough, we did one good thing in Texas and that was tort reform. By all means, sue a Doctor and a hospital and if you win, collect.

What you will NOT find is over the top settlements and jury awards that exceeds all common sense. This is why we have a surplus of doctors in Texas. Matter of fact, there are so many doctors applying in Texas that credentials are taking a while to get.

As thnd has said, nurses spend a great deal of their time with documentation in case of a lawsuit. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand, good documentation is exactly that, good. On the other hand, time spent with unneeded documentation takes the nurse away from patient care. See, unlike Gray's Anatomy and other popular fiction on TV, nurses are the workhorses that really do most of the stuff shown as doctors doing it.

A typical doctor sees a patient maybe a total of 6 minutes in any given day, long enough to take a cursory look, read the chart and ask how things are going. Doctors depend on nurses to both do the work needed and to tell them if there are problems that need to be addressed either with a phone call or in person during rounds.

Because of the way hospitals get paid, and I don't want to go into that tangle here, staffing is an issue. How many patients can one nurse take care of? After a 12 hours shift taking care of 7 or 8 patients with no time to eat or go to the bathroom, how much more than the 30 to 45 minute extra turnover time should be devoted to documentation? Just how tired do you want your nurse to be when she gets back to work or drives home?

My wife has saved the life of two infants because she elected to do the docs later. She still had to do the docs. She arrives home totally exhausted and her schedule allows 7 hours of sleep before she has to get up and do it all over again. This is NORMAL for nurses.

Most doctors and nurses work hard at what they do. And most are dedicated to the care of people who need them. Now comes along thugs like Edwards, who use bogus science to extract large sums of money and you find that those good docs and nurses are forced to spend even more time covering their [censored] instead of patient care. That hurts all of us through less patient care and raises the cost of what we get for what we pay.

That someone like that would also cheat on their wife, who is sick with cancer, comes as no surprise at all. Fortunately, most of the electorate is not as gullible as the trial juries Edwards sold to get his multi-million dollar settlements that made him rich.

Larry

Larry - Are you basing this information on Peter Huber's book?

So, no one thinks the sorcerer K.R. might be behind this story? I mean, really, after all....'tis the season!!

Charlotte,

I don't think I've ever posted to you, but we obviously share the same suspicions about the veracity of this story.

The timing just SMACKS of dirty politics. I've always thought JE would make a great VP running mate for Obama ... possibly the R's see him as a threat also???