Fox Hunt

Hounding Joe Price for his Arent Fox Emails

Throughout Joe Price’s tenure at Arent Fox, the firm maintained a strict and unambiguous policy regarding email and voicemail which was revised several times.  Namely: they are the property of the firm regardless of subject matter, client business or personal – and there are no expectations of sender privacy.

Like many Washingtonians, Price was prolific emailer:  all day long, day in and day out, rapid fire in the months following Robert’s murder.  The plaintiffs want those emails and filed a Motion to Compel Production of Third-Party Documents, late last week to get them.  Price claims they’re privileged, spousal, attorney work product, joint defense or otherwise.  Judge Brook Hedge will rule.

AF was subpoenaed in early 2009 and started producing logs of Price’s emails before a stay was granted in the civil case (pending a verdict in the criminal).  Wasting no time, one day after the June 29 acquittal, Covington was back at it, on the phones and firing off memos to Price’s counsel at Niles, Barton and Wilmer for revised logs and clarifications.  AF amended and produced their logs two weeks later on July 15.

The logs detailed time, recipients and in some cases the subject of the emails – for example, newspaper and TV coverage of the murder, “hate-mail” received, “emotional toll,” “VZ Request For Counseling,” and “Passport confiscation.” One log entry is entitled “Press Conference.”  Price sent that email one year after the murder; the same day Robert’s widow, friends and the future Attorney General spoke to the press.

A catalog of the hundred and fifty pages and the eighteen month chase follows.

The initial January 2009 subpoena to AF requested a boatload:

1. All documents relating to Robert Wone, including, without limitation, his murder and/or the investigation into his murder.

2. All documents produced by or on behalf of Arent Fox LLP to the US Attorney’s Office for DC and/or the DC Metropolitan Police Department in connection with the investigation into Robert Wone’s murder.

3. All communications, including, without limitation, electronic mail communications, between Joseph Price and Dylan Ward, whether or not such communications also included third parties.

4. All communications, including, without limitation, electronic mail communications, during 2006 between Joseph Price and Michael Price, whether or not such communications also included third parties.

5. All photographs, images, videos, or recordings that (1) are stored on any computers or databases assigned to or used by Joseph Price; and, (2) depict violence or contain sexual content. (Emphasis ours).

Racking up some non-billable hours, memos from AF partners D. Jacques Smith and Randall Brater accompany the logs.  Price kept separate Microsoft Outlook folders:  Rob, Robert, Wone, DylanDylan Ward, Dylan Ward and Savormassage01.  [Ed note: comps to the buffet for anyone who deciphers that one.]

The traffic went to a limited number of people, directly or cc’d; all familiar names: Price and Zaborsky’s initial counsel,  Kathleen Voelker, Ward counsel David Schertler, Robert Spagnoletti and Veronica Jennings, Zaborsky counsel Tom Connolly and Amy Richardson, and surfacing late, after Ward’s arrest, Price’s man, Bernie Grimm.  Price’s co-defendants were often included as well. [Ed note:additional comps to the showroom if anyone can tell us if Voelker was at AF at the time of the murder].

Covington argues against Price’s privilege claims in their “Points and Authorities in Support”:

I. Price’s Privilege Claims Are Without Merit Because He Had No Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In Non-Work-Related Emails Sent Through His Employer’s Email Account.

II: The Price-Zaborsky Emails Must Be Produced Because The Spousal testimony Privilege Applies To Testimony, Not Pre-Existing Documents.

III: Defendant Price Has Not Met His Burden Of Proving That The Joint Defense Privilege Applies To His Email Communications With His Co-Defendants.

Also attached to the motion is an affidavit in support by Covington’s Ben Razi, with a subpoena time line and a listing of the exhibits.  There’s a bunch of them, so they’re embedded below in groups:

1.) The motion to compel, supporting memos, Razi affidavit  2.) Exhibits 1-10: the subpoenas to A-F; firm’s email policies; AF, Covington memos. 3.) Exhibits 11: The privilege logs A-F produced from Price’s ‘Wone’ email folders.  4.) Exhibit 12: The logs produced from his ‘Ward’ folders.  5.) Exhibits 13-15: privilege log and memo from Price counsel, Craig Roswell and finally an excerpt of logs (June – November 2006), from Covington.

Obviously, it’s a lot.  Could this be a reason the plaintiffs withdrew their motion to subpoena the defendants’ Verizon cell and home phone records?  We wonder.  Also, there appears no fight over what may be the most inflammatory documents, sexually explicit images that were found on Price’s AF computer. What does that say?  And, why no subpoena of Price emails to Zaborsky?

Later this week the co-defendants’ responses to the first set of interrogatories, but first, some light reading.  Any notes or scribbles in the margins are ours.

1.) The motion to compel, supporting memos, Razi affidavit 


2.) Exhibits 1-10: the subpoenas to A-F; firm’s email policies; AF, Covington memos.

3.) Exhibits 11: The privilege logs A-F produced from Price’s ‘Wone’ email folders. 

4.) Exhibit 12: The logs produced from his ‘Ward’ folders. 

5.) Exhibits 13-15: Privilege log and memo from PCraig Roswell and Cov log excerpt

 

 

226 comments for “Fox Hunt

  1. Rich
    09/20/2010 at 10:51 AM

    Yea!

    We seemed to have moved past discussions of, “Avatar’s,” and now are focused on the real stuff.

    And, there is so much stuff here, this should consume everyone.

    Even the, “Avatar,” folks. 🙂

  2. Rich
    09/20/2010 at 11:18 AM

    “Savormassage01?”

    I hate to be the source of unanswered questions, but, try this:

    Lingam is the Sanskrit word for the male generative organ, the penis.

    The goal of a lingam massage is to provide a man conscious, loving contact with his own masculinity. Western cultural expectations around sexual “performance” have created sexual difficulties for many men, including erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation.

    Through loving touch, lingam massage provides the deep relaxation that supports sustained erection, putting a man in touch with less familiar aspects of his sexuality, including the energetic responses of his perineum, prostate gland, and anus.

    Lingam massage allows men to savor longer, deeper orgasms and teaches taoist and tantric practices for conserving sexual energy.
    Over time, as his consciousness deepens, these practices give a man complete control over his ejaculation.

    Joe is very heady and academic. Limgam allows you to, “Savor Massage.”

    Too much food for me at a buffet.

    I’ll take a Root Beer.

    • denton
      09/20/2010 at 12:28 PM

      I take Singha (sorry, Ginger Ale, I am a non-alcohol person).

      Pretty juicy business “Savormassage01” for Joe here, I saw that too.

      Also produced 4.) Exhibit 12, p.6, 1310, 3/26/07, 2:13 PM, JP to DW cc: VZ re: internet blog re: investigation

      I have not scrolled through the entire post but we are still hunting the murderer, no doubt. We are going to get you!

      • denton
        09/20/2010 at 12:31 PM

        Hey, same denton here. I just got a new avatar, ooopp..sie, we are over that now but AnnaZed..it works!

  3. Kate
    09/20/2010 at 11:22 AM

    Wow, many thanks, Gents. We’ve all got some reading to do.

    I second your question regarding the initial non-request for the Price-Zaborsky e-mail traffic. Could it be a no-win situation due to spousal rights and protections?

    Seems rather telling or at least rather odd.

    • Craig
      09/20/2010 at 12:05 PM

      According to Cov, spousal privilege applies only to testimony, not pre-existing documents such as emails.

      Why do I think ‘savormassage01’ involves someone’s screenname, website or other such account?

      • Rich
        09/20/2010 at 12:32 PM

        It probably is.

        It’s just, “Lingam Massages,” is soley about, “Savoring Massages.”

        That’s where I got it.

        Maybe, Dyl was focused on Lingam at one time.

        Comes from China and/or India. I cannot remember.

      • AnnaZed
        09/20/2010 at 12:54 PM

        I would think that savormassage01 was probably one of Dylan’s email boxes.

      • Cat from Cleveland
        09/27/2010 at 10:04 PM

        With all due respect to Covington, that is an interpretation of the privilege that I’ve not heard before. It is possible that Ohio law differs from DC. I don’t have access to my Lexis account at home so I can’t look into that now. Here is what our Supreme Court has said about the subject: “R.C. 2317.02(A) provides a testimonial privilege—i.e., it prevents an attorney from testifying concerning communications made to the attorney by a client or the attorney’s advice to a client. A
        testimonial privilege applies not only to prohibit testimony at trial, but also to protect the sought after
        communications during the discovery process. The purpose of discovery is to acquire information for trial. Because a litigant’s ultimate goal in the discovery process is to elicit pertinent information that might be used as testimony at trial, the discovery of attorney-client
        communications necessarily jeopardizes the testimonial privilege. Such privileges would be of little import were they not applicable during the discovery process.” Jackson v. Greger (2006), 110 Ohio St.3d 488, n. 1.

  4. Bruce
    09/20/2010 at 11:48 AM

    Many thanks to Craig and the other editors for getting this information to us, especially in such a readable form.

    Just some preliminary comments, haven’t been able to read through this carefully, because work again unkindly intrudes upon my blogging:

    What a lot of information is included here!

    It is my guess that the judge will deal with this by putting the e-mails into clear categories.

    For instance: Category A: E-mails between defendant & lawyer, with no ccs to anyone else. Even without looking at them, the judge may decide that no one (including herself) has a right to see those.

    So, we can take those out of the herd.

    Category B: E-mails between defendant & lawyer, with non-parties cc’d or included (even if another defendant is also cc’d). The judge may determine that those are allowed to be produced because any privilege was waived by allowing non-parties to see them.

    So, we can take out even more e-mails from our long list, and concentrate on the remainder:

    Category C: E-mails between defendant & lawyer where only other defendant(s) are cc’d. This one is difficult and involves the judge deciding if there is a “joint defense” privilege allowed here. If so, it is likely none of those need to be produced.

    Category D: E-mails between Joe & Victor. Judge needs to decide “joint defense” privilege as well as “spousal privilege” and, of course, since Joe is an attorney, whether the e-mail could also be protected by “attorney/client” privilege.

    Category E: E-mails between Joe and any other defendant (except Victor). Judge needs to decide “joint defense” privilege, and whether Joe was giving legal advice to his co-defendants, such that it could be considered within “attorney/client” privilege, barring production.

    Category F: E-mails between any defendant(s) & non-parties only. This is easy, all are likely producible, unless very strange circumstances can be cited by the defendants, privilege being waived by allowing non-parties to see them.

    I expect that after certain categories can be decided, and those e-mails either produced or not produced, the judge will likely end up doing an “in camera” inspection of what is left over. “In Camera” means the judge alone looks at documents and decides producibility, only produced to the other side if she finds them producible.

    Many things still needed to be determined:

    (1) What effect, if any, does defendants’ pleading the 5th have on disclosure of these e-mails, and producing documents generally?

    (2) When is the press going to demand copies of whatever is allowed to be produced here? Freedom of the press/speech! Will the media have to file a lawsuit to try to get their hands on these items?

    (3) When are we going to hit some rulings here that either side may want to go for an immediate appeal, and will and can they do it?

    • carolina
      09/20/2010 at 12:40 PM

      I will be curious to see if JP screwed himself and his “privileges” by sending from AF. It’s my bet that he did.

  5. Boggled
    09/20/2010 at 12:24 PM

    Long-time lurker; first-time poster. (Never felt a need before as the eds and regular posters have done such a thorough, fabulous job.) Googled Kathleen Voelker, and an August 13, 2006 article on toplawyernews.com stated that the defendants had already hired the “former Arent Fox partner who is now running a solo practice”.

    Something that jumped out at me from a quick scroll through the logs is that there is a fair amount of correspondence between Joe and Dylan that Victor is either the subject of, or not included in. I noted only 3 entries from Joe to only Victor (“custody” and “family matters” in November of 2007; and “personal issues” in August of 2008). There were additional e-mails during November of 2007 from Joe to both Dylan and Victor (“emotinal toll & personal family issues” and “frustration).

    • carolina
      09/20/2010 at 12:42 PM

      And yet, VZ still can’t read the writing on the wall.

      • Kate
        09/20/2010 at 3:27 PM

        Sad but true, Carolina.

      • Bill Orange
        09/20/2010 at 10:44 PM

        Victor is a fortysomething gay man with (I’m just assuming here) absolutely no sex drive. The singles scene would not be kind to him, and he has little motivation to return to it. He either waters Joe’s plants, or he spends the rest of his life at home watching reruns on Bravo. He may be a “nice guy”, but at this point, he’s got less going for him than the plants he takes care of. And I, for one, have absolutely no sympathy for him.

    • Craig
      09/20/2010 at 1:48 PM

      Thanks Boggled. Thanks loads. See the pit boss for your comp! You too, CD. Maybe there are a few other email accounts for Cov to subpoena?

  6. Bruce
    09/20/2010 at 12:42 PM

    Hi Boggled:

    Welcome!

    I Noticed several e-mail entries refereing to “hate mail” from someone named Sharon Kass.

    I tried a search on the search machines on WMRW, but with “Kass” could only find “kickass” and with Sharon could only find a funny stage name by formercrackho.

    Anyone know anything about this Sharon Kass?????

    • carolina
      09/20/2010 at 12:43 PM

      I wonder if its the crazy ex tenant?

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 12:58 PM

        Yeah, the one who kept posting about how they were guilty and she was thrown out on the street, and something about a table?

        Wonder where she is now????

        But I think that the ever resourceful Denton has found the ticket with his linked article.

    • denton
      09/20/2010 at 12:49 PM

      Try this one, Bruce, the first one I’ve found:

      http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2008/04/541/

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 12:56 PM

        Denton:

        Thanks! Boy, that “Sharon Kass” from your linked article really seems to fit with “hate mail”, doesn’t she?

        Sounds like a real sweetheart from that article; lovely lovely person.

        I know an equally sweet lovely person, ver shy and reflective, a minister actually (how perfect!), from Missouri, who might just be a fantastic match for her. Last name of Phelps.

      • carolina
        09/20/2010 at 1:06 PM

        If we judge a man by his enemies, Joe would be a saint.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 2:16 PM

        Sharon gets around.

      • Kate
        09/20/2010 at 3:08 PM

        Great find denton!

        I wonder if Ms. Kass’s “hate e-mails” to Mr. Price had to do with his former leading role in gay rights activism? Or were they related to the murder of Robert Wone?

        I suppose I need to check the dates …

    • Rebecca
      09/20/2010 at 1:37 PM

      I Googled Sharon Kass and came up with someone who is a politically conservative, anti-gay activist.

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 2:16 PM

        Hi Rebecca:

        I think you found the same sweet woman that Denton did.

        • Clio
          09/20/2010 at 9:40 PM

          A new Mama Kass for the Age of Obama! Can this story get any weirder, Bruce?

          • denton
            09/20/2010 at 9:54 PM

            Clio,

            Bruce is getting sweeter and sweeter these days, isn’t he?! Just teasin…you two!

            • Bruce
              09/20/2010 at 10:05 PM

              Aw shucks, I mean, jeez.

              • denton
                09/20/2010 at 10:33 PM

                Now..now…now..just a friendly remark here.

          • susan
            09/20/2010 at 9:55 PM

            I think it can: She could be the “witch” Christine O’Donnell took on her Wiccan date back in the 90s. They sound like they were separated at birth.

            • susan
              09/20/2010 at 9:57 PM

              In response to Clio’s question re “Mama” Kass and could this get any weirder

  7. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    09/20/2010 at 12:57 PM

    She was not with Arent Fox at the time of the murder.

    According to Newsmeat policiatl contributions info, she was with Arent Fox in 1996 and was described as self-employed by 2004.

    http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=VA&last=VOELKER&first=KATHLEEN

  8. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    09/20/2010 at 1:02 PM

    A quick google of savormassage01 came up with photos of Dilly himself.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/13603051@N04/1388620140/in/photostream/

    • carolina
      09/20/2010 at 1:09 PM

      And this: This photo was taken on June 4, 2006 using a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT.

      Wherefore art thou, Rebel?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 1:11 PM
        • carolina
          09/20/2010 at 6:06 PM

          It gets better. For the second shot:

          This photo was taken on August 25, 2005 using a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/20/2010 at 7:13 PM

            Yes…it seems that Rebel was possibly “in the family” for over a year.

            I wonder if Michael now has a Rebel.

            • Clio
              09/20/2010 at 10:07 PM

              But is it, CD, a Rebel with, or without, a (Probable) Cause: that is the question!

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/20/2010 at 10:23 PM

                Ha!! Love it, Clio.

      • Rapt in MD
        09/20/2010 at 1:47 PM

        Hello camera equipment! We’ve been expecting you. Oh yes indeed.

      • Kate
        09/20/2010 at 3:16 PM

        Thanks for the find CD.

        This will no doubt sound “catty” but … Sparkly Cat Lil’ Dill looks dreadfully matchy-matchy here. Please note: the green hose matches the green tee shirt which matches the green stripe in those very clean sneaks.

        • Kate
          09/20/2010 at 3:17 PM

          and where, oh where, is that lovely camera?

          • Clio
            09/20/2010 at 9:13 PM

            Yes, Kate, but I must have those shoes!

            And why the reference to Wimbleton? And, is Dyl just about to water the plants or to practice hosing down the grill? More surprising questions.

      • susan
        09/20/2010 at 8:52 PM

        Looks like he’s on their Swann St. deck. But we don’t know for sure if the camera that took the pic. belonged to any of the three.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/20/2010 at 9:05 PM

          True, Susan. Could have belonged to Sarah as she seems to be a common thread. Craig mentioned earlier that she may have been on the Italy and she could have been on the rooftop deck since she lived in the house.

          Although the details about the type of camera used tends to be a trait of camera owners. I find it unusual if he posted some “snap shots” and went to the lengths of adding the details about someone else’s camera. Seems he had at least two different photo accounts. If he didn’t have a camera, I don’t see why he would have photo download accounts.

          • susan
            09/20/2010 at 9:18 PM

            Thanks, CD. I didn’t think of that(re adding the camera details).

          • Craig
            09/20/2010 at 9:53 PM

            CD: I could be wrong but maybe on uploads, a digi-cam’s data transfers as well.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              09/20/2010 at 10:17 PM

              Not sure what you mean, Craig.

              But I just created a Flickr account. I uploaded a photo that I took from my own digital camera. The camera details to not automatically transfer.

              After uploading your photo, you then have the opportunity to edit: Title, Description & Tags| Dates| Permissions| Filters|

              The camera details would have had to have been entered manually by the person that uploaded the photo.

              • carolina
                09/21/2010 at 9:01 AM

                Depending on the camera, it is almost impossible to remove the digital information– that is the date, camera type and size of image.

              • Bill 2
                09/21/2010 at 9:23 AM

                I just checked my flickr account. My photos all give the information about the cameras used and I’ve never added that information. It’s on the right side of the flickr photo, right under the account name. It’s not in a section where the owner adds details about the picture. I never noticed the camera info until I just went looking for it. “This photo was taken on November 21, 2009 using a Kodak EasyShare C813 Zoom.” I don’t add the date taken when uploading so that info is also automatic.

                • Rich
                  09/21/2010 at 9:51 AM

                  It’s WAY MORE TELLING that any of these boys are doing ANYTHING online (or public) following the murder.

                  You would think, they would be keeping the lowest profile over the past 4 years and were afraid to say, “Hello.”

                  Makes me think, life is business as ususal for Dylan.

                  Telling….

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/21/2010 at 10:24 AM

                    indeed, Rich.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  09/21/2010 at 10:23 AM

                  I guess it depends on the equipment. My camera information did not upload automatically.

                  So, whether the camera information on Dylan’s photos automatically uploaded or was manually uploaded we’ll never know.

                  What’s more important is that Dylan et al had access to a rather expensive piece of photo equipment. No equipment was found in the house even though they claim to be into erotic photography, etc.

                  An $800 camera doesn’t just disappear.

                  And WHY did it disappear.

                  The lack thereof is coincidentally curious.

                  • Bill 2
                    09/21/2010 at 10:40 AM

                    It would have been very convenient for someone wearing white bikini briefs to pass photo equipment to a neighbor who lives across the street. That would explain why a neighbor could be aware of clothing worn by various members of the household that night.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      09/21/2010 at 12:26 PM

                      I always thought it odd that the neighbor couldn’t tell who it was in the briefs when they live just a couple of doors down. Unless he has very poor vision.

                      I work on the third floor and can recognize people on the street below. Sheesh.

                    • Craig
                      09/21/2010 at 1:07 PM

                      CD: While biking down Swann a few weeks ago, I noticed that Hixson’s house wasn’t “a couple of doors down,” as I’d thought. It was directly across the street from 1509. Directly. Maybe more on this later.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      09/21/2010 at 1:26 PM

                      That makes it even worse. And considering he slept with 2 out of 3 of the residents of 1509…..

                    • Bill 2
                      09/21/2010 at 1:26 PM

                      I hope the attorneys manage to knock some holes in the previous tales told by Scott Hixson and Sarah Morgan.

                    • Rebecca
                      09/21/2010 at 5:03 PM

                      Bill2,

                      I agree that both Sarah Morgan and Scott Hixon have information that is critical to understanding the events of August 2, 2006.

                    • denton
                      09/21/2010 at 7:13 PM

                      I though so too that both Hixson and Morgan knew “a lot more” than they were asked having lived that close to the house and knew the trio’s habits and lifestyles more than anyone elses.

                    • Clio
                      09/21/2010 at 9:09 PM

                      Does Mr. Hixson still reside there? If so, perhaps, it’s time that the Editors paid the up-and-coming designer a social call … for high tea and crumpets, or maybe even a rubber of whist.

    • Michael
      09/20/2010 at 1:50 PM

      Looks like he knows how to use a water hose.

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 2:31 PM

        Well, in the photo on CDinDC’s link, “Lil Dyl” (as Clio so richly describes him), is simply demonstrating the “modern” way that massage people use a water hose to water plants, here in the 21st century!

        While I don’t fit that category, being neither “modern” nor a “massage person,” and hopefully not being myself a “water hose”….

        I usually use a water hose the same way. I lay myself back on a chaise lounge, wear very new tennis shoes and kinda “cool” kinda “dorky” sun glasses, do a thigh stretch (don’t be shy — its good for those muscles, girls!)and hold the water hose up near my shoulder and just let it go!

        • Kate
          09/20/2010 at 3:18 PM

          Funny stuff, Bruce.

          Thanks for the smile.

    • HopeForJustice
      09/20/2010 at 7:39 PM

      I noticed no ring on Dylan’s ring finger in that picture. Don’t know if that means anything…

      • Clio
        09/21/2010 at 10:14 PM

        To paraphrase Beyonce’s soon-to-be “classic” — “Single Lady”: “if Joe liked it, then he should have put a ring on it!”

    • Nelly
      09/20/2010 at 10:26 PM

      Aw man, he shut down the flickr account! Dylan must be reading this blog all day and night, with no job, huh?

      • Bill 2
        09/21/2010 at 12:58 AM

        The fact that Ward freaked enough to shut his flickr account really made my day. Now, there’s no doubt they keep a close watch on this blog and they know there are a lot of people looking for justice for the Wone family.

        The trio may have gotten a pass in the last trial, but the judge left a big black cloud hovering over them and it will be there for the rest of their miserable lives. Further, I hope the biggest cloud is right over Zaborsky, the weasel who agreed to go along with the cover-up. He may be a college grad, but he’s too stupid to realize he’s nothing more than Price’s doormat and plant watering peon.

    • DavidR
      09/21/2010 at 1:29 PM

      Darn it says that person is no longer a member so I missed the pictures

      • Craig
        09/21/2010 at 3:04 PM

        We’ll be putting the pic in the media gallery later this week for safe keeping.

        • Rebecca
          09/21/2010 at 4:17 PM

          Thanks for offering to post the now-missing pictures. I was kicking myself for not getting to Flickr quickly enough to see them.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/21/2010 at 4:50 PM

          😀

          • denton
            09/21/2010 at 6:23 PM

            Veru cute, lovely, smiley with 32 teeth, (I used to call him) “Drivo.”

        • carolina
          09/21/2010 at 7:21 PM

          Doesn’t that seem like a rather kneejerk reaction? Why would he rip them down, just because a bunch of webbies found them? We’d already seen the Pensive Dyl in Italy shot, so what was the big deal?

          Maybe the camera *was* important.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/21/2010 at 8:02 PM

            My thought the same, Carolina.

            • susan
              09/21/2010 at 8:15 PM

              Someone else posted that they found another photo account under savormassage01. In addition to the make of the camera, I imagine that he didn’t want anymore savormassage01 accts/pics coming to the fore. Also, I’m sure it might be uncomfortable to have so much of your private life turned inside out and made public.

              My answer to that last part would be that maybe the way to have avoided that would have been to be more cooperative with the police and instead of taking that study abroad trip to Thailand in 2008, maybe he could have used the resources to find the “real” murderers/criminals in this case.

  9. Bill Orange
    09/20/2010 at 2:22 PM

    “And, why no subpoena of Price emails to Zaborsky?”

    I’m guessing that there were few, if any, e-mails between Price and Zaborsky that are of any interest. If Joe Price didn’t even have a mail folder for Victor, I’m guessing there weren’t many e-mails between the two to begin with. And I’m guessing Joe wouldn’t be stupid enough to send a “smoking gun” e-mail to Victor, seeing as Victor was the probably “weak link” in holding the conspiracy together.

    Here’s my prediction(s) on the e-mails: There’s not going to be a “smoking gun”, but there’s going to be a LOT of embarrassing sexual content, and there were be at lot of text from Joe that will sound so snide that no jury in the world will let him off. There will also be a number of photos taken with fairly expensive digital cameras that are nowhere to be found.

    • Bruce
      09/20/2010 at 3:11 PM

      It is an interesting mystery as to why the “Joe-Victor” e-mails were not specifically requested in the original subpoena to Arent Fox, while they did specifically request other similar e-mails in the subpoena (like the Joe-Dylan e-mails).

      Nevertheless, Arent Fox logged the “Joe-Victor” e-mails and plaintiff’s counsel certainly wants them now, as evidenced by their Motion to Compel. The judge shouldn’t require the formality of Covington actually subpoening the “Joe-Victor” e-mails.

      Of course, I’m sure Arent Fox does not want to be accused of withholding documents, so they were likely responding in a liberal, rather than restrictive way, to the subpoena.

      The subpoena itself also did not specifically say anything about e-mails that go to attorneys (other than Joe), whether as a direct or cc’d recipient. It is doubtful that Covington thinks its going to get those e-mails. But what about the murky area where Joe e-mails an attorney but cc’s Dylan or Victor?

      Out of the approximately 800 e-mails, if I read the motion correctly, it looks like Covington is only pushing on about 200 of them, but it is a bit confusing as to how they are making their categories of what they want.

      The judge will figure it all out!

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 3:17 PM

        Editors:

        Is it safe to say that the motion to compel which is the subject of today’s article is different from the motion to compel you described last week, which apparently had answers to interrogatories attached?

        • Craig
          09/20/2010 at 3:18 PM

          Same doc. The interrogatory responses are in the final three exhibits attached to the motion. Those go up later this week.

          • Bruce
            09/20/2010 at 3:20 PM

            Great! Thanks.

      • Kate
        09/20/2010 at 3:23 PM

        Hi Bruce, I’m responding to this and your other helpful post above regarding the categorization of the e-mails by Covington.

        Legally, are the e-mails between Joe and Victor protected by spousal privilege?

        • Bruce
          09/20/2010 at 4:21 PM

          Hi Kate:

          I can’t give you an answer because I just don’t know. Sorry! The spousal privilege has pretty much gone out the door in Illinois. I don’t think that there is necessarily a Yes or No answer to your question, because I don’t think there is much law on this spousal privilege as applied under a new amendment adding same sex couples in DC.

          We do know that plaintiff’s counsel is arguing that this privilege only applies to testimony (such as at trial or in a deposition), and not documents, such as these e-mails. Seems to me if this very narrow view is correct, that it is a very weak and ineffective privilege.

          Simply don’t know if that argument will win in front of this judge. I expect that the defendants will make the opposite argument, which at least to me, with my dearth of knowledge, seems more reasonable at the moment.

          We will probably be able to see some briefs filed by the parties in this regard sharing their arguments and citations.

          Frankly, I fear that the only way we are going to know if the e-mails between Joe and Victor are protected by spousal privilege is when the judge rules on the issue! And she may be making law when she does so.

          Which is always subject to appellate review.

          • carolina
            09/20/2010 at 5:01 PM

            Bruce,

            AF made it clear that all emails were property of AF and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Joe chose to ignore that. I’m not certain he can use spousal privilege or atty/client with the policy so specifically spelled out

            • Bruce
              09/20/2010 at 5:18 PM

              Carolina:

              You make a reasonable argument. Covington is arguing that no privileges apply at all to any AF e-mails, because of AF’s policies.

              I do think that it may be difficult for the civil judge to so rule, because it would mean that any e-mail by Joe to his attorneys would be subject to production. Thus, allowing Covington to see what both Joe and his attorneys certainly would have thought would be confidential, and those e-mails could contain attorney impressions and opinions, etc.

              You know we hand things to people every day to fax for us. If we did that with a fax between ourselves and our attorneys, I doubt that a judge would say we waived our privilege.

              You could be completely right, and the judge could rule the way you argue, releasing every pea-picking e-mail for production to the Covington attorneys.

              My thought is that the judge will not be so draconian, and will try to craft a middle ground, protecting some (such as those solely between a client and an attorney) and not protecting many of the others.

              I wouldn’t place a bet on it, either way.

              We shall see.

            • denton
              09/20/2010 at 5:35 PM

              Kate, Bruce and Carolina,

              I am not a lawyer but when I read (I can not cut/paste so I wrote it down) from the first transcript:

              1.) The motion to compel, supporting memos, Razi affidavit

              Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Third Party Documents Withheld by Defendant Price
              (p.6 when you scroll down)
              p.2, last paragraph

              Even if Defendant Price had the right to claim a privilege over communications sent from his workplace email account, no valid privilege could apply to emails between him and Defendant Zaborsky that did not include counsel. In withholding these communications, Defendant Price purports to reply on the spousal privilege. In the District of Columbia, though, the spousal privilege applies only to “testimony.” See D.C. Code section 14-306. Accordingly, the Price-Zaborsky emails cannot be shielded from discovery. Under the plain language of the statue, these documents are not “testimony” and therefore are not privileged.

              Likewise re: Price-Ward et al.

              Nothing are being withheld! We probably learn much more than the first round from Judge Lynn trial.

              • Bruce
                09/20/2010 at 5:41 PM

                To the Honorable Judge Denton:

                Thanks for your decision! Now lets see those e-mails!

                • denton
                  09/20/2010 at 6:51 PM

                  You are being funny, Bruce. I have yet taken a Litigation 101 yet. Never mind a law school to become a Judge. I reviewed massive legal documents every now and then and I kinda paid my personal interest in litigation until now.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/20/2010 at 7:16 PM

                    I also read in an article at Law.com that the spousal priviledge is meant for testimony. Trying to apply it to email communications is stretching the intent of the law.

                    • denton
                      09/20/2010 at 8:33 PM

                      You see, even I am not a lawyer, know nothing about the law, the mystery of the case itself is “thought provoking” to me.

              • Kate
                09/20/2010 at 6:06 PM

                Many thanks, denton, Bruce and carolina –

                Seems as if this case is going to yield some rather ground breaking rulings.

                If only we didn’t have to wait so dern long.

                Cheers,
                Kate

            • Bea
              09/21/2010 at 6:30 PM

              In the end, my guess is that any email with a formal member of the defense team (Spag, Schertler, Voelker, Grimm) will be privileged but nothing else will. The atty-client is a valid and much revered privilege where ‘spousal’ is not and “Joe-acting-as-counsel” is pure fiction. The ambiguous “confidential” cover is just dust waiting to be swept away.

              • denton
                09/21/2010 at 6:44 PM

                Wow! It does sound like a TV series “One Life To Live” that Joe has the leading part in it.

              • Bruce
                09/21/2010 at 7:04 PM

                Hi Bea:

                Agree with you on the e-mails to attorneys, but how about if Joe sends an e-mail to an attorney and cc’s Vic and/or “Lil Dyl”?

                • Bea
                  09/21/2010 at 8:25 PM

                  I suspect it will come down to an in camera inspection of the subject matter – that Joe can’t hide sending an email to Dylan or Joe by cc’ing a lawyer (or vice versa). The old days of thinking so long as you add an attorney to the mix makes it privileged is over.

  10. Cat in Cleveland
    09/20/2010 at 3:49 PM

    I find it remarkable that there is an email from Joe to Dylan re Victor’s request for counseling. Its marked “confidential,” but I can’t tell if its been produced. I wonder if Victor was asking for couple’s counseling, individual counseling, or counseling for someone else?

    The email is from Joe to Dylan, about Victor. Victor is not copied. Is it possible that Victor really was OK with the relationship between Joe and Dylan? Because I’m really wondering why he hasn’t smothered Joe in his sleep yet. . .

    • denton
      09/20/2010 at 6:38 PM

      If anyone needs a counseling, it should be JP right now. JP withheld:

      C. Documents Withheld by Defendant Price, p.4

      – over 800 emails from Mrs. Wone
      – 11 emails between Price/Zaborsky in August 2006
      – over 30 emails between Price/Zaborsky in the year 2006
      – over 170 emails between Price/Ward and all three defendants; and 45 were sent around the murder

      I wonder what Judge Lynn did with these emails. Did she not read them?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 7:19 PM

        Denton says: “C. Documents Withheld by Defendant Price, p.4

        – over 800 emails from Mrs. Wone”

        Seems his act of offering a stack of emails to Mrs. Wone immediately after Robert’s death was all a ploy/charade. Looks like he was anticipating this all along.

        • Nelly
          09/20/2010 at 10:30 PM

          You got it. Joe only wanted to provide old emails that would show what good friends he and Robert were, in an attempt to direct suspicion away from himself. The same with his serving as a pallbearer at Robert’s funeral. Maybe Victor gave him some drama lessons.

    • Bea
      09/20/2010 at 8:36 PM

      Good point, Cat. I wonder if Joe stymied the attempt at counseling out of a repeat Menendez Brothers problem – didn’t want Victor to say something which MIGHT get an end-run around the privilege somehow (always tricky business anyway). Who would need to email about someone’s desire for therapy – why not just GET some therapy? Even if the trio are innocent lambs, having someone be murdered in your home, having to watch them die, would seem way past any threshold desire to “see someone.” Probably micro managing from Joe. Of course, perhaps it was couples counseling (or triples counseling?) and Joe did have to agree to go . . .

      • Kate
        09/21/2010 at 7:35 AM

        Hmmm, interesting thoughts, Bea. And it does fit in well with Price’s controlling nature.

        My first thought was that Victor wanted couples or family counseling. An intelligent thought on Victor’s part, considering the household dynamics.

        • AnnaZed
          09/21/2010 at 12:43 PM

          Too little, too late by quite a margin I would say.

    • Bill 2
      09/21/2010 at 9:52 AM

      When it comes to someone being smothered in his sleep, I’ve always thought it would be the other way around — that Victor’s silence is what keeps his partner away from a life in prison. A deathly silence from Victor would eliminate any slip-ups. Of course, the deathly silence would have to look like an accident.

      • denton
        09/21/2010 at 12:22 PM

        Wow! I hear you. I think I kinda hear you!…but I hope there is no more kinda another so-called “accident” in the news!?

  11. mw
    09/20/2010 at 4:00 PM

    Maybe I missed this, but would the criminal investigators have gone through all these emails already?

  12. Roger Sherman
    09/20/2010 at 4:29 PM

    Dylan also had an account at Picasa, however there are no photos there now.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/savormassage01

    • Clio
      09/20/2010 at 9:23 PM

      Quite the photography buff was Lil Dyl apparently!

      Why then did his visually-stimulated “Family” only have a disposable camera in August 2006?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 9:52 PM

        Yes, Clio. For someone that had not one, but two, online photo accounts, funny little detail that is.

        • Kate
          09/21/2010 at 7:44 AM

          Clio, CD, et al – The lack of camera equipment in the 1509 Swann St, police inventory has always been a detail of the case that has loomed large for so many of us.

          And yet it did not come to the fore in the criminal case. I’m still wondering why … is it possible the prosecution let it go when they chose not to pursue the trouple’s sexual practices angle? If so, it seems rather short sighted on their part.

          Like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

          Your thoughts?

          • Rich
            09/21/2010 at 8:41 AM

            Dear Kate:

            Yes. I’ve read every camera related posting in quite some time. And, at the mmoment I do not remember what the issue is and why we care?

            Were photos taken that were incriminating and the equipment was never found?

            Is this matter related to the Michael’s burgurlary three months later?

            Short answer, if possible?

            If there were photos, what were they of (Dare, I ask) and were they used in the criminal trial?

            Could they be used in the Civil Trial?

            Goodness. Enquiring minds really do wanna know….

            • Kate
              09/21/2010 at 9:55 AM

              Morning Rich – here’s my short answer and I’m sure others can add to the synopsis.

              The Swann Family was definitely into photography. In fact, Joe and Dylan liked to engage in erotic photography sessions – many if these graphic “Art Photos” having been discovered on Price’s work computer.

              And yet, no photographic equipment – besides one disposable camera – was found at the home following Robert’s death. And no camera besides this disposable is listed in the official police inventory of the premises.

              One theory of the happenings at Swann Street on the night of Robert’s murder includes the possibility of an erotic photo session gone terribly wrong. For example, Robert may have been given some type of “date rape” drug with a negative effect.

              In this scenario, someone in the house removed the cameras – and other incriminating evidence – before the police arrived.

              At any rate, it is very odd that there would be no camera of even middling quality in this rather “hip” household.

              I hope that helps explain our interest in the cameras, or lack thereof.

              Cheers,
              Kate

              • Rich
                09/21/2010 at 10:06 AM

                Dear Kate:

                Yes, it does.

                Who knew?

                Fascinating that a camera may have been used that night.

                Okay, onto my life to go in meetings that may set me forward for sometime in the future.

                Fingers Crossed.

                Nats Game tonight following the meetings.

                Catch you all late.

                Enjoy.

  13. boofoc
    09/20/2010 at 4:59 PM

    “Wondering why [Victor] hasn’t smothered Joe in his sleep yet…;” I’m wondering if they still “sleep” together. Did they arrange counselling for Victor?
    Another task for our sleuth, Denton: If we find out who took the pic in Florence on 8/25/05, maybe we’ll find the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT. That’s no doubt part of the equpment missing from Swan Street

    • Craig
      09/20/2010 at 6:21 PM

      Boofoc: My sputtering memory bank tells me that Tom and/or John, along with their friend Sarah Morgan were on that trip to Italy. Someone here should remember.

  14. susan
    09/20/2010 at 8:44 PM

    I’m sure I missed something, but why do the emails date AFTER 8/2. Aren’t they looking at emails from before then as well?

    • denton
      09/20/2010 at 9:46 PM

      Susan – re: emails before 8/2/06, there were not much but I’ve found this:

      4.) Exhibit 12: The logs produced from his ‘Ward’ folders

      [starting from] 1/4/06 4:47 PM JP/DW re: Equality Virginia website
      [stop at] 5/25/06 12:06 PM JP/DW re: biography for EqVa ballot
      [pick up again] 8/9/06 4:28 PM JP/DW re: attorney/client communication

      5.) Exhibits 13-15: Privilege log and memo from PCraig Roswell and Cov log excerpt

      I hand counted Exhibits 13 and 15 (looks the same, someone please correct me if it is not) ONLY the month of August 2006 a total of 11 emails from/to JP/VZ under Basic Privilege of “Registered Domestic Partner Communciation.

      11 emails, in 31 days, and there was a murder in their “Registered Domestic Partner” home.

      • susan
        09/20/2010 at 10:26 PM

        Thanks denton! I’m guessing most of his other communication with V was via text message from his phone. Eleven emails in a month just doesn’t sound right.

        • denton
          09/20/2010 at 10:37 PM

          Nope! Not for a “committed” domestic partner.

      • Kate
        09/21/2010 at 7:52 AM

        Many thanks, Denton, for your great sleuthing ad the investment of your time in distilling the info contained in these huge documents.

        Very much appreciated.

  15. susan
    09/20/2010 at 9:14 PM

    Hey All,

    Within the last 10 minutes “Lil Dyl” closed his flckr acct. One of his friends reading this must’ve told him about it. Bye Bye savormassage01 photos.

    • susan
      09/20/2010 at 9:15 PM

      P.S. I know it was within the last 10 minutes or so because I went back to look at it just a bit ago. Verrrry interesting that they are now removed.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 9:25 PM

        Too late. Screenshots.

        • susan
          09/20/2010 at 9:49 PM

          Yay!

        • Alice
          09/21/2010 at 6:58 PM

          My hero!

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/20/2010 at 9:26 PM

        Now it very clear to all that they DO read the blog.

        • sixdegrees
          09/20/2010 at 10:58 PM

          Yikes! I was going to reply above that the account was gone, then decided to read on and see it has already been noted. Thanks, editors, for all your work! The deletion of this account shows how you are hitting the target.

        • Kate
          09/21/2010 at 7:57 AM

          Very interesting and quite understandable under the circumstances.

          You would think that his wise counsel would have advised the closing of such accounts a looooong while ago.

          Ah, the webs we weave … on the web!

    • handypandy
      09/21/2010 at 10:51 AM

      I’ve downloaded the two pictures before the account went down, if there’s need for them, let me know.

      • denton
        09/21/2010 at 10:59 AM

        Dear WMRW Editors/bloggers, please allow me to say to our dear handypandy here “you are g..e..n..i..o..u..s!”

      • Rich
        09/21/2010 at 4:33 PM

        Looks like everyone wants to see them.

        Send them through.

      • Alice
        09/21/2010 at 7:25 PM

        Another hero!

  16. susan
    09/20/2010 at 9:17 PM

    -And Bill wonders why we (and he, and apparently the trouple and/or their friends) keep coming back to this site!

    • denton
      09/20/2010 at 9:25 PM

      Bingo! We will march on regardless.

    • Clio
      09/20/2010 at 9:30 PM

      Hi Dyl! Your outfit on June 4 was much more slimming than that of August 3: just sayin’.

      • Bruce
        09/20/2010 at 9:59 PM

        Oh Bea:

        You are famous. I googled “D.C. Code section 14-306” to see if I could get some info on the DC law as to spousal/domestic partner privilege and….

        Your previous post on this here board, where you set out the wording of the statute, came up twice in the search. Good going!

        From past posts, it appears that you may well be the blog expert on this statute.

        It is certainly true that the statute uses the work “testify.”

        Would you agree if on an appellate court with the Honorable Judge Denton’s lower court ruling above (here someplace) that the statute does not apply in this instance, because these are e-mails, not “testimony” of the spouse/partner?

        My concerns include that I’m not sure the word “testify” is necessarily so restrictive as to not include these e-mails, at least as to the spousal privilege. “Testify” has sometimes been defined more broadly than just to “testify orally under oath,” to include: “to serve as evidence or proof.”

        I would also want to do some research as to how other statutes that use the word “testify” have been interpreted by the DC courts.

        Am I dancing on the top of a pin?

        Would appreciate your thoughts, if you have time.

        • Bea
          09/21/2010 at 4:19 AM

          Hey Bruce, I haven’t read the brief on “testify” just yet (or the response which will argue the opposite, of course!).

          One thing I keep coming back to is the law on the subject of spousal privilege being destroyed if anyone else reads the emails (legally). Even setting aside the Arent Fox “ownership” issue, my take on the law is that because the IT Department likely read all of these that the privilege is dead. When Joe was fired (which MAY have been based at least in part on his “portraits” of he and Dylan found on his computer) my guess is that the managing partner and his staff (or management committee, however AF structures things) had to both order the IT Department to investigate and then look at some of the findings him/herself.

          My reading of the law is that THAT alone destroys the privilege between Joe and Victor because the IT group likely (wrongly) believed that THOSE emails would have disclosed something “untoward.” One would assume that the domestic partner might be the ‘other participant’ – little did they know that Victor wasn’t part of the “self-porn” on the office computer. I just doubt that Joe took in a media card or CD full of his pix – he strikes me as the kind of guy who’d emailed them to himself.

          Of course, that only raises (yet again) the question as to WHAT CAMERA was used to capture those Kodak Moments. Perhaps they did only use disposable cameras (as was found during the search) – maybe Joe used office equipment to scan and burn extra copies!

          Will get back to you after I read the briefs on what “testify” means within the statutes. It’s funny about my “notoriety” on the web on this issue.

          • denton
            09/21/2010 at 12:37 PM

            Dear Bea and Bruce (B&B, and it’s not Bed and Breakfast),

            Please come back soon with your findings. I can not wait.

      • David
        09/21/2010 at 4:50 PM

        That’s funny Clio because I thought the June 4 pic showed the Aug 3 video captured the pears hips quite well.

        • Clio
          09/21/2010 at 9:26 PM

          Well, his Mom jeans did give me pause, but they still hid more flaws than did the tell-tale shorts of August 3.

          Those white sunglasses, though, were not meant for a man, a Georgetown alum mind you, well over the age of twenty-five. How could this middle-aged macaroni transform himself nightly into a BDSM top — Joe really must have sworn by self-deception, or Victor may have been even worse in bed!

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/21/2010 at 9:35 PM

            Unless someone wants to conjure up a recollection of Casey Anthony after a Target shopping spree, my advice is to leave the white specs on the rack.

  17. Craig
    09/20/2010 at 10:02 PM

    Mike Scarcella filed @ Law.com, and Rend Smith had this for the City Paper on the emails.

    • Bruce
      09/20/2010 at 10:58 PM

      Craig, thanks for linking those two news articles on the recent motion regarding e-mails in the case.

      Suggest that both legal beagles and the uncorrupted take a peek, esp. at the Law.com article that refers to a decision less than a year old by the chief judge of the federal court in DC, finding that an employee of the Department of Justice had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his e-mails sent from his Department of Justice computer, despite the DOJ policies on e-mails.

      While a federal decision is not necessarily binding upon the judge in this civil “state” court, and there may be distinctions to be made between the e-mail issues in the Wone case and that federal case, I’m sure it will be cited and argued by the defendants, and the judge in the Wone case will likely have to consider it.

      Nothing is going to come easy in this case.

      There are bound to be decisions and rulings made by the judge in the Wone case that delight and incite us.

      All attorneys are going to have their work cut out for them. Yet, it is rare in an attorney’s work life that you get to work on an exciting case like this that has so many cutting edge issues!

    • Kate
      09/21/2010 at 8:32 AM

      Many thanks Craig – the Law.com article was most helpful in explaining the complexities of this portion of the case.

      And for Bruce, who wrote, “…it is rare in an attorney’s work life that you get to work on an exciting case like this that has so many cutting edge issues!” And all of our legal eagles are working diligently and joyfully pro bono!

      Many thanks.

  18. susan
    09/20/2010 at 10:04 PM

    I am sure that, in addition to any of the trouple or their friends, Schertler and co. have one of their young, female aides monitor the site and alert them to items of significance (they have to have other tasks in addition to handing water bottles to their clients during trials). I think Schert and co. also must check in themselves to read the daily headline news.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/20/2010 at 10:21 PM

      I bet if an attorney representing a defendant discovered evidence first- or second-hand and had the evidence destroyed, that attorney would be in very beeeeeg trouble.

      • denton
        09/20/2010 at 11:06 PM

        I don’t know much about changing an attorney business but is it possible (besides the billing issues) that Robert Spagnoletti is handing over his case to Ralph Spooner because he knew that it is going to be difficult presentation from here onward?

        • Rich
          09/20/2010 at 11:19 PM

          Absolutely!

          But, I think Daddy Ward has exhausted his retirement account and he is pushing 70.

          Spooner , out of Oregon, is WAY CHEAPER.

          • Bruce
            09/20/2010 at 11:51 PM

            Not necessarily, Rich.

            As I mention in my recent post to Denton, I don’t think that “Daddy Ward” is likely the one paying any attorneys fees and costs for “Lil Dyl,” now that the criminal case is over and the civil case is on the front burner.

            It’s now likely the insurance company’s ball game.

            By the way, it is also possible that the insurance company was involved in paying for part or all of the criminal defense. I said possible.

            But stay with me here…while the insurance company might not have been responsible to pay for the criminal case defense under its policy….

            It may have chosen to pay for part or all of the criminal defense, because what happened in the criminal case COULD adversely affect the civil case, and the insurance company is clearly responsible for payment of defense fees and costs in the civil case, and possibly for a big judgment under its policy.

            It has happened in the past.

            To give a slightly wierd analogy, if you are in a car accident and sued for negligence, and you are also charged with criminal charges in the car accident, it is possible and probably likely that your insurance company will pay an attorney to represent you in the criminal matter arising from the accident….

            even if they don’t have to under their policy, because the result of the criminal case could adversely affect the civil case for negligence, and affect the possible damages assessed in the negligence case.

            This happens all the time.

            On a grander scale, if this happened in the criminal case in the Swann 3 trial, it is possible that “Daddy Ward” has paid nothing at all so far as to the defense of “Lil Dyl.”

            That the new attorney is from the same area as “Daddy Ward” would lead reasonable minds to conclude that “Daddy Ward” hired him or is paying for him.

            I don’t necessarily have a reasonable mind, and I think it is also possible that the reason for this new attorney is that “Lil Dyl”, in consultation with his father, who knows this attorney, may have wanted him, and it is possible that the insurance company has now given Dyl the opportunity to hire the attorney of his choice. But the insurance company is paying in any event now, I believe.

            By the way, Dyl’s dealings with his insurance company in this case are most likely protected by the “attorney client privilege, and will never see the light of day.

            Speculating again. Just don’t necessarily take anything for granted in this wierd case. Head hurts, going to bed.

            • Rich
              09/20/2010 at 11:58 PM

              Dear Bruce:

              Joining you in bed, so to speak.

              But, doesn’t Dylan have to be policy holder for your version to hold true?

              If Dylan never had insurance with the company, why would they represent him?

              He wasn’t on the homowner’s policy.

              Not even as a three way. 🙂

              Nite, nite.

            • Bea
              09/21/2010 at 4:25 AM

              Rich makes a valid point as to Dylan, who had no policy.

              Also, I wonder about the theory in the context of the particulars of the legal case (as opposed to a car wreck) – if found GUILTY of intentional criminal acts, the insurance company would be off the hook (unlike the car wreck). Intentional acts are never covered, as you know, so a guilty verdict would have let the insurance company off the hook – also, arguably they would NOT have had any involvement in the criminal case due to the ethical concerns (i.e. “wanting” the defendants to be found guilty).

              • Bruce
                09/21/2010 at 6:13 PM

                Bea, et al:

                You make good points. I need to do a little research on home owner’s policies before I say another thing on the topic!

              • Ruth
                09/21/2010 at 6:32 PM

                It is not unprecedented for a renter to have an insurance policy for personal property. They aren’t that expensive because the coverage is so limited.

                • 09/21/2010 at 6:41 PM

                  I’d be stunned if Dylan had a personal property insurance policy. What personal property would he have had, of value, to insure? Are there riders for BDSM toys?

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/21/2010 at 7:57 PM

                    Gloria says: “are there riders for BDSM toys?”

                    yes. Joe.

                    • Clio
                      09/21/2010 at 9:13 PM

                      Zing!

                • Bruce
                  09/21/2010 at 7:01 PM

                  Hi Ruth:

                  Just left a post on here about endorsements to home owner’s policies to name significant others or domestic partners as additional insureds.

                  Any knowledge or info on that?

                  We need some insurance people on here!

                • susan
                  09/21/2010 at 7:46 PM

                  Mustn’t personal items of value be listed on these policies? If so, maybe Covington will find out whether or not a valuable camera or two were part of their holdings.

        • Bruce
          09/20/2010 at 11:30 PM

          Hi Denton:

          Anything is possible as to the reasons for the change of counsel, and we will likely never know the real reasons (attorney client privilege and all).

          One area that I would like to investigate is whether the change of attorneys may have been sparked by some action of the insurance company for the defendant(s), or some agreement arranged between the insurance company and the defendant(s).

          It is my understanding that the insurance company would not be responsible for, and did not pay for, the criminal defense. Anyone know different on that?

          Now that the defense fees and costs are solely on the insurance company (we assume) for the civil case, it may be that the insurance company pushed for a change of attorneys.

          Or the opposite may be happening:

          It is also possible that the insurance company came to the conclusion that, based upon its reservations of rights in this case, it would have a conflict of interest with the defendant(s) to control the defense by dictating attorneys.

          If that is happening, it is likely that the insurance company would turn over the choice of defense counsel to the defendants themselves, so that the defendant(s) can choose their own counsel, with the insurance company still on the hook to pay for the “reasonable fees” of the defense counsel hired directly by the defendant(s).

          Speculations all, but with the insurance company now under the gun for fees and costs, there may be some changes made.

          • Rich
            09/20/2010 at 11:34 PM

            Again, not an attorney here, but, I believe Dylan Ward is not reprsented by the insurance companies as he did not own Swann Street nor was it his poicy.

            Dylan’s defense financing comes from Daddy.

            • Bruce
              09/20/2010 at 11:59 PM

              Rich, sorry……

              I think it would not be odd for the home insurance policy to cover Dyl, who was clearly living in the house.

              You would be very surprised at what situations a home insurance policy has been triggered, at least for defense, if not indemnity.

              But, hey, you may be 100% right on all counts! In my view, we are both speculating and assuming things here.

              • Rich
                09/21/2010 at 8:29 AM

                True.

                Just thought it was a black and white issue.

                Maybe, not.

                Curious to learn the realities.

                • denton
                  09/21/2010 at 11:15 AM

                  Count me in on the “learning curve” here. There are so much to dive into i.e. the insurance policies discovery, the spousal privilege emails communication matter, etc. etc.

                  • Rich
                    09/21/2010 at 4:35 PM

                    Go Easy!

                    You can lose your life in it.

                    Gotta pace yourself.

                    ofcourse, i said, I wouldn’t be on too until late tonight.

                    That lasted 2 hours. 🙂

                    • denton
                      09/21/2010 at 6:02 PM

                      Lol…

              • Bruce
                09/21/2010 at 6:54 PM

                Hey Rich and all:

                Did a little research on the home insurance issue.

                There is an available an endorsement to a home owner’s policy, described from an insurance website as follows:

                • Other Member of Your Household (HO 04 58): Homeowners endorsement providing personal property, additional living expense and liability protection to a named individual living in the named insured’s home that is not a relative. This includes individuals such as domestic partners or significant others.

                I do believe that it is likely very true that “Lil Dyl” would not be an insured under an average homeowner’s policy, because he is not the owner or a “family member” of the owner, or a minor under the age of 19 living in the house.

                However, it is possible that Joe would have purchased the endorsement above, specifically naming both Victor and “Lil Dyl” as “additional insureds” on his home policy, especially since they have lived together so long.

                Being previously (previously, Clio!) involved with fighting discriminatory practices against gays, it is quite possible that Joe would know that his home owner’s policy would not cover the love of his life, Victor, and not cover the other love of his life, “Lil Dyl,” and rectify the situation.

                Speculating here, of course. Anything is possible.

                Any insurance people on here that can help us out?

                • Rich
                  09/21/2010 at 11:38 PM

                  Dear Bruce:

                  Thanks for the update.

                  Only on WMRW will anyone go the length to do the research.

                  And, the defendants and plaintiffs have to be quite careful in their proceedings, as the posters here have clearly proven consistently that they are up for the task and will find the truth and work diligently to prove it.

                  Good work.

                  As for a rider for BDSM materials, I guess anything is possible.

                  These boys have proven that, as well.

      • Cat in Cleveland
        09/21/2010 at 1:19 PM

        That is definitely true. The question becomes, of course, what is “evidence.” There is no reason to know, at this time, whether the photos are “evidence” of anything. If they aren’t evidence, then taking them out of the public view is not inappropriate.

  19. susan
    09/20/2010 at 10:36 PM

    During the criminal trial and even now, have VZ and DW’s computers been looked into? Did detectives look into these at all? It seems the answer is no but maybe someone has more info.

  20. Rich
    09/20/2010 at 10:38 PM

    93 Responses in 12 hours.

    I knew, we could get past discussions of, “Avatar.”

    Good for you guys.

    Now, I have to muddle through all the legal discussion again.

    As I’ve said in the past, the, “Smut,” is more fun.

  21. Onyx
    09/21/2010 at 3:00 AM

    I have a question for those who are more informed than myself in matters of civil trials. Forgive my lack of knowledge in this arena, but what exactly will happen to the trouple if they lose? They are being sued for millions in a wrongful death suit, and it appears they don’t really have any money (or at least, that’s what they purport). So can they declare bankruptcy and get out of their debt? Would bankruptcy even protect them in this case? Or will they have to continually pay it back for the rest of their lives? I guess I’m not sure what the overall “life effect” is in a civil trial if you’re just being sued for something you don’t have. A lifelong stigma for sure, but what else? Any input is greatly appreciated.

    • Bea
      09/21/2010 at 4:35 AM

      I believe Hoya knows more on this (if memory serves) as I recall him saying that a civil judgment would NOT be discharged in bankruptcy. If there is a judgment, it will be a Goldman – OJ Simpson situation (or that’s my guess). They will have any wages garnished (right now Victor is still employed, and someone recently saw Joe dressed in his lawyer duds, so perhaps he’s employed – how one could “garnish” from Dylan’s massage gigs is anyone’s guess). Too, their claim of the homestead exemption in Florida may be challenged (in case it’s not under water – maybe they put a lot down with their DC profit on Swann). I believe Joe owns a condo in DC – don’t know what else they may have in the way of assets. It may be that Kathy Wone will just want to stay on them the rest of their lives – and if she gets a big judgment, I imagine they’ll be ‘paying’ hereafter.

      • Hoya Loya
        09/21/2010 at 8:29 AM

        A judgment based on an injury caused by the willful or malicious acts of the defendant(s) would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. This is covered in section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

        • Onyx
          09/21/2010 at 12:18 PM

          Thanks guys. So wow, the amount at stake at each of these trials really makes me question the ‘mystery fifth person as murderer’ theory. I just can’t think of any single individual that three separate housemates would be willing to protect in the face of possible prison sentences and garnished wages for life. It seems crazy.

          On another note, sometimes I can’t believe that one of them hasn’t gotten drunk one night and just spilled their guts to someone. I am pretty sure I would’ve cracked a long time ago, after one glass of wine too many with a person I trust. It’s just such a heavy burden to carry around.

          • Tini
            09/21/2010 at 8:09 PM

            I’ve been reading the blog for a few months now but never commented before. Your statement that you would crack under the pressure and tell someone made me remember reading about the Janet Chandler case.
            http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/07/janet-chandler
            (I’m not sure why it is in Glamour magazine).

            Janet’s murder was unsolved for almost 30 years and no one who participated in it ever said anything to anyone about it, until there was a second police investigation all those years later; and they weren’t even family, just co-workers. It also struck me on re-reading the article that many of those involved in her murder also attended her funeral.
            I guess I am posting in response to your comment as well as because much like the editors thought we could possibly learn from the recent New Yorker article, perhaps we could learn something from this case too.

            • susan
              09/21/2010 at 8:18 PM

              That’s a great post, tini, and I will click on the article after sending this. Earlier I thought of the OJ case and there are countless others where individuals and more than one person were involved in crimes and never talked. I think too, that there is the concept in such situations as “united we stand, divided we fall” and I’m sure that if anyone of a party of people had any role, they figure they’ll all go down together, even if one is guiltier than another.

              • Tini
                09/21/2010 at 9:15 PM

                Thank you, susan. For as much time as I spend on forums and blogs I never really posted anywhere before. I am a virtual and real life wallflower. I came to this blog through Gawker after my next door (shared walls) neighbor was murdered, he was also stabbed to death. I am probably a bit too emotionally involved because of that and was finally brave enough to post.

                • susan
                  09/21/2010 at 9:21 PM

                  Dear tini:

                  I was a bit shy about “jumping in” and posting here at first, but once you’re in…you’re in!

                  I hope you will post again, and I’m very sorry to hear about your neighbor and your proximity to that crime. I hope it was solved.

                  • Tini
                    09/21/2010 at 9:31 PM

                    Thank you, again. Yes, he is in custody and although he has not been tried and convicted yet, I am sure he will be.

                    I just cannot even imagine how painful it must be for Kathy Wone to not know for sure what happened and for no one to be held accountable.

                    • susan
                      09/21/2010 at 10:29 PM

                      I didn’t see this post of yours. I’m glad the guy is in custody. Did this happen in DC?

                • susan
                  09/21/2010 at 10:20 PM

                  Tini,

                  I just finished that article. How horrid. How sick. How utterly evil. Thank Goodness for those students and the case being reopened.

                  Just goes to show that the net of Justice hovers and at any time might…drop over those who think they’ve escaped it’s snare.

                  • Tini
                    09/21/2010 at 10:51 PM

                    Yes, that case does give one hope. Although I hope in this case it doesn’t take 30 years to uncover the truth.

                    I can’t reply to the above comment, but I am in NYC.

            • Cat from Cleveland
              09/21/2010 at 10:12 PM

              Just read the article. Wow. Be prepared to be physically ill if you read it.

              • Tini
                09/21/2010 at 10:31 PM

                I’m so sorry, I should have given a warning! I guess that given the nature of this blog I didn’t think about it. I apologize if it was too upsetting to post without one.

                • Cat from Cleveland
                  09/21/2010 at 10:52 PM

                  No worries! I’m not squeamish generally, and I can’t imagine anyone on this blog is, either. If the article were about an ax murder, it would have been easier to read, though. Seriously. There is evil in this world.

                  • Nelly
                    09/23/2010 at 10:22 AM

                    Tini, that was a very interesting story that I had never heard before. Very gruesome and so sad. At least Janet Chandler’s parents were able to find out the truth of what happened and confront the murderers, after so many years.

                • Onyx
                  09/23/2010 at 1:41 PM

                  Tini, I’m really glad you decided to post. That article was very interesting, and I hope that one day, Robert’s family gets the closure that Janet’s family got. I, too, waited a long time before I finally posted, and the late great ChiLaw immediately made me feel welcome. Now that she’s gone, the other veterans have done a wonderful job picking it up for her. Special thanks to all the long-time posters on this site who make this environment a safe and welcome place for new members to voice their opinions. You guys are awesome.

          • Bruce
            09/21/2010 at 11:56 PM

            Hi Onyx:

            The “collectibility” of any big judgment ($20 million, anyone?) is a very interesting part of this case.

            And we had a report not to long ago that one of the plaintiff’s attorneys said he thinks they are going to recover millions from this case.

            How?

            Most of our speculations and assumptions assume that any big judgment will be satisfied by relatively small payments from the Swann 3, by wage garnishmnets, etc.

            Being a scheming skeptical attorney, I tend to think that the attorneys for Mrs. Wone are counting on the insurance companies of the Swann 3 to end up paying money if a big judgment is entered.

            But again, how?

            We can only imagine that the insurance companies have put up big “reservations of rights” and are only agreeing now to defend the trouple (maybe not “Lil Dyl”), and not agreeing that they are on the hook to pay for any judgment.

            And exactly how much is involved with the coverages of the insurance policies? Is it possible that Joe got a very large umbrella or excess policy, not the normal $1 million over $1 million (for a total coverage of $2 million?)

            I have been investigating the possibility that Mrs. Wone’s attorneys believe they may be able to put the insurance companies for the Swann 3 in a position where they may have to pay out more than their coverage amounts.

            Know that sounds wierd, but it is available in Illinois if one can put a company in a position of “bad faith” for not settling a case within the policy limits.

            This is because Illinois has an accepted legal cause of action called “Bad Faith” against insurers, where if you are successful in the “Bad Faith” claim, you can actually collect more from the insurance carriers than their coverage limits.

            The one stone wall I have come up against so far is that it appears that DC does not, like Illinois, have an available cause of action of “Bad Faith” against insurers, that would allow for such a fruitful recovery.

            I am, however, intrigued on this topic, particularly in looking at the bios of the attorneys for Mrs. Wone. All of them appear to have great experience in insurance matters.

            Stay tuned, as I am not giving up on this topic.

            • Bea
              09/22/2010 at 4:05 AM

              I don’t know how much plaintiff expects to COLLECT (where did you read that her attorneys claimed to expect this?). My guess on the “normal” umbrella policy is $3M but your point is well taken. What I find most interesting is that here the insurance company would WANT the jury to find intentional acts on behalf of the defendants (not as much as a defense judgment, but still) since that wouldn’t be covered. I realize that insurance companies are often a bit at odds with their “customers” but this is a BIG one!

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/22/2010 at 9:37 AM

                Here’s my question….if the crime was committed under the roof of 1509 Swann (the home of the defendants), which carried an insurance policy for events taking place in that house while the defendants owned it, how can the retroactively make a claim on a property they no longer own on an insurance policy that is no longer active?? Not to mention, it happened over 4 years ago.

                • Bruce
                  09/22/2010 at 10:02 AM

                  Hi CdinDc:

                  Their insurance policy is most likely (but not necessarily) what is called an “occurrence” policy.

                  That means that whatever policy or policies in place at the time of the murder would be triggered.

                  Thus, whatever policy they had at the time they were sued by Mrs. Wone (if they changed policies) would most likely not be triggered, but whatever policy they had at the time of the murder would be triggered, whether or not they are the same policies that Swann 3 had at the time they were sued.

                  There is also something called a “claims made” policy, which triggers the insurance policy at the time the actual claim is made (at the time of suit, as opposed to murder), but it is my understanding that the vast majority of home insurance policies are “occurrence” policies.

                  Insurance people, help!

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/22/2010 at 10:06 AM

                    Thanks Bruce. Makes perfect sence. My home policy is an occurence policy. Of course, being a regular person that claims things like storm damage, I never realized an insurance policy could extend beyond the ownership period of the home.

                    • Bruce
                      09/22/2010 at 10:15 AM

                      Hi CdinDC:

                      Oh yes. Insurance policies that are no longer in effect are constantly triggerd under “occurrence” policies.

                      Pity (the Fool!) the poor insurance companies that they must keep records of their policies for quite some time.

                  • Rich
                    09/22/2010 at 10:39 AM

                    Dear Bruce:

                    Kinda Funny.

                    The following is from the heart wit no intention to offend or place you on the defensive.

                    As we al get to know one anothe ronline based on our comments, I seem to remeber you are always quite distressed that many people make assumptions here and proceed with anal;ysis not having all the facts.

                    Or, worse, take a bols position on any particular matter by making assumptions.

                    Aren’t you doing what you oppose on the Insurance Policy issue.

                    Just a thought.

                    KEEP POSTING.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      09/22/2010 at 11:03 AM

                      :::passing Rich a spoon:::

                    • Bruce
                      09/22/2010 at 11:57 AM

                      Hey Rich:

                      No offense taken at all.

                      Have no problem with people speculating or assuming things.

                      For instance, peopleexpress opinions here that the Swann 3 are jerks.
                      No problem with that, there is certainly evidence of that!

                      My primary concern is with posts that set forth assumptions or speculation as if they are “facts,”when, in fact, they are not.

                      If that happens, I think someone should clarify it, if it is not evident from the post.

                      I try to include in every one of my posts that if I am speculating or assuming, or guessing that is what I am doing.

                      Don’t opposespeculation or assuming at all.

                      We all have to do that because we know so little.

                      Hope that explains it.

              • Bruce
                09/22/2010 at 10:09 AM

                Hi Bea:

                Agreed!

                Which makes me think that it is possible that the insurance companies’ conflict of interest here may have afforded their insured(s) the right to retain their own choice of defense counsel for the civil trial, the “reasonable fees” of which to be paid for by the insurance company. Thus, the insureds “control” their defense, rather than the insurance company (although who ever is retained as attorney would have to report to the insurance company).

                Bea, I can’t remember who said it, when it was said, or who reported it, but within the past couple months there was mention by someone on here that one of the plaintiff’s counsels had said that they expect to get “millions.”

                Actually, I think it was something on another blog, reported here by a poster.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  09/22/2010 at 10:29 AM

                  Perhaps someone took something out of context. Mrs. Wone has “filed a $20 million wrongful death suit,” but it doesn’t mean that the estate will get that much if they win.

                  It also doesn’t sound like something an attorney would say. Sort of “speaking out of school,” don’t you think?

                  • Bruce
                    09/22/2010 at 12:18 PM

                    Hi CDinDC:

                    I just can’t find that previous reference to a report on what one of the plaintiff’s attorneys said about expecting to recover “millions.”

                    Will try to look tonight.

                    Anyone else remember it?

                    Very sorry if I dreamed it!

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      09/22/2010 at 12:25 PM

                      I did a little searching myself adn couldn’t find anything. I’ll keep looking too. I’d like to see the article or blog post.

  22. Emily
    09/21/2010 at 8:30 AM

    Question for the lawyers. Many workplaces have policies that all emails are property of the workplace, that there is no expectation of privacy in employee email communications, that all emails may be accessed at any time by IT and that employees may be called to account for the content of them, etc. etc.

    Have any of these policies been tested legally, e.g. in a case similarly to this where one party (the law firm) can argue that the emails are their’s to do with as they will and another party (the trouple) can claim some sort of privilege of communication.

    I know that it has got to be a complicated and untried area.

  23. Craig
    09/21/2010 at 9:00 PM

    The interrogatories tomorrow and some news on who is living where.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/21/2010 at 9:31 PM

      And when are getting the Joe Price sighting posting?? We’ve been waiting. 🙁

      • Clio
        09/22/2010 at 10:12 PM

        Still waiting breathlessly, Craig, for that glimpse of the elusive Culuket — was it in the frozen meat section of a Safeway, or in the garden hose department of a Sam’s Club?

  24. Cat in Cleveland
    09/22/2010 at 7:53 AM

    If the Plaintiffs get a judgement, Dyl can say goodbye to his inheritance.

    • Rich
      09/22/2010 at 9:56 AM

      Deart Cat:

      Daddy Ward will set up a trust for Dyl in someone elses name.

  25. Rich
    09/22/2010 at 9:57 AM

    The Trustee will oversee allocation for Dyl and nothing will ever be in his name.

  26. Rich
    09/22/2010 at 12:04 PM

    Dear bruce:
    As per usual, technologically challenged here.

    There appears to be no, “Reply Key,” directly to your post.

    You’ve explained it clearly.

    Thanks.

    Now, onto learning where these boyz are hiding out and how they will spend the next year of their lives?

    • denton
      09/22/2010 at 1:15 PM

      Rich, the Captain,

      I posted yesterday PM after Craig that I could not “reply” and I kept getting a new blog doing so. Does someone try to hack this site?

      • Clio
        09/22/2010 at 10:17 PM

        Well, apparently “Little Red Riding Hood” is “unemployed” with a lot of time on her hands these days: the urban legend is that a “hacker” by that name — “Little Red Riding Hood” — tried to hijack the Wone case’s Wikipedia entry early on in this struggle.

  27. Rich
    09/22/2010 at 12:36 PM

    DEAR CDC:

    A LITTLE CHALLENGED HERE ON SEVEAL COUNTS:

    COUNT ONE:

    No reply key here for your post.

    Count Two:

    Spoon? I do not get it.

    I’m sure it’s not Cocaine related, but, still no clue.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/22/2010 at 2:40 PM

      Hi Rich! You were stirring things up. LOL

      • Rich
        09/22/2010 at 3:09 PM

        Dear CDC:

        I get it.

        “Spoon!”

        Stirring things up.

        I’m there.

        Bests,
        r

        • 09/22/2010 at 3:16 PM

          Rich, dear. You don’t have to hit “return” after every sentence. You can make real paragraphs by running one sentence right after the other. Ha. (I met my project deadline so am back in the swing of wmrw now, no more rationing myself to 5 minutes and one brief post a day.) See? I ran all those sentences together into ONE paragraph.

          • denton
            09/22/2010 at 3:50 PM

            Lol…to both of you…Dear Gloria and Rich.

            • 09/22/2010 at 4:41 PM

              Rich and I met at Moultrie. We’re pals.

              • denton
                09/22/2010 at 7:38 PM

                Yeah! I enjoy reading you and CDinDC picking on Rich!

                • Rich
                  09/22/2010 at 9:12 PM

                  They are not alone.

                  I have a stable of abusers. 🙂

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/22/2010 at 9:55 PM

                    LOL Aw, Rich…you know we love you!

                    • Rich
                      09/22/2010 at 10:45 PM

                      Who knew I would deriveso many benefits from WMRW?

                      I always hated these one word paragraphs and now my computer i s doing it on its own.

                      I thought it was Chi Law being different.

                      Make it stop!

          • Rich
            09/22/2010 at 4:53 PM

            But, it’s so crowded then?

            Isn’t it more compelling to separate each comment?

            Only recently, did I learn about the, “Reply,” key.

            I’m getting there.

            Glad you’re back. I missed you.

            In one of my exchanges with bruce, I thought we would have to rely on your friendly, “Dossiers,” regarding our posting coments and behavior.

            But, we did it without you.

            He’s quite ammenable.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/22/2010 at 3:50 PM

          Rich, it’s CDinDC. Not CDC. That Center for Disease Control. LOL

          • denton
            09/22/2010 at 3:54 PM

            Lol…too, CDinDC. Rich, You’ll be alright, Dear.

          • Rich
            09/22/2010 at 4:55 PM

            Right!

            Moving fast here, as per usual.

  28. Boggled
    09/22/2010 at 1:06 PM

    Where did today’s post with the interrogatories go???

  29. 09/23/2011 at 7:51 PM

    Hi! I’ve been following your web site for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Austin Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the good work!

Comments are closed.