A discussion about ja, her DT, and the witnesses that were NOT called to take the stand.

• Commenter 1 If the DT read the law, the ABA code they are SUPPOSED to follow, they could be held reliable, sued, for slandering an innocent man by taking the word(without proof) of $kank(their client.) Actually, by them repeatedly questioning and leading $kank's testimony that was full of lies, they could possibly even be disbarred.

  
  
• Commenter 1 Here it is: Witnesses who are not the lawyer’s client
  In a civil or criminal trial, if the witness who intends to give false testimony is not the attorney’s client, the attorney is duty-bound not to call that witness. No matter how much the attorney’s client wants that person to testify, the lawyer can just say no.
  Witnesses who are criminal defendants
  But what happens when the witness is the defendant himself in a criminal case? In a criminal trial, defendants have the absolute right to testify, even over their attorney’s objections. Because a lawyer cannot stop a client from getting on the stand and lying, many lawyers will move to withdraw from the case. But judges will want to know why the attorney is making this request, and here is where the attorney faces a difficult choice. Divulging his client’s plans may amount to a violation of the attorney-client privilege; but if the attorney refuses to give a reason for his request to withdraw, the court may not grant it.
  In such a situation, the attorney may be required to call the client to the stand, knowing he or she will lie. If this happens, the attorney must simply allow the client to testify in narrative fashion and not ask questions or otherwise guide or direct the testimony (this is the ABA “model rule”). That way, the attorney avoids participating in the perjured testimony.

  
  
•  Commenter 1, Part one in the above I posted, means that Nurmi and Willmott chose not to call $kank's lying witnesses($kank didn't choose that. $kank wanted them to take the stand for her...as she wanted MM to, but Nurmi and Willmott refused to call him and $kank's other witnesses to the stand because they knew his/their testimony(ies) would be pure lies...and they could get into serious trouble by calling him/them to the stand). Part 2 of this explains why Nurmi had kept trying to remove himself from this case. Nurmi knew that $kank's testimony was full of lies. Nurmi nor Willmott could use the method that JM did towards his witness: "Remember what you told me." That would violate the attorney-client privilege. He knew that $kank could take the stand regardless of his opinion on that. Nurmi and Willmott did wrong when they asked $kank questions when they knew that she was lying on the stand...instead of just letting her ramble on. They did question(guide) $kank to continue to lie to the jury. I think what would have to happen is that JM or the Alexanders will have to get charges pressed on $kank for perjury and from there go after Nurmi and Willmott for their roles in aiding $kank to commit perjury.
•    Commenter 1, IMO, near the end of Geffner's testimony it must've FINALLY hit him that he was aiding in the      lies/perjury of the witnesses affidavits by the DT and he opted out...Hence saying he had no proof only the words of    $kank.
•   Name hidden to protect the person: She was the sex addict, not him. He ended it. She would not be ignored.
•   Commenter 1  True Name hidden to protect the person! A few nudes taken one day(the last day of TA's life taken  by $kank), ONE sexual phone message(recorded by $kank), possibly a few texts now and then over a period of  years, does not make TA a sex addict. One would have to take $kank's word(lies) to believe that TA was a sex addict.
• • Commenter 1  True Name hidden to protect the person! A few nudes taken one day(the last day of TA's life taken by $kank), ONE sexual phone message(recorded by $kank), possibly a few texts now and then over a period of years, does not make TA a sex addict. One would have to take $kank's word(lies) to believe that TA was a sex addict.