Martha's Inside Info
This is just an observation. Martha declares to have 'inside' info, states several assertions (in post 15) and then when feeling challenged as to her sources, she (in post 18) admits to having the first hand knowledge from her work as a paralegal, and that she has 'seen some documents'. Does anybody else reading this thread recognize a severe breach of ethics here? Isn't anything she's seen in her work as a paralegal considered privileged information, and therefore something she is bound not to discuss or disclose to ANYONE else, especially on a discussion board that can be read world wide?
Of course, I imagine several readers will pipe in and state that the ethics aren't the same in the DR. Or, alternatively, they may try to argue that only the Lawyers themselves are bound ethically. I'm not in the legal field, so I could be totally mistaken in the matter.
Since I'm probably off topic, I'll shut up now. After all, the original post did raise an interesting question.
Peace;
Justin
