Do we have any lawyers here?...

[one_voice]

This isn't for me...I'm not seeking legal advice. The right is using this against the woman that came out against Cain today..was wondering what it means...how to argue against...I hate that they're doing this...

Thanks in advance...

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAJ0MB0BFIICG0MD

edited to add: I don't think one has anything to do with the other ( debt/sexual harassment)but apparently this is one of the attacks and I won't sit by and let them smear this woman. I will defend her if I can.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hepburn]

2. What's the nexus?

So, someone sued her for a breach of contract? What the hell does that have to do with being sexually assaulted by Cain?

:shrug:

Sounds like they are quite desperate!

PS: I am a retired attorney.

[one_voice]

3. Thank you!...

I agree. I hate that they're digging like this to discredit her. Especially given Joe Walsh owes over 100,000 in child support and he just got a pro family award.

It doesn't have anything to do with being sexually assaulted, but I do feel the need to defend her.

[Rabblevox]

4. ps. I can tell you that "Ad Damnum" means literally "to the loss", and practically means "damages..

sought".

End of lesson.

[Hepburn]

5. I looked a bit more...

...the link you have is to the registrar of actions page of the Cook County Circuit Court.

What this appears to be is a collection action in which a writ was issued against her and then quashed. However, the actual documents cannot be viewed and this is my best guess.

Hope this helps...and again I say: So what to this...she may have had a dispute with a creditor and IMO there is nothing there that in any manner makes her less credible.

[one_voice]

6. Thanks n/t

[SunSeeker]

7. It's just a $3,548.58 collection judgment--it doesn't mean she lied!

For Pete's sake, the woman just got hit with a relatively small collection judgment. It does not mean she is lying about her encounter with Cain. If anything, it supports her account. She was unemployed. She asked Cain for help find a job. Cain didn't, he just mashed her head into his crotch. Having no job, one would imagine she had to let a few bills go unpaid. If the Right is suggesting she came forward for money, she did not. She turned down tabloid offers to tell her story. She came forward to defend her honor and that of the other three women who Cain is calling liars. She is a hero. Period.

[one_voice]

8. I'm not accusing her of lying...

I'm seeing this used as an attack on her! I don't like it and only wanted to defend her---

[SunSeeker]

12. I'm referring to the Right's argument, not you...

I know you're not accusing her of lying. I was basically restating what hepburn said. Bialek's judgment does not mean she is lying. And I do appreciate you posting that court link, one_voice. Thanks.

[Rabblevox]

9. It also doesn't mean she is telling the truth. She is a plaintiff, not a hero at this point...

I've seen no evidence, heard no corroboration. It doesn't mean I believe Mcain (he's an evil bastard that I would cut a nut off before voting for him)

BUT!!!. It doesn't mean I immediately believe the plaintiff, either.

[SunSeeker]

10. She's not a plaintiff, she's just a woman speaking out.

She isn't suing Cain.

[itsallhappening]

11. Look who her attorney was.

I think they're trying to say it's the same David Axelrod, and it's not. :)

[SunSeeker]

13. The Axelrod firm represented the suing lender, not Bialek

There was no lawyer representing Bialek listed on that court sheet, meaning she had no attorney or one never appeared in court. It looks like she just let it go to default judgment. Which means she never showed up. That makes sense if she did not contest the amount owed and did not want to waste money on an attorney. An attorney would have cost her hundreds of dollars and she probably would have still been hit with the same $3.5K judgment, except then she'd also have an attorney fee to pay.

[one_voice]

14. Yes that's exactly what they're saying...

they're saying! How do you know it's not the same one?