Sounds Of Silence

Dylan Ward’s Eerily Quiet Deposition

On November 10, a meeting room at the Pennsylvania Avenue law offices of Covington and Burling quickly filled up with people for a deposition in an impending civil suit.  If a meeting like this had happened five years ago, one of those people in the room could very well have been Robert Wone, then a young associate at Covington, with a bright future ahead of him.

Instead of Robert being present, it was his absence that filled that room.

The purpose of this meeting was to depose defendant Dylan Ward.   While Ward answered a few basic questions, when he was asked about anything regarding Robert Wone, he clammed up.

Co-starring in Ward’s Silent Movie was his counsel, Robert Spagnoletti, who answered all the questions directed at Ward about Robert Wone with a terse, “I’m instructing Mr. Ward not to answer that question so as to preserve his fifth-amendment privilege.”

Even when asked by Ben Razi if he was going to “accept his counsel’s instructions,” Ward remained silent and Spagnoletti, literally his mouthpiece, would answer for his client each and every time.

Spagnoletti’s front and center role in the deposition seems at odds with his statement at the last status hearing that Ralph Spooner would be taking over lead duties while he remained in the background.

In question after question from Kathy Wone’s counsel Ben Razi, Spagnoletti repeated the same phrase until the impasse became so great that both parties, exasperated, agreed to halt the deposition and call the Court and Judge Brooke Hedge for a ruling.

While the parties were separated by a wide gulf, the point they were arguing over was narrow.  It all came down to whether a defendants must personally assert their fifth-amendment right or whether their counsel could assert the right for them.

A short conference call settled the dispute somewhat.  This 5th amendment point of order will be hashed out on December 8; at the next status hearing.

All of this drama played out in front of the plaintiff herself, Kathy Wone.

Before Ward sealed his lips for the day, he did offer a few tidbits about what he has been doing since being acquitted on criminal charges back in June.  He has not returned to work stating that he is unemployed.  He is only working “very part time” in his massage therapy practice, and considers himself a “writer of educational materials and massage therapist.”

Both parties agreed that going forward with depositions for the two other defendants, Joe Price and Victor Zaborsky, would be fruitless until Judge Hedge rules.  Both of those depositions were supposed to have been completed by now, and will no doubt be scheduled for a later date after Judge Hedge rules on the pending issue: a plaintiff motion to compel Ward to mouth the 5th Amendment invocations himself.  The aborted deposition transcript, complete with the Hedge conference call, was attached to that filing.

That decision will determine whether his former housemates too, can or cannot remain dead silent.

-posted by David

59 comments for “Sounds Of Silence

  1. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    11/29/2010 at 1:19 PM

    “writer of educational materials”

    And on what subject, pray tell, is Dylan expert enough to write educational materials?

    And he’s not working????? What a loser. Get a jooooob.

    • AnnaZed
      11/29/2010 at 3:42 PM

      I would imagine that our little Dyl is “working” in spite of not strictly speaking having a “job.”

      • susan
        11/29/2010 at 10:10 PM

        Questions, comments:

        -In his depo. he said the instructional materials teach English as a foreign language. Could he be referencing his Taiwan childrens books gig or something of that sort–royalties?

        -Other than by JP’s hand, has DW held any real steady work gig?

        –He’s very fortunate to have family with the means to hire a high=profile, if game-playing atty like the Spag.

        –The depo. indicated it was videotaped. Is this standard? If the text is public, is the video?

        –In earlier written statements (attys here–what do I mean?) each of the guys took the fifth over the most banal questions. Here L’il D actually answers some of the basics. Any idea why?

        –In response to the first question re employment (“Do you work in any capacity…”) LD said “No.” Upon further questioning, Does he have any current employment… he says that he does have very little part-time employment as a massage dude. The law being so engrossed with minutia as it is–didn’t he just Lie there? Are you employed? No. Are you currently employed? Kind of.

        One of WMRW’s fine attorneys (including new ones reading, who would love to post) please explain.

        Thank you.

        • Bea
          11/30/2010 at 6:26 PM

          Hi Susan,
          I imagine that all the depositions will be video depositions. The practice in general is moving that way, and the subject matter/witnesses here aren’t just business people haggling over what an agreement meant. Also, should any of the deponents ‘perish’ it’s much more interesting to play a video than an audio-only for a jury.

          The “Answers” to the interrogatories gave names and employment (sort of) – I don’t think anything that Dylan answered is by any stretch of the imagination going to be covered by the 5th. As for the minor inconsistencies, perhaps Dylan’s work just began since the ROGS were answered, but even if it’s exactly the same, some minor part time work would be in the noise because he could claim that he assumed the question meant whether he had a full time job.

          • Cara
            11/30/2010 at 8:10 PM

            It’s pretty easy to see by the pattern of the letters and where the ‘carriage return’ (forgive me, old-time secretary) is in one portion of the document, where D said he is living.

            • Clio
              11/30/2010 at 10:46 PM

              So, Cara, where is Dyl living in your best estimation?

              BTW, on page 31, is the use of “message” for “massage” a kind of Freudian slip? Massage as message? Massaging the message of non-answers? Spag as message masseur?

              On page 46, who knew that both Brook and Spag had to cook on Thanksgiving — what a knowing and sisterly moment of bonding that that must have been!

          • susan
            11/30/2010 at 10:52 PM

            Thanks, Bea.

    • carolina
      11/29/2010 at 8:43 PM

      Well, not anything he’d report on his taxes, anyway.

  2. Rick
    11/29/2010 at 3:27 PM

    What difference would it make if Ward or his lawyer constantly repeat “I’m instructing Mr. Ward not to answer that question so as to preserve his fifth-amendment privilege”, or “I will not answer that question so as to preserve my fifth-amendment privilege.” As a non-jurist I see this as nothing more than money wasting delay tactics. Can someone explain to me why this is important as to who speaks?


    • Bill Orange
      11/29/2010 at 3:37 PM

      As another non-lawyer, I would say that there’s a big difference between what you do yourself and what your lawyer does on your behalf. And his lawyer really isn’t doing anything, when you take a hard look at it. I’ll let the lawyers do the lawyering, but my guess would be that it boils down to this: If you invoke your fifth amendment rights, it can be held against you in a civil trial.

      In this situation, Ward is NOT invoking his fifth amendment rights. Furthermore, his lawyer is NOT invoking Ward’s rights on his (Ward’s) behalf. He’s merely ADVISING Ward not to answer, and Ward is just sitting there, presumably with a look on his face that says, “Aw, shucks. I really wish I could help y’all out, but my lawyer just won’t let me.”

      • Hoya Loya
        11/29/2010 at 3:51 PM

        You’ve got it Bill O. This is clearly an attempt to avoid an adverse inference charge to the jury by not having Dylan actually invoke his rights.

        The plaintiffs are seeking a court order that Dylan must either answer the question or indicate that he is invoking the Fifth in accordance with advice of counsel, not just sit there. I wonder what strategy the defense will follow next if such an order issues.

        I particularly like this exchange — reading it one can feel the tension in that conference room:
        “You think there is a Fifth Amendment issue potentially about who he lives with?”
        “Do you have another question for Mr. Ward?”
        “I’ve got a lot. I’m going to ask all of them. I’d like to hear from him at some point.”

        • AnnaZed
          11/29/2010 at 4:16 PM

          Oh, that crafty little Dyl; the silence of the wee lamb must be giving Spagnoletti fits. Who can blame him. I too can sense the scarcely suppressed outrage. Simultaneously, I would imagine that on Dylan Ward’s lips butter simply won’t melt, maybe not even Crisco.

          • dieter
            11/29/2010 at 5:54 PM

            I imagine there will be a large “audibilization” when the knot in Razi’s paisley silk panties unwinds. That boy done got taken for a ride by the former AG of DC, who — unlike Mr. Wet-Look Modern Madman cum Grease Extra Esq.– knows “the subtleties of this,” as the judge put it. While the Judge and Spagman were cooking, Razi Raccoon was stewing.

            • Bruce
              11/29/2010 at 6:19 PM

              Decoder ring, please.

            • Clio
              11/29/2010 at 9:22 PM

              PapaRazi wears paisley silk panties? Who knew!

              Yet, somehow I don’t think that Ben was sweating this particular legal scherzo for Mr. Ward as schlimazel. Indeed, his counterpart Spag must have been just literally — going through the motions — for his habitually saturnine client. Next!

              What does Spag really think of Dyl? I guess we’ll have to wait until the former AG’s papers are deposited at the National Archives. Sigh!

            • 11/30/2010 at 7:55 PM

              be careful D–people may say if he knows what his panties look like , he must have been down there sniffing. Razi came off well and S looked unprepared since he knew what his strategy was going into the depo was to have Dy not actually answer, he should have brought cases that day to argue to the judge but there are billable hours to collect on-imho

        • Bruce
          11/29/2010 at 4:46 PM

          Good question from Rick and great responses all. I do think that Covington is doing the right and appropriate thing as to this and is being appropriately very careful.

          In my view, everyone, including the judge, is likely looking at this whole 5th Amendment business as something that is likely going to go up on appeal at some point.

          No one wants an appellate court to go off course because of a technicality or a proper legal procedure not being followed in the lower court.

          In my view, it is kind of silly and obstructive for the defense counsel here to not allow Ward to say that he himself is taking the 5th.

          I don’t see how it can prejudice Ward in any way, and it puts Covington into a legal quandry, but rightfully having the judge rule on the issue before proceeding any further with any depositions.

          The fact that the defense attorney is not allowing Ward to say he himself is taking the 5th raises a big high flying red flag to me. What are defense counsel thinking they are getting away with here, particularly when there is no prejudice to Ward to say the words, except that it will be crystal clear that he is himself invoking the 5th? Are they trying to play Covington as fools?

          Knock knock, Kiki. Would love your thoughts on this from a criminal defense attorney’s perspective when 5th amendment rights are evoked in criminal depositions.

          Rick, I can see how you see this as a “money wasting delay tactic,” and the defense’s position does seem sort of stupid and time wasting to me also. I don’t put any “fault” on Covington for this current 5th issue. But, there are mine fields out there, especially as to how an appellate court might interpret these legalities, and I do commend Covington here for their posture.

          Hiya Hoya: I know that non-lawyers may get no kick out of it, but I was excited that we were actually going to see a deposition here, even in such a limited way. That may not happen often here.

          Loved the (limited) give and take between the attorneys, everyone acting very professional while you know some people were simmering in that room. There have been a number of times that I have been in deps where the judge has been called.

          It is interesting also to see how the judge here comes off also. Only took her a moment to focus on the real issues, refining them and coming to a solid solution for a hearing where she can consider all arguments and authority. I like her!

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            11/29/2010 at 6:48 PM

            Bruce says: “I know that non-lawyers may get no kick out of it, but I was excited that we were actually going to see a deposition here, even in such a limited way…”

            Are you kidding? LOL It’s the only thing I’ve really looked forward to. The motions are a little “legalize” to really get into (although I do enjoy the discussions amongst the legal eagles on board.

            • Bea
              11/29/2010 at 7:38 PM

              The only way we’ll get to read depo transcripts is if they’re exhibits to Motions, so in a way we should be glad for the quibbling and bickering. Of course, I’m hoping we’ll be offered copies of the transcripts (but I’m not holding my breath).

              • Craig
                11/29/2010 at 7:48 PM

                In the remaining two depos to come, we know what the defendants’ answers will be, but what’s to stop Cov from just making the sets of questions public after the fact, even if they’re not attached as exhibits?

                Might that run afoul of the protective order or could Cov release at will, since there’s no personal information or embarrassing material included?

                • Bea
                  11/29/2010 at 8:59 PM

                  Good question – in the OJ trial the depo transcripts were released to the media by the Goldman family as soon as received. I think the defendants here would have to argue that the REDACTED depo transcripts (blacking out address, social, or any specific personal/confidential info) are somehow afoul of the order – I think they’d have to argue that it’s “embarrassing” in such a way that protective orders are meant to protect against – I think Plaintiffs win that argument IF they wish to distribute the transcripts to the press.

      • Bruce
        11/29/2010 at 6:03 PM

        Bill O:

        As Hoya says, “You’ve got it.”

        Add a few legal decisions to your argument, and you have just about everything Covington needs to brief the judge.

        The judge could just take your last paragraph in your post as her order and add at the end:

        “Ward and all defendants/witnesses taking the 5th are ordered to personally state on the record that they are taking the 5th each and every time they do so. No exceptions tolerated.”

        Ever considered going to law school?

      • Liam
        11/30/2010 at 2:53 AM

        “I’m instructing Mr. Ward not to answer that question so as to preserve his fifth-amendment privilege.”

        Question: If Ward answers a question during deposition, can he later take the Fifth regarding the same or similar type question asked at trial? I ask because his lawyer uses the language “preserve his fifth amendment privilege”. In other words, by answering would Ward somehow “not preserve” that right.

        In any event, it certainly does not seem to be a sound strategy to answer questions at the deposition, and then later take the fifth at trial regarding the same questions.

        • Bruce
          11/30/2010 at 10:51 AM

          Hi Liam:

          Yes, you hit on it, I think, Liam.

          By the simple act of answering a question under oath at a deposition, Ward would be deemed to have WAIVED (a legal term, meaning: due to your actions or inactions, you can no longer claim…) any 5th Amendment privilege as to that question or answer at trial or for any other purpose thereafter in the case.

          Once you say it under oath in a case, you can’t later claim privilege as to it, because the legal principle of waiver comes to the front and cuts you off, upon objection of the other side.

          This is really why, in my opinion, there was so much fuss at Ward’s dep.

          Ward’s attorney goals including making sure that Ward not waive anything. Sugar on the top, and another goal, is for Ward to not really say anything substantive at the dep. that can be used against him later at trial or in a motion.

          So far, in viewing the deposition transcript, Ward’s attorney seems quite successful on fulfilling both those goals, but I do have the opinion that the judge will cut off these “fun and games” of the defense counsel as to both goals, after the hearing on the subject.

          If Ward himself does not raise the 5th, but his attorney simply talks for him, the defense will likely argue (and they may be right!)that Ward has waived nothing in his dep, and he didn’t even raise the 5th (since he didn’t do it personally)because Ward did not say a word, so this dep of Ward is just a USELESS EXERCISE of unanswered questions for any purpose.

          At least that is how I am looking at it. That strategy of the defense is now going to be stopped, in my opinion, by an order of the court forcing Ward to himself personally claim the 5th Amendment, and otherwise answer all questions posed to him at the dep. when it reconvenes.

          Since Ward is not an attorney, and probably even if he was, the court will likely allow his attorneys to first object to any question on the basis of the 5th, prompting Ward to just mouth the words.

          Seems like kind of a small point of procedure, but Covington is very smart to get a court ruling to stop these fulfillment of the two goals I mentioned above by the defense.

          My guess is that Ward does not really have much of a clue about what is going on.

          He is likely just strictly following his attorney’s words and instructions. These fine points of legal privilege and waiver are not really in his world of massage, cooking, book writing, and whatever.

          All the above are just my opinions.

          • Craig
            11/30/2010 at 11:21 AM

            We should be able to post the defense’s opposition to the motion to compel by the end of week. That will certainly inform what next Wednesday’s arguments will look like.

            • Bruce
              11/30/2010 at 12:59 PM

              Hi Craig:

              It will be fun to see how the defense explains, and tries to justify, its performance at Ward’s dep.


              Would like to see any case law that supports them.

              “Well, you see, judge, we were just trying to get away with something that would be in the best interest of our client, although we knew better, and also we thought we could make fools of Covington….we took bets on whether they would really challenge us on this point of procedure as to who can claim the 5th, attny or client, and you know, darn it, we just might have won our bet. But, well, as you can see, we didn’t.”

              • Cara
                11/30/2010 at 8:04 PM

                Am I naive to believe that the lawyers on the defense side of this case are not playing games, but instead trying to leverage the best ideas that they have in order to defend their clients?

                Also, I would like to know if there is some standard by which the “may incriminate” portion of the privilege is judged. Is there a legal provision by which that can be analyzed and ruled upon? In other words, is there some process by which someone can say, “No, it wouldn’t incriminate you to answer that question.”?

                • Bruce
                  11/30/2010 at 8:59 PM

                  Hi Cara:

                  Is there room to opine that the defense counsel are “trying to leverage the best ideas that they have in order to defend their clients”….

                  and also opine, at the same time, that the defense counsel are playing “fun and games” as to the issues raised in Ward’s dep?

                  That is where I am, I think.

                  The “fun” was trying to see if they could fool Covington’s counsel into going along with their strategy on the 5th Amendment issue at the dep.

                  The “games” was trying something that they likely knew was not the correct 5th Amendment privilege procedure at a dep., but trying to get away with it anyway.

                  And the “trying to leverage the best ideas….” I think also fits…since their strategy on the 5th at the Ward dep could have made the entire deposition useless as a weapon against their client, if their strategy had worked.

                  Again, I look forward eagerly to see how the defense justify their position at the dep on the 5th Amendment issue and who can raise it, before the judge (I would not particularly want to be the associate appointed to the challenge of writing the defense brief, but the judge mercifully said she wanted it short and sweet).

                  Nothing here is unethical that I can see, in my opinion.

                  And I think we have to give some kudos to the defense team for really trying to do their best to ultimately protect their client, Ward.

  3. Bea
    11/29/2010 at 5:28 PM

    Agree with Bill O and Hoya – and glad that Covington called them on that little ruse.

    There will be many battles on the issue of the 5th – this is but the first. Next will be whether one can claim the 5th on all questions (who one lives with?), and once that is parsed down to genuine concerns, then identifying/establishing the propriety of such claims. And all of the questions for which the defendants (and other witnesses) claim the 5th will be on very large boards for the jury so that the Plaintiff can say: “and you may assume that to answer this question would have been adverse to Mr. Ward/Price/Zaborsky/MPrice’s interest, so let’s read it again, shall we? Did you stab Robert Wone to death?”

    • Bill Orange
      11/29/2010 at 5:47 PM

      Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I thought that the refusal to answer the who-do-you-live-with question could’ve been a legitimate 5th Amendment claim. There’s been quite a bit of speculation as to whether or not Dylan is/was some sort of high-class prostitute. I would guess that the nature of his relationship with anyone he happens to be living with may well be an issue upon which he could hang a legitimate 5th Amendment invocation.

      I wonder if Covington didn’t know this at the outset; it’s a bit of an unusual question to ask in the first place, don’t you think? Lawyers, do you typically ask this at a deposition? I can see asking someone for their name, address, phone number, employment history, etc., but the who-do-you-live with question was asked–twice–immediately after Ward refused to answer the question about Robert Wone’s death. It seemed a bit odd to me.

      • Bea
        11/29/2010 at 5:56 PM

        Actually I think it could well be standard for a guy with no known address, especially if he either lives with his parents or with someone who pays his bills. Maybe it would come later in the deposition, but this is all ‘fair game’ in a deposition. If he really thinks the answer to that question will incriminate him, he can do so – but it would have to have a direct link, say that he sells his prostitution services to the home owner such that it’s an illegal act, but rarely is that the case (even most ‘sugar daddy’ living arrangements are not ILLEGAL).

        • Bruce
          11/29/2010 at 6:16 PM

          Bill O:

          Not unusual at all to ask that question as background information of a deponent. I have asked it hundreds of times, heard others ask it in depositions even more.

          Usually you get “the wife and two kids” as an answer, but a lot of people live with roommates, by themselves, etc. It could lead to relevant evidence because the person one lives with might be a witness to some of the issues involved in the case, especially as to claimed damages.

          You can bet that the defense counsel will ask it of Mrs. Wone, as they want to get info as to whether she has remarried or is dating or living with anyone, which, unfortunately, in most wrongful death cases I am familiar with, is an accepted area of inquiry going to damages.

          There is a limit to how personal the questions can get sometimes, even in this case, but I think 90% or more of judges where I practice would order someone to answer the “who do you live with” question in just about any situation.

    • carolina
      11/29/2010 at 8:51 PM

      What happens if the judge says “with whom do you live” is a question they must answer, and Dyl still refuses? Can she toss his sweet little ass in jail for contempt?

      • Bea
        11/29/2010 at 9:02 PM

        If ordered to answer, and if the Judge finds there to be no privilege (down the road, I’m afraid as it is not directly a question for the upcoming hearing – or so I understand it, except whether Dyl has to claim the 5th or if his atty can do it for him), then he could be cited for contempt – many opportunities would be given before jail would be in play (likely if directly ordered to answer and he didn’t, he’d be fined and then expected to comply – that could go on a while).

        • Bruce
          11/29/2010 at 9:33 PM


          I don’t think jail is the answer in a civil case like this for that type of contempt of court.

          A short jail stay might be proper for contempt of court if Ward or someone started swearing at the judge, or doing something really disrespectful in a “personal way” in the courtroom.

          But, I think that it is more likely that if the Swann 3 as a group failed to adhere to a clear and important order of the court regarding the 5th Amendment, that the judge could find them in contempt of court and HURT severely their defenses in the case as a sanction.

          We have discussed this before, a couple months ago, and several of us thought that if the Swann 3 did not follow the judge’s orders on the 5th Amendment issues, that she could deem that the proper sanction is a default judgment against the defendants, with a trial only to determine the proper damages to Mrs. Wone.

          Of course, if she did so, her decision would likely be appealed. All things can lead to appellate court review in this case, in my view.

          But the judge is not going to do something drastic like that without a lot of warning about it, in my opinion, and giving opportunities for the order defiers to come around to her way of thinking.

          But there is precedent (maybe not in DC) for her entering a drastic sanction such as a default judgment, if the defendants don’t follow the rules and orders of the trial court.

          • Rich
            11/29/2010 at 10:40 PM

            At DC Superior Court, when Contempt is played out or threatened, The judges on this bench often use 24-48 hours in custody just to prove a point or get someone’s attention.

  4. Clio
    11/29/2010 at 8:53 PM

    I am heartened to find out that Dyl is once again becoming a scholar of some sort. Will his next chapbook be called “Margarine Lips and the Errant Fox: A Cautionary Fairy Tale for Young Adults?” Will that story have the obligatory “happy ending?”

    More questions arise. With whom does Mr. Ward live? Do most “unemployed” people go for weekends in Orlando, as Dyl did earlier in November (right before he was deposed?) How much do those expensive balms and creams (as advertised on Masseurfinder) cut into Dyl’s profits as bodyworker?

    Spag as mouthpiece: that’s probably way better than having Joe or Needham speak for oneself, but it still underscores Dyl’s naturally dependent nature. He’ll apparently never be an alpha male!!

    • carolina
      11/29/2010 at 10:52 PM

      Oh darling, we love you.

  5. susan
    11/29/2010 at 10:20 PM

    Another question: Could the Spag’s actions have been a strategy to buy time? To increas billable hours?

    It’s interesting that JP glares at DW and VZ at their house the night of RW’s murder there and DW became mute as he did here.

    Another observation: I am reminded now and again of the varying descriptions of Dylan Ward given by JP and VZ. At the police station, VZ describes Ward as the sweetest person (that might be a direct quote) and kind. JP describes him as badass, scary, etc. I know most of us have many dimensions, but it’s interesting as they sometimes described themselves as a trouple, etc. and lived in the same house. It’s interesting.

  6. Bill Orange
    11/30/2010 at 9:23 AM

    Still waiting for KiKi’s take on all of this. As a legal strategy, I really don’t understand it. As the judge herself noted, this should be settled law. I understand that they need to preserve this for appeal, but at some point, these maneuvers become so absurd that they’re just wasting the judge’s time.

    And the the issue of the statute of limitations still hasn’t been decided yet, either, which makes this even more of a head-scratcher to me. I just don’t understand why the defense didn’t find a way to postpone stunts like this under after that had been decided.

  7. Michael
    11/30/2010 at 1:18 PM

    I wish I could work very part time. =(

    • Cara
      11/30/2010 at 8:08 PM

      Michael, gotta tell you: the hours rule, the pay sucks 🙂

    • Bruce
      11/30/2010 at 9:12 PM


      I understand there may be a need for a very part-time masseuse in Florida 🙂

      • Clio
        11/30/2010 at 10:03 PM

        Yet, gentlemen, given the current state of our public schools, there may be an even greater need for an author of educational materials in the Sunshine State. Reducing both stress (via the release of massage) and ignorance (via the morals of universal fables) can only be to the good of the commonweal. So, why then is Mr. Ward “unemployed?”

        • She did it
          12/04/2010 at 9:31 AM

          The talented Clio ponders, “[s]o, why then is Mr. Ward ‘unemployed?'”

          I am pretty sure I do not have a definitive answer Clio, but my heart has offered me a possible explanation.

          When a girl takes a wiki-leaks sized dump all over her proverbial bed of life, chronic unemployment may become an issue. Combine this possibility with mood altering medications that Mr. Ward may have been on at one time (per Mr. Price), and I wonder if Mr. Ward has the tools, confidence and demeanor to function in modern corporate. More questions than answers. . .

          • Clio
            12/04/2010 at 12:16 PM

            Thanks, SDI, for attempting to unravel the ball of matted string that may be Mr. Ward. I do not think that anyone ever envisioned Lil Dyl working for a big business, let alone for the postal service, but one would hope that he would show more sustained interest in people and places than he has been doing. Plenty of people with (alleged) drug and mental issues hold full-time jobs: why not our own “Margarine Lips?”

            How hard is it to find an elderly male patron, or an elderly male couple as patrons, in southern Florida? Could Dyl’s issues of focus be an obstacle in entering one of those common (in every sense of that word) and arranged relationships? And, is it that lack of a current “sugar daddy,” outside of his biological parents, that is the root cause of his underemployment?

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              12/04/2010 at 12:45 PM

              Not to mention the trio’s chorus of supporters who sing their praises. You would think one of them would offer some form of worthy employment to Silly Dilly.

    • susan
      11/30/2010 at 11:02 PM

      That was funny, Michael! I hear ya!

      The thing is, Cara, some people seem to be able to work “very part time” and suffer no great financial hardship. Maybe they can cater to their wanderlust and travel to another country to take some courses, or change course for another career. Or have their BF secure a nice paid gig for them, or have their family provide a fallback cushion. It’s possible, too, that for some people working “very part time” is a full time trend.

  8. KiKi
    12/02/2010 at 3:40 PM

    Sorry, that I have been absent for a while. I was monitoring a trial of one of our young lawyers and then it took me awhile to get up to speed on the motions and comments.

    As far as who can take the 5th:
    It is my view, based on some recent supreme court case law, (Google Montejo v. LA), that while the attorney can advise the court, or opposing counsel that her client is pleading the fifth, the only person who can specifically assert this right is the defendant. I actually wrote a law review article on the 5th amendment and silence years ago, and the bottom line is that while it is an important right and a right that all defendants have, it is also a right that has had severe limitations imposed onto it by the Supreme Court.

    In practice, I have often alerted the court that my client has elected to assert his right to remain silent, and as required by law, the court will then ask my client if this is true. The situation we have in front of us is at a different posture as there is no judge and it is simply a deposition. Which, I think does make a difference, legally, counsel’s assertion of the 5th amendment right is likely sufficient. And practically, it makes sense to me that an attorney would assert that right for the defendant at this stage. I have had far too many clients who were simply asked a yes/no question who went on a 15 minute tangent about why the victim was this or that, or the jail food was so bad, or whatever.

    The point is that once your client starts talking it is often hard to stop them. It is much easier to say to your client “please just keep your mouth shut.” For example:
    Plaintiff’s Atty: D, Did you Murder Robert Wone?
    Defendant: I plead the 5th.
    Plainiff’s Atty: So are you pleading the 5th because you believe the answer will set you up for criminal sanctions?
    Defewndant: No, I plead the 5th bc you are an ugly, nymph and I want to stab you.
    Defense Attorney: Please stop talking, where is my valium?

    So while I can understand the reasoning behind an attorney telling the client to keep quiet at the depo, what gets me is why fight it this hard. I agree with everyone else that there has to be something more to it. So what is it?

    I like Hoya’s point. I think it is especially important because of the “people don’t plead the 5th unless they are guilty comment.” So let’s say the judge agrees to give an adverse inference instruction. The defense cannot come out in closing arguments and say to the jury “he took the fifth because I told him to.” As a statement like that could open an entire confidential communication can of worms. So in, what I think is brilliant strategy, the defense asserts the defendant’s 5th amendment rights, not so they can later come back and say that the defendants did not assert those rights, but to place a subtle hint there for the jury.

    So when the jury is deliberating, and one of the jurors says “well I think they are guilty because they didn’t answer the questions.” Another juror could come back and say “well actually, their attorney said they weren’t going to answer the question, maybe they were just following their attorney’s advice.” Maybe I’m still in the over analyzing jurors thoughts phase of this most recent trial. But, I cannot think of a legal reason for this maneuver, so I can only think it is a strategic decision. These lawyers are not going to waste billables over something that just doesn’t matter.

  9. Rich
    12/03/2010 at 9:06 PM

    Never said, “supported,” earlier.

    “work with,” is far more direct,

    Folks like you cannot even conceive of the kind of work involved when managing celebrities of this magnitude. Way more than a/p. However, you cannot even imagine the A/R involved.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      12/03/2010 at 11:54 PM

      Rich says: “Folks like you..”

      You’re funny, Rich. LOL You know nothing about anyone on this website.

      • Rich
        12/04/2010 at 12:01 AM

        Oh, you’re mistaken. I read the posts.

        They are all very telling.

        I speak in, “Meaningful Specifics,” NOT Speculation.

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist here, to know a lot. 🙂

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          12/04/2010 at 12:10 AM

          If you say so, Rich.

          All I can do is laugh.

          and roll my eyes.

          • Rich
            12/04/2010 at 12:18 AM


            I am.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      12/03/2010 at 11:57 PM

      And, actually, you DID say support……

      “I support him on his cases” is exactly what you said. 😀

      • Rich
        12/04/2010 at 12:07 AM

        I thought I said, “I work with a….”

        As for A/P, I have a CPA for that. I do not use clerks. Too much money involved.

        These cases generate in upwards of $1M per matter.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          12/04/2010 at 12:37 PM

          You thought is in accurate…..go back and read your post. I copies and pasted your use of “support” directly from your post. Admit when you are wrong, dear.

          Re “the cases generate in upwards of $1M per matter”….so? “I work with a” lawfirm that has multi-million dollar clients, as well. Politicians, celebrities, corporations, entrepeneurs, etc. It’s not unusual and it’s not impressive. It’s status quo for successful law firms. That’s what they do. Especially in DC. Dime a dozen.

          • Rich
            12/04/2010 at 2:55 PM

            You Betcha!

            That s what I do with a successful law firm handling celebrity clients.

            A Dime a dozen.

            So, since you seem to know A/P, is that what you do?

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              12/04/2010 at 3:32 PM


Comments are closed.