OT: Pampalon. Your argument about the O.J. case and attorneys in general is fundamentally flawed. Attorneys are generally not witnesses against their clients and therefore aren't telling lies in their defense. They are simply arguing an interpretation of the facts based on the admissible evidence (that which the jury will be instructed to consider). The entire "Dream Team" could have known O.J. was guilty and yet still be bound by ethical obligations to make the arguments you are criticizing (and thank the Lord for that by the way).
Johhny Cochran was never questioned under oath as to whether O.J.'s hand was cut before he got on the plane, and therefore did not make any misrepresentation. Had he been questioned (never would have happened based on privilege) and had he known the hand was cut, he would have had to testify accordingly or perjure himself. Again, he did not misrepresent to the jury the condition of O.J's hand--he simply made an argument/representation favorable to his client based on the evidence/facts (the people who didn't see the cut). If there were no such evidence he could not make that argument before the jury (it would be objectionable as argumentative as not based on evidence). I personally think O.J. is guilty as sin but think Johnny Cochran did an absolute textbook job at defending him (unfortunately).
How does that relate to us NEOM Ihubbers? Well, I would be objecting on a daily basis to mainy of the "bashers" AND "pumpers" here for making arguments not based on the evidence. Much of it is absolutely absurd. I have been extremely busy these past months and haven't been a very active participant on the board, but I have to say I'm not sure I would have been all that active based on some of the nonsense I have seen. They are not interpreting facts. They are making misrepresentations, period. They are simply throwing spitballs hoping one or two stick every so often, whether it is to simply seek some self gratification by ruining someone's day or making themselves feel better about their investments.
As for Clawman, as far as I'm concerned he has contributed far more to this board than many here (definitely including myself) and if he wants to throw out the occaisional name then have at it.
By the way, if you want to know of someone not under oath who told a lie and went to jail, just look to Mr. John Karr. He lied about killing Jon Benet Ramsey all the while not under oath and was subsequently taken to jail for it. There's your "case." How's that for a misrepresentation?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
