qqq, (11/21/2007 2:17:59 AM)

Ah, so the weeks ago rumor that Tucker was with withdrawing as RR's lawyer finally come true.

OHMYGOSH, (11/21/2007 7:43:33 AM)

Tucker probably told RR to keep his pie hole shut and RR (arrogance personified) just couldn't do it. Notice how RR is now talking up a storm.

Dad, (11/21/2007 10:52:25 AM)

Happy Thanksgiving to my precious daughter and her family, who has choosen not to relate to her birth family due to deep rooted issues of which, only Jesus can heal. Have a good one...

Student Cornell Cross Is Also Suing ORU, (11/21/2007 11:18:21 AM)

I wonder who will represent Mr. Cross in his lawsuit against ORU.

DTaylor, (11/21/2007 11:35:49 AM)

4. A high powered Jersey Attny. that has a major axe to grind with Televangualists/Huncksters in general, waiting to be recognized for the accomplishment, aka, 'his big break'.

-

??

DTaylor, (11/21/2007 11:37:45 AM)

4. Or maybe, the local guy........haha

~sojourner, Adair (11/21/2007 12:01:02 PM)

Richardson was clear in stating he never spoke to SC about anything... if I recall, he also stated he turned her down on the divorce suit... why should he be recused? I think he should be allowed to defend these proffesors. It sounds to me like the Roberts camp is afraid of him, for whatever reason. Everyone I've talked to says he is a VERY good litigator, and that they should be very afraid if he ends up being the one to represent these profs. Something tells me even if he was taken off the case, he'd still make himself available to the profs in any way he could. jmo

~sojourner, Adair (11/21/2007 12:02:49 PM)

So 3 attorneys have asked and recieved permission to withdraw from RR. Anybody know why??

'...I hate to cook', (11/21/2007 12:06:52 PM)

~sojourner, my guess is they withdrew because the Robert's keep opening their mouths and digging themselves in deeper and deeper. If I were their attorney's, I'd do the same.

DTaylor, (11/21/2007 12:18:50 PM)

9. hate to cook...

jmo- would you want to be affiliated with the lawyers that fought the losing battle for the televagualist on an election year? wouldnt think the publicity would help the firm much.

'...I hate to cook', (11/21/2007 12:25:09 PM)

DTaylor, you present a good argument.

DTaylor, (11/21/2007 12:33:40 PM)

9. hate to cook...

just another dick morris republican....haha

thank you

TWO WORDS, (11/21/2007 1:13:20 PM)

ETHICS COMMITTEE. Richardson knew better than to take that case. He also knows his handling of it has been unethical.

Independent Thinker, DC (11/21/2007 1:17:54 PM)

1. qqq,

Told you.

SoonerGal, Broken Arrow (11/21/2007 1:35:41 PM)

sojourner, Adair

I usually just read these comments, but

apparently you are talking to all the wrong ppl if you believe word concerning the lawyer - ask one of his ex wives - the man has a checkered history if it were written out in story form as poorly as the initial pleadings it would make for scandal of equal proportion to that supposedly committed by others - also ppl need to know that some lawyers and others have attempted to 'run' in the same circles as the Roberts for years -when they couldn't buy their respectability or christianity from them then they have turned to mudslinging...those who know how Tulsa works know and those who don't wish they did - just remember that one such as that lawyer should not try to pluck the splinter out of his neighbors eye before removing the plank from his own...slimy...if public records are avail someone should post the records from his recent divorce and the claims against him...

qqq, (11/21/2007 2:01:14 PM)

SoonerGal,

What about his reputation as a litigator. I don't doubt his reputation as a slime. I read some of the court documents for his divorce - very ugly. Also other lawsuits he has been involved in.

.

I also think he is probably clean on the particular issue in question here. If the defendants had a court document with his signature on it, they would have used it in their allegations. They had to use an SC sworn statement and a court document signed by his partners. If that's the best they've got, it may not be enough.

qqq, (11/21/2007 2:03:04 PM)

Independent Thinker,

The timing is interesting. A difference in strategy, perhaps??

D, BA (11/21/2007 2:08:06 PM)

Ah yes... he is a lawyer and a human, and he is not perfect. And because he has decided to represent the professors, his whole life should be slung across the internet for all to see... how dare he defend those that go up against such an honorable, ethical, and righteous establishment. Oh and i'm sure it's all fact, as divorces these days are soo ethical and honest. I'm sure none of those allegations would be made up as a negotiation tactic by a bitter ex-wife. Ex-wives are great character witnesses... I'm sure you could get them to say lots of things about him... idiot.

.

SoonerGal, BA (11/21/2007 2:13:54 PM)

consider the source is all i have to say../anyone know if his ex knows lr?

Buddy, tulsa (11/21/2007 3:10:22 PM)

Most people are aware that some lawyers are not the most ethical people. However, Richardson was hired to do a job (representing the professors) and it seems he is performing his job very well.

Richardson is not a televangelist (cockroachus Evangelicus everbroku)/university pres. getting rich at the expense of disillusioned viewers & ignorant parents & students' funds. Nor should Richardson be held to "Word of Faith" christian holy land standards. It would appear that his basic accomplishments greatly exceed many individuals with 4-year college degree, 3 years of law school, and passing a written bar examination. That doesn't make you a nice person and all, but he is obviously good at his own job.Who cares what his personal life is like as long as he's not doing something illegal.. goofball

DallasAtty, Dallas (formerly Tulsa) (11/21/2007 5:02:30 PM)

According to the code of ethics for attorneys, of which I am bound as an attorney licensed in Texas and Oklahoma, Mr. Richardson's conduct is not a breach of those ethics. We, as attorneys, are forbidden to represent people who have interests that are directly opposed to our current cases, or cases we have previously represented. There is no allegation that Mr. Richardson has ever represented Ms. Cantees (sp?) with regard to the allegations made by the former professors. Therefore, he has not obligated any ethical requirement. It is irrelevant if his former firm represented Ms. Cantees(sp?) in her divorce, as that has nothing to do with this case.

On another note, Gary Richardson was the lead attorney on the case that obtained the multi-million dollar verdict against KOTV and Clayton Vaughn when Mr. Vaughn forced Robert Joffe out of his anchor spot on unsubstantiated claims and Mr. Joffe killed himself.

That case has been upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Mr. Richardson knows what he is doing!

'...I hate to cook', (11/21/2007 5:09:15 PM)

Buddy, Tusla

"cockroachus Evangelicus everbroku"

ROFLOLOLOL

qqq, (11/21/2007 5:11:25 PM)

DallasAtty,

Thank you. That is very helpful.

DallasAtty, Dallas (formerly Tulsa)-your comments, (11/21/2007 5:58:20 PM)

Richardson's firm is a small firm. They handled too much of Cantees' legal matters. They should have had her sign a waiver befoe he took that case. Even then, it's not the case, it's the manner in which he has handled it all the way around. ETHICS COMMITTEE. He makes attnys look bad. It'll take a while but he will have to answer to one.

trial.atty, Tulsa (11/21/2007 9:42:21 PM)

First of all ... Richardson isn't "defending" the former professors. They are Plaintiffs and therefore he is prosecuting the case. As for why lawyers withdraw from cases... there are numerous reasons that can occur. It happens all the time. Don't read too much into it. As for Richardson's accomplishments, if he has such a good case he shouldn't need to go to the media. I don't blame the Robertsons for fighting back on TV, or in the paper, since that dog and pony show Richardson put on when he filed the case was a travesty. There are ethics regarding lawyers using the media to try their cases and in my opinion he has been very close to crossing the line. I don't have an interest in this litigation or ORU but in my opinion all parties look sleazy... the whinny professors, the Roberts, and Richardson.