Mitt Romney -- Judge UNSEALS Docs, Allred Gets Shut Down

[highplainsdem]

Source: TMZ

Mitt Romney's testimony in his friend's divorce case -- in which he's accused of lying under oath to screw over his friend's ex-wife -- will be unsealed today and released to the Boston Globe ... the judge has ruled.

As we first reported, Mitt testified in the divorce of Staples' founder Tom Stemberg -- and Tom's ex-wife Maureen claims Mitt lied under oath, falsely undervaluing Staples' stock in order to shaft her in the divorce.

Mitt's people have already said the Presidential hopeful doesn't care if the testimony is released -- he has nothing to hide.

Things didn't fare so well for Gloria Allred -- her request to ungag her client was shut down by the hot judge ... because Gloria never submitted an official motion to the court.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-divorce-testimony/

---

Edited subject line to remove the word "LIVE" after TMZ removed it from their headline.

[mac56]

1. Good. Let's see what they say.

I believe Allred knew her request would be rejected. That's not as important as the transcripts IMO.

[formercia]

2. That will come later

Meantime, her client can tell Faux Snooze to go pound sand.

[JDPriestly]

41. Meanwhile, her client will probably get a decent settlement.

Gloria Allred is representing her client, and in my opinion, she is representing her client very well.

The goal is not to embarrass Romney (although if that happens, well . . . . . ). The goal is to get help for Allred's client. Leaving her client under a gag order for the moment is a great move for everyone concerned in my view.

[naaman fletcher]

57. She has no chance

Of getting anything for this woman in a 20 year old case.

[Texin]

19. Actually, whether she did or didn't know if the Judge would lift her client's gag order

perhaps it was for the best. I can already see people like Stemberg and his pal Mittens just accusing Maureen of sour grapes. I can see every talking head on tv dittoing that sentiment as well.

The trial transcripts can be pored over by staffers at the various news organizations, and whatever they find from their mining expedition can headline their news. I can already see Maddow getting busy now.

Whether this will have any effect on the race is anybody's guess. If I had to guess, I'd say it doesn't really have that much impact but to simply reinforce the belief that (most) people- who, if they were really honest with themselves - would state that they think $rmoney is a lying, untrustworthy douche. It'll be interesting to see whether his deflation of the Stapes value in the trial testimony would rise to a level of securities fraud - since he and his pal Tom Stemberg took that company public about six months following the divorce trial.

[KansDem]

3. Mitt: "...doesn't care...he has nothing to hide."

Uh...1040s, anyone?

[wordpix]

4. here's hoping the IRS takes note - my hunch is R$ is hiding a co's net worth to benefit himself, not

just hubbie.

Or was hubbie a client giving R$ a kickback?

[slackmaster]

5. I am grievously disappointed in the conspicuous lack of pics of the "hot judge"

[TreasonousBastard]

10. I do want to know more about that myself.

[slackmaster]

12. I kind of skimmed the article, but I didn't notice even the GENDER of the judge being mentioned

So, is the judge a hot man or a hot woman?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[onenote]

14. Jennifer Ulwick

Appointed to current position by Deval Patrick. She graduated law school in 1994 (which means she's probably in her early 40s). Blonde hair.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Awww... c'mon. Attractive enough but...

TMZ is losing it. I would expect a truly hot judge worth mentioning to wear robes more like the witch's costumes sold online.

(Or maybe she is...)

[progressivebydesign]

43. Hot? She looks like Greta in her early days, before the surgery.

Nice enough looking woman, but "hot" that's just weird.

[WCGreen]

52. Her jaw isn't jutting out like a pugilist

[Hepburn]

6. I am from the L.A. area...

...I am a retired atty.

I have tried cases where GA was involved and was appearing on the case.

Have to tell ya' -- she is great at making a name for herself and making money.

But...she is shit in a courtroom. Clueless...totally clueless. To not file that Mx is a new admittee mistake.

JMHO

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I always wondered how well she did for her clients...

as opposed to doing well for herself.

[OkieGranny]

15. Yep, real boneheaded move

not to file the motion. The client wants her voice to be heard and got nowhere. Probably would have been better off with a local attorney.

[broadcaster75201]

18. Retired CA atty as well.

I'm in L.A. What this poster says is 100% true. She is utterly useless.

[Hepburn]

58. I will NEVER forget making an objection in case where GA was on the other side...

...EV 352. Judge sustained it...and GA had NO clue what that objection meant and asked me after the hearing outside the courtroom what that "little" objection meant. Unbelievable. I was basically the new admittee at that time and she was "supposedly" a seasoned veteran. So the press is outside and I am dark haired and was wearing a bright red suit and some a-hole asked me if I was GA...I answered, "No, I know what I am doing in a courtroom."

PS: Gloria often wears red and has dark hair. Facially, we sorta look alike -- however, I am at least half a foot taller than her. Maybe more.

PSS: A 352 objection means "More prejudicial than probative."

The PS's are for those who are not familiar with GA or the Cal Ev Code.

Broadcaster, glad to have you back me up -- some people think that because her mug is all over the TV that she is some courtroom whiz.

[progressoid]

23. I'm NOT an atty and even I thought that was bad.

Jeez. At least hire a good assistant.

[nichomachus]

24. GA is to the legal profession

what Dr. Phil is to mental health

[formercia]

35. Perhaps Aldred didn't want her client un-gagged

This will give the pundits time to go over the transcript and for the Internet Court to pass judgment, without subjecting her client to a barrage of questions from the Press.

She's just protecting her client.

[onenote]

36. If that was the case, why ask to have it ungagged?

[ThomThom]

61. because we want the dirt on Mitt

the client probably doesn't want to deal with morning joe and the view and all the media dysfunction

[Hepburn]

62. Exactly....so the "no comment" still works.

Forgetting to file to lift the gag order -- IMO, a mistake and leaves the control with the court and not in the lawyer's hands.

[JDPriestly]

42. Strategic in my view. Whether her client stays silent depends on the judge

. . . and on what kind of settlement offer the client gets. Not clueless. Not clueless at all. Shrewd in my book.

[Hepburn]

59. Not really...

... a judge can lift a gag order and the atty can still advise the client it is in his/her best interests to STFU. What appears on the surface of a case some times is not what it really is all about.

Most attys, including myself, would say what GA did was at the level of a new admittee fuck up. I have been in a courtroom enough to understand that it really was a mistake on GA's part. However, you could be correct. I just don't think it is a good move to miss filing a mx. As I see it...if the gag order was lifted, then GA had the option of either speaking about the case or not speaking. The way it went down, it tied GA's hands and her client's hands and left control with the court. As a lawyer, you ALWAYS want total control over anything and everything.

JMHO

[JohnnyRingo]

56. Is it possible that she did it on purpose?

It could give time for an offer to settle quickly out of court.

Certainly that would benefit both sides, and the Romney factor could up the ante. I'm no lawyer, just guessing.

[Hepburn]

60. See above...

...IMO, she left control with the court and gave up the option (and possible threat) of speaking out and having her client speak out.

JMHO

[CarmanK]

7. Gloria cant speak out. But the GLOBE has the record and comparison with stock records of time.

With the records public, it is very possible that Romney is guilty of perjury. If the stock price on the day Romney testified and the days that follow do not cooberate his story, then he is screwed.

[slackmaster]

8. But if the stock prices DO corroborate Romney's story...

...this event will be viewed as a failed media circus at best.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Question ...

Wasn't this testimony given at the time of, or just prior to, Staples being taken public? If so, then romney may very well have a stock fraud problem.

My google will be busy tonight.

Anyone know the date of the dispositions and testimony? Anyone know when Staples was taken public?

[JDPriestly]

44. If there is a contradiction between Romney's testimony in court and the papers

he filed and possibly signed in the stock offering, he could have a real problem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Yup ...

The proverbial: "Were you lying then; or are you lying now" thing ... if anyone in the media, or law enforcement would care to ask the question.

Personal, I hope that the valuation supports romney testimony exactly ... perjury is a misdemeanor; whereas, stock fraud is a felony.

[leftyohiolib]

21. worth the risk but if that were the case one would think there would be no reason to keep

it sealed

[highplainsdem]

16. Staples hadn't gone public yet. And Romney reportedly said in court that it could go bankrupt at

any time and that its stock was overvalued at a $2 estimate. This wasn't long before the company went public and its stock soared to $19 a share.

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/25/staples-value-may-be-issue-in-romneys-testimony/

Two people familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality agreement say Sullivan Stemberg believes that Romney understated the future value of Staples, which could have lowered the settlement Stemberg paid. At the time, Romney was a leader at Bain Capital, a major early investor in Staples, and a member of the Staples board.

Romney told the divorce trial judge he believed the office supply company could go bankrupt at any time and the company’s stock, then estimated at $2 a share, was over-valued, according to media accounts when Sullivan Stemberg appealed the divorce settlement.

A year after the settlement, Staples went public, and its stock value soared to $19 a share. Bain Capital turned a $2.5 million investment into a $13 million profit. Romney’s decision to back the firm helped cement his reputation as a savvy investor.

[highplainsdem]

22. Correction - a new Boston Globe story says this is about Romney's testimony after the divorce:

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/25/court-allows-testimony-mitt-romney-stemberg-divorce-case-unsealed/PYQi6CxYTGOKRhtahY83DI/story.html

CANTON, Mass. - Mitt Romney’s sworn testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit against Staples founder Tom Stemberg was unsealed today at Norfolk Probate and Family Court.

The suit was filed in 1990 by Stemberg’s ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, who sought to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and began trading at 10 times the stock value she had received in the divorce a year earlier.

Romney testified during the lawsuit in June 1991. The nature of his testimony was not immediately clear Thursday. The Globe filed a motion on Oct. 15 to unseal Romney’s testimony, which was impounded along with all other case files from the Stembergs’ 10-year legal battle.

[ryan_cats]

20. How can it be perjury?

How can it be perjury? I thought all he was asked was his opinion. On top of that, the judge should have had them bring in a neutral expert when he saw that the husband's expert was his friend.

At the time of Rmoney's testimony, wasn't Staples private and the stock was only options or had it gone through the IPO?

If Rmoney said the stock was worth less than it was, wouldn't that mean that the wife would get more stock or stock options?

If she didn't get an expert's opinion on the values of the stock and sold them too cheap, that's her fault.

[texasmomof3]

25. that is what I also understand

He was giving his opinion as an investor into Staples not as an expert on the future growth of the company. Is there even such a thing? Think about it? Is there anybody that can accurately pinpoint how far a stock will go? That is why investing is a gamble every single time because NOBODY knows. Look what happened to Facebook. People..."experts" had it selling at $130-$150 right out of the gate in their "expert opinion". Didn't happen. Had they said that in courtroom vs. MSNBC would that be perjury? No, they were just wrong.

Don't forget, she got 500,000 shares that went up as much as $15 per share. Had she held on she would have made $7.5 million. She chose to sell. Why? Romney wasn't her financial advisor. Who was? That would be like me being pissed that I sold my shares of xyz stock and then get mad that they went up at a later date. She is a bad investor or had bad advice from her financial advisor and that means that Romney did what wrong?

I just don't think this is the story that will put Romney out of the race. I don't think the fact that her rent is $5,200 a month is going to go far with those of us trying to hold on to our homes. Having a hard time feeling sorry for her other than I think she got used as a pawn.

[nichomachus]

26. He was considered an expert witness

If he said something -- even framing it as an "opinion" --that he knew to be false, then it's perjury.

[ryan_cats]

28. How would you prove he knew it was a lie, a psychic?

How would you prove he knew it was a lie, a psychic? If he devalued the stock, that means she received more stock. If the goal was to have her get as little stock as possible, Rmoney should have said Staples stock would be worth more than it was.

I just read that Staples didn't go public until two years later so Allred saying he profited a few weeks later is rather disingenuous.

This is going to be on the news cycle pushing real things like rmoney's yet to be released tax returns and a hundred other things he's done that are part of the record to the side.

[progressivebydesign]

45. I think the point is that you can't give testimony to something you'll benefit from later. nt

[JDPriestly]

46. If Romney signed a paper saying one thing about the company and offered that

to investors when presenting the IPO but around the same time made representations to others that conflicted with those in the IPO, or if he made some other similar multiple but very different representations at different times, say as to someone's interest in the company or role in the company or compensation, there could be a problem.

Remember, Allred's job is to get a good settlement offer if at all possible, for her client. Her job is not really political. She is trying to represent a client.

It is also possible that Romney testified as to something else, some off the wall answer to a question that wasn't all that important in the case but that contradicts something Romney is now claiming -- like his role in the purchase and management of Staples. Could be anything.

The essential is that Allred is focusing on her client's interests, not on embarrassing Romney for the sake of embarrassing Romney.

[ryan_cats]

50. If that is the case then.

"Remember, Allred's job is to get a good settlement offer if at all possible, for her client. Her job is not really political. She is trying to represent a client. "

"The essential is that Allred is focusing on her client's interests, not on embarrassing Romney for the sake of embarrassing Romney. "

If that is the case, then why did Allred mention the election and why does it have to be so soon? Allred is the worst type of ambulance chaser and if she doesn't get out of this what she wants which is publicity, she will drop her client.

[SlimJimmy]

48. Agreed, that's the problem. This "nothing" story is going to push more valubale fodder

off the front burner. Bad move in my opinion.

[uncle ray]

27. likewise, Rmoney can't make his case against what the record says.

or at least it will be very difficult.

[highplainsdem]

9. More details here, live-tweeted by a Boston Phoenix reporter, David Bernstein:

https://twitter.com/dbernstein

[littlemissmartypants]

29. Transcripts anyone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014278940

Explosion in manhole on Morrissey Boulevard temporarily knocks out power to Boston Globe

...

The bostonglobe.com and boston.com websites continued publishing through the blackout with the use of backup power.

A NSTAR representative said the cause of the explosion and resulting fire was under investigation. Power was restored just after 12:30 a.m. on Thursday.

The Globe was the only building on the road affected, Coan said.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. !

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

30. It's probably for the best - Gloria makes most folks cringe

and she could do more harm than good with this last-minute ploy
Don't give Willard the chance to play victim and get a sympathy vote.

[WinkyDink]

40. Speak for yourself.

[ChillZilla]

51. She makes me cringe

Seems to be nothing but a serial opportunist

[riverwalker]

32. I think the Globe was looking for something specific

I listened to Allred's press conference after the hearing, and she said she heard about the Globe's motion, and then decided to attach her client to it. So the Globe was after the transcripts FIRST, before Gloria got involved. It's even more interesting now, because it's more than just a scorned ex-wife getting screwed out of money, the Globe wouldn't bother with that.
There was something else they are on to.....hope they found it.

[Turborama]

33. Any news outlets other than TMZ and Boston Globe picking this up?

If not, it's got the potential of being a provincial news story that gets forgotten.

[Sedona]

34. The point is Rmoney was saying one thing in court and another

to the Securites and Exchange Commission while he was trying to take the Staples stock public.

Time will tell......

[onenote]

37. If this is a transcript of a hearing that occurred after the stock went public

how is that possible?

[Jim Lane]

54. A publicly traded company has continuing reporting obligations to the SEC and to the public.

Even after the initial public offering is completed, there's the danger of insider trading. One safeguard is that a publicly traded company must file a quarterly 10Q report and an even more detailed annual 10K report.

For example, suppose Romney testified that the stock was worth little because, among other reasons, there was a good chance that a particular supplier might go out of business or decide not to deal with Staples, which would put a major hurt on a significant segment of Staples's business. Meanwhile, in compiling the "Risk Factors" section of the 10K, the company, in a decision that Romney might have approved (depending on the nature of Bain's role at the time), was taking the position that the effect would be minimal and that this was therefore not a material risk that needed to be disclosed in the 10K.

Such a scenario is plausible. Romney would be in a position where, to achieve his objectives, he wants to say one thing to one audience (help his friend by telling the court that this risk is major), but he wants to say the opposite to a different audience (help the company look good by telling the SEC that the risk is minimal). We know how Romney reacts to that conflict -- whenever he can get away with it, and quite often even when he can't, he makes the inconsistent statements.

This all happened several years before Sarbanes-Oxley, which strengthened the disclosure rules and required top management to individually certify the accuracy of financial information. It would probably be very tough to get Romney on a perjury rap. The story could still have legs, though, because it would play to the widespread perception that Romney has little integrity and will say anything to get what he wants.

[JDPriestly]

47. Could be that they are not that interested in Romney's testimony but rather

in the documents that he presented to support his testimony. An expert opinion must be supported by all kinds of documents.

There could be some interest in claims that Romney made in order to be qualified as a witness, whether percipient (eye-witness sort of ) or expert.

[highplainsdem]

38. BuzzFeed has a story on part of the transcript, what Romney said about Staples.

I posted a topic in GD about both the BuzzFeed story and the 1986 video that disproves Romney's later testimony:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021631447

[WinkyDink]

39. "the hot judge"?

[Cherchez la Femme]

53. I thought Allred crossed her T's & dotted her I's

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:32 PM - Edit history (2)

Her client shut down, gag order still in place?

Yeah, I can smell the 'Fair & Balanced' side of the story hundreds of miles away... the court found for the husband, what's that gonna show as toward dirty dealings?

[lexw]

55. I think what's nuts here....

is that these skeletons keeping pouring out of the R$'s closet, but a lot of people are still voting for him!!!!! (insert more !)

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. Define "soar" - Staples didn't even hit $6 til 1996

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SPLS+Interactive#symbol=spls;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Sorry, but I think it would be difficult to prove anything in this case. Staples eventually did well, but it took quite a while. It was cases like Staples that made Bain turn away from venture capital to leveraged buyouts. Investing in new and small companies just took too long to get a good return on their investment.