2nd hearing set on bid to unseal Romney testimony

[Katzndogz]

Romney isn't objecting to the release of his testimony. The court didn't single out Romney's testimony to be sealed but the whole divorce. It was sealed at the time which was over 20 years ago. Why bring it up now? Because obama is losing the election, that's why. Had Romney not be a successful candidate, no one would have ever brought up the Stemburg divorce.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Why would anyone object to the release of testimony they have given under oath?

they are SEALED for a reason..I don't care to hear all their stinking dirty laundry

The question is a simple one, why would anyone object to testimony they have given under oath being released? I can think of one reason only, they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth either under oath, or if they did, subsequent statements conflict with said testimony.

So we should not keep testimony private?


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tinydancer]

Romney characterized the Staples stock as "overvalued," adding, "I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future."

Partly as a result of Romney's testimony, Maureen got relatively little in the divorce, but we're told just weeks after the divorce ended, Romney and Tom went to Goldman Sachs and cashed in THEIR stock for a fortune. Short story -- Romney allegedly lied to help his friend and screw the friend's wife over.

And there's more ... Our sources say years later, Maureen, who suffered from MS and had multiple bouts with cancer, got a visit from one of Tom's guys, who gave her papers informing her that Tom was cancelling her health insurance. Our sources say the irony here is that we're told Tom was working as one of then Governor Mitt Romney's chief health care advisers.

LINK

If he characterized it as overvalued, wouldnt the wife then be entiled to more shares to match the monetary compesation the judge was seeking?

Do you people even read the crap you post?

She sold her shares before it went public 2 freaking years later. She fucked up.

Quite simple.

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney characterized the Staples stock as "overvalued," adding, "I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future."

Partly as a result of Romney's testimony, Maureen got relatively little in the divorce, but we're told just weeks after the divorce ended, Romney and Tom went to Goldman Sachs and cashed in THEIR stock for a fortune. Short story -- Romney allegedly lied to help his friend and screw the friend's wife over.

And there's more ... Our sources say years later, Maureen, who suffered from MS and had multiple bouts with cancer, got a visit from one of Tom's guys, who gave her papers informing her that Tom was cancelling her health insurance. Our sources say the irony here is that we're told Tom was working as one of then Governor Mitt Romney's chief health care advisers.

LINK

YEARS LATER Tom notified Maureen that her insurance was being cancelled. How many years? Normally a spouse is not obligated to provide life long insurance. It is given for a number of years. Then the spouse is supposed to have time to make their own arrangements. If you get sick during that time, it is an unfortunate turn of events but does not obligate a spouse to provide insurance or pay medical bills. That's the point of getting a divorce isn't it?

 

[tinydancer]

Check out this about the woman scorned. I really should do a thread just on her. She's one of "those" ex wives.

A 2005 Boston Globe article reported that Maureen received nearly 500,000 shares of Staples stock in the divorce, but sold half before the company went public, missing out on a huge windfall.

And while another Globe article the following year described her as living an comfortable lifestyle, she demanded that her ex-husband pay her more money.

She 'sits in her $5,200 a month, 14th-floor, concierge-at-the-door, elegantly furnished Back Bay apartment and tells you she’s broke,' it wrote. 'She can’t work. She can’t afford a car, her medications, her rent, even the family springer spaniel, J.J., who she just gave away.'

'I'm going to be out on the street,' she said. 'I've had a change of circumstances.'



Romney Stemberg papers: Romney 'testified in divorce of ex-Staples CEO that the company's stock was "overvalued" ¿ and his wife missed out on a windfall' | Mail Online

 

[tinydancer]

After this fails I'm waiting for Allred to have a seance on GMA with Seamus to see if he was abused.

 

[Katzndogz]

It doesn't matter who was telling the truth or when she sold her shares. It's about creating static to divert attention away from obama and the disaster that's brewing for him.

 

[martybegan]

Why would anyone object to the release of testimony they have given under oath?

they are SEALED for a reason..I don't care to hear all their stinking dirty laundry

The question is a simple one, why would anyone object to testimony they have given under oath being released? I can think of one reason only, they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth either under oath, or if they did, subsequent statements conflict with said testimony.

Or, its a personal matter between a former husband and wife, and its none of your fucking buisiness?

Btw, if trump comes out with some divorce paper crap, I will take the same position on it being none of our business. The only caveat would be if the Obama's denied the story offically before, and this proves them to be liars.

So far, has Romney ever made a statement about what he said in the case?

 

[jillian]

EarthLink - Political News

2nd hearing set on bid to unseal Romney testimony


CANTON, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts probate judge will hold another hearing Thursday before deciding whether to unseal testimony that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave in the divorce case of Staples founder Tom Stemberg.

Ex-wife Maureen Stemberg Sullivan appeared in court Wednesday with lawyer Gloria Allred. They said they didn't object to a Boston Globe motion to lift an impoundment order on Romney's testimony in the case from the early 1990s.

Attorneys for Romney and Staples asked the judge for more time to review two booklets of testimony.

Stemberg's attorney said he had only been able to review about 20 pages. Romney's attorney says he doesn't anticipate objecting but Romney would like time to review the entire transcript.

No one would say exactly what's in the testimony but it appeared to relate to financial issues.

Staples was founded with backing from Romney's firm, Bain Capital.

"Attorneys for Romney and Staples asked the judge for more time to review two booklets of testimony".


does anyone know what this may be about ???

why would Romney be giving testimony in a divorce suit ?

an October surprise ???

Because maybe they need time to review the testimony to see if there is any relevance for release to the press?

What is the puprose of this except to make Romney look bad?

Shouldnt the other party (the husband) have the right to contest the release of sealed information?

public records don't have to be "relevant" necessarily. to be sealed, there had to be some reason.

oh wait... i know.. .maybe mitt wasn't as good a boy as you think.

which is why he doesn't want the records opened til after election day.

review them, my butt.

and i'll bet there's a gag order

 

[PixieStix]

It is about Romney possibly perjuring himself on the stand denying Stapels stock had a certain value (saying it was undervalued) and this woman getting a lot less in her divorce settlement. Then the stock went public later and she lost millions due to her shares being undervalued. Romney was the vulture capitalist he's always been cheating people to make himself and his friends rich. I've also heard a rumor that there is "a child" custody thing involved also--some speculating it might be Mitt's. I doubt it but then again, anything is possible as we have seen over the years with infidelities.

You guys go this low, when we have, most possibly THE worst and most derisive and dishonest President currently in the People's house? Really? Talk about reaching

 

[PixieStix]

"Attorneys for Romney and Staples asked the judge for more time to review two booklets of testimony".


does anyone know what this may be about ???

why would Romney be giving testimony in a divorce suit ?

an October surprise ???

Because maybe they need time to review the testimony to see if there is any relevance for release to the press?

What is the puprose of this except to make Romney look bad?

Shouldnt the other party (the husband) have the right to contest the release of sealed information?

public records don't have to be "relevant" necessarily. to be sealed, there had to be some reason.

oh wait... i know.. .maybe mitt wasn't as good a boy as you think.

which is why he doesn't want the records opened til after election day.

review them, my butt.

and i'll bet there's a gag order

Could that also be said of someones college records?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why would anyone object to the release of testimony they have given under oath?

they are SEALED for a reason..I don't care to hear all their stinking dirty laundry

The question is a simple one, why would anyone object to testimony they have given under oath being released? I can think of one reason only, they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth either under oath, or if they did, subsequent statements conflict with said testimony.

Are you against privacy now? Wasn't that the concept behind Roe v Wade?

 

[tyroneweaver]

It is about Romney possibly perjuring himself on the stand denying Stapels stock had a certain value (saying it was undervalued) and this woman getting a lot less in her divorce settlement. Then the stock went public later and she lost millions due to her shares being undervalued. Romney was the vulture capitalist he's always been cheating people to make himself and his friends rich. I've also heard a rumor that there is "a child" custody thing involved also--some speculating it might be Mitt's. I doubt it but then again, anything is possible as we have seen over the years with infidelities.

your argument makes no sense if Romney argued the stock was under valued.

 

[Clementine]

So, the king of sealed records, Obama, wants to dig into other sealed records in hopes of finding dirt. That is the only story here.

More damaging facts are coming out about Benghazi and this is designed to divert the public's attention elsewhere.

 

[tinydancer]

It is about Romney possibly perjuring himself on the stand denying Stapels stock had a certain value (saying it was undervalued) and this woman getting a lot less in her divorce settlement. Then the stock went public later and she lost millions due to her shares being undervalued. Romney was the vulture capitalist he's always been cheating people to make himself and his friends rich. I've also heard a rumor that there is "a child" custody thing involved also--some speculating it might be Mitt's. I doubt it but then again, anything is possible as we have seen over the years with infidelities.

your argument makes no sense if Romney argued the stock was under valued.

Hey great call last night! This is all about the "woman scorned". She's been posting at Huffpo and is an ardent Obama supporter.

Kudos!

 

[Katzndogz]

If the stock was UNDERvalued and she got 500,000 shares it means she should only have gotten 250,000 shares. The real value was more than the value suggested. If it was OVERvallued she should have gotten 750,000 shares since the stock was really worth less than the value suggested. Since she got her shares before it was made public, it ordinarily wouldn't matter. After all was Facebook shares not overvalued when it went public. Something that really didn't matter before it went public.

She sold her shares before it went public, that was her decision. Whatever the value was, she certainly knew at the time she sold the stock, and that was the time to complain. Not 20 years later. If she felt that she was lied to and told the stock had a value that it didn't have, she certainly knew what the value was when she sold the stock. The statute of limitations would have started when she sold the stock and has long since been expired.

 

[tinydancer]

So, the king of sealed records, Obama, wants to dig into other sealed records in hopes of finding dirt. That is the only story here.

More damaging facts are coming out about Benghazi and this is designed to divert the public's attention elsewhere.

Do you know how many people still don't know what he did to Jack Ryan to win his Senate seat in 2004?

It shocked me. It truly did. This is old style dirty tricks Chicago politics and it's his signature move.

 

[Stephanie]

Why would anyone object to the release of testimony they have given under oath?

they are SEALED for a reason..I don't care to hear all their stinking dirty laundry

The question is a simple one, why would anyone object to testimony they have given under oath being released? I can think of one reason only, they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth either under oath, or if they did, subsequent statements conflict with said testimony.

well of course you would think that..how you can stand for a party who does this to people is beyond me..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm an equal opportunity information voter.. Let both OBAMA and ROMNEY release all of their records.. Taxes, student, passports, etc.. Let it all come out!

I'm willing to wager BARRY will never allow that and nor will his Zombie herd.. they know he's hiding something.

 

[Stephanie]

This is some real sleazy stuff folks, WE all know why it's being done.

Please vote out this type of sleazy dirty politics...VOTE OBAMA OUT