Originally Posted by LadyMacAlpine
Thank you Zonk.
Now I will support the things I've said all along and my piece will be said.
thread 4 post 65 is a photo only Tamara could have released to someone for the press.
page 10 post 192 is the photo Albert sued over.
page 14 post 276 Excerpt from The LA Times:
"Rotolo filed a malpractice suit in Los Angeles against her attorney in 2001, alleging that he failed to advise her that she should have filed the paternity suit in Monaco before 1994 to maintain her legal rights."
Why did she file that if she was getting child support all along? No one answered that question.
page 18 post 349 reported what Tamara is like. In it is said Albert gave Jazmin an allowance no money to her mother who he wanted nothing to do with.
page 20 post 387 photos Jazmin posed for.
page 24 post 463 both posed for this photo.
MY COMMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTED AT ANY INDIVIDUAL. I'M SPEAKING IN GENERAL TERMS WITH THE HOPE I DON'T OFFEND ANYONE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY.
I'm sorry to say that a posting on a thread in a forum is not proof. If someone can provide me a link to each of the above statements I can see what is being referring to and I will be happy to clarify. I can assure everyone that unless they played a role in taking the photographs or selling them -- one would be only assuming they know their origin.
Page 14: To answer the question about why the malpractice suit was filed... I would assume, as you might, that any lawyer is always going to hold another lawyer accountable for his mistakes. If this check and balance was not in place, how would one ever determine between a good lawyer and a bad. Now let's assume lawyers are not cheap, and they're not -- if someone was told they had to file a certain lawsuit by a certain time to establish some sort precedent -- and to do this requires a large retainer. Would you not want the proper advice? And if not, would you not want your money back, especially if you were given bad advice? And in fact, lawyers sue lawyers -- so unless filed pro per -- it's nothing more than one law firm going after another. Just something to think about...
Page 18: This very well could be the case. I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed a relationship between Albert and either Mother, certainly not Tamara. It has been reported, in a statement from Albert, that he would like to maintain a private relationship with his children and that he has financially provided since birth with the hope of keeping them a secret until they reached adulthood. If he has made this statement, why do we not wish to believe him?
As for the images, unless I can see them to offer my opinion -- I shall say only this. With the talent, determination and technology now available to paparazzi -- it is nearly impossible to determine whether a photo was "posed" for or not -- and even then, if I pose for a photo for you and your friend takes a picture over your shoulder of me -- does this mean I posed for your friend also?
I offer up something else that can easily be verified for anyone who cares to take the time (it's easy to make claims but when a suggestion is made how to verify no one seems to want to) -- there's two versions of the E! Hollywood story on the Grimaldis -- the old version from a few years ago has MacCormack and his photos -- the new version or the one they've been showing the last few years has MacCormack and his photos edited out. Why? Because E! got legal threats regarding MacCormack and his claims. Also, it is easy enough to write MacCormack an email and post his response -- he's listed in Google.