Not me...but my partner...we've been told we'll be on Channel 13 at 5:00...Channel 2 is on their way for an interview right now. It's not a case I have direct contact with...but I've had some exposure to it. You may have heard about it on the radio this morning or afternoon...case involving teenagers trying to establish themselves as adults (remove the disability of being minors) so they can choose where they live and go to school because of disagreements over mom's sexual lifestyle which ultimately led her to kick them out of her home. This is the first time I case in my firm (only 2 years old) has had any media exposure, so I'm pretty excited about it....again..I'm not the one being interviewed, because I'm not the lead attorney on this case...but it's a big day, nevertheless. If you get a chance you might check it out tonight.
actually...channel 2 just came by and they did get some tape of me working with my law partner whom they interviewed....i know you're all VERY excited!!! i'm in a red shirt in case you see it
well i wasnt criticizing max or his firm just their clients. sorry i should have said congrats too. didn't see any red shirt tho.
Max-- Channel 2 just dissed you bro. No red shirt at all. Your partner looked poised though. Great advertising if they would have mentioned the name of your firm.
refman -- yeah!! no me!! oh, well...i kinda expected it...they just took some filler shots of me talking with Dave...I'm not the lead in this case, so that was no surprise...they rarely mention firm name...the story did run on the radio yesterday too on a couple of news AM radio stations...apparently one of them mentioned the firm name, which is pretty unusual. but it was good pub nonetheless..our phones rang off the wall yesterday, particularly from family law attorneys calling to ask about the case. plus, we won a $600K appeal for a client yesterday!! a GREAT way to start a weekend! outlaw -- has very little to do with her sexual preference...has everything to do with the fact they disagreed with the fact she brought in different partners on a regular basis and involved her daugthers in the lives of these people...when they told her they disagreed with her lifestyle she kicked them out of the home, changed the locks and changed her phone number. that's not acceptable behavior for a mother, whether she's homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, quadrosexual, asexual, polysexual, antisexual or any other type you can dream of. i hope you're capable of seeing that.
Great point, Max. I was thinking the same thing when I read Outlaw's post... BTW, I heard about the story on 950AM on the way to work Friday, and I believe they did mention your firm's name (though I honestly don't remember it.) Congrats!
Well obviosuly I was basing that comment on a 2 minute news story that barely gave any details. Must be that damn liberal media. I realize that gay people can be as lousy parents as straight people. However the legal wording of the complaint that they showed on the report repeatedly showed "homosexual relationship". If it doesn't matter, why mention it so much? I just worry if your firm wins it will set some kind of negative precedent about homosexual parents in family courts.
Not anymore than there already is outlaw. I don't think that you can take this one case and say that. This is about a parent shunning their responsibility. Max can't control that the news wanted to make sure people knew the mother is gay.
Exactly! as i understand it, 950AM's version of the story included comments from some gay and lesbian union leader. They tried to angle it that way but the leader even said something like, "look..this is no way to treat children." she did a pretty good job of defusing (am i spelling that right?) the homosexual angle in that report.... outlaw -- as i understand it, the fact that the mother is homosexual is a source of concern for the girls....but that doesn't alleviate her responsibilities as a parent, as i'm sure you understand. this is a pretty unusual case all the way around.
