I have no objection to it being discussed. I'll be talking to him
before the show, so I'll bring up the subject with him.
Bob Dancer wrote:
>This is an open question to 007. Although I know your name, I'm not positive you have identified yourself on this forum namewise, so I will use your "handle."
>
>On August 11, Bob Nersesian will be a guest on the radio show "Gambling with an Edge." There are a zillion things to talk about, but one of them could be your lawsuit with Jerry's Nugget --- which has been in the newspaper and has been discussed somewhat on vpFREE --- and Nersesian is your lawyer in that lawsuit.
>
>If you want us to ask him about the lawsuit and related matters, you're going to have to tell us so, and also to tell Nersesian that you want him to talk about it. Unless you do that, he will likely decline comment based on attorney-client privilege or somesuch. I'm sure there are still limits to what he will and will not talk about, but if you give him the OK he'll talk about more than if you don't. (If he bills you for this, you're on your own!)
>
>There will be no lack of things to talk about with Nersesian, so we don't "need" this subject. Do what's right for you and your case. But if we do ask him about it, one question will likely be based on the following post you made:
>
> I was surprised at something my attorney is saying about my case. I hope I've understood it correctly. A policeman/woman may legally detain someone whom he or she believes has committed a crime and it wouldn't be false imprisonment, but a private individual may only detain someone who has actually committed a crime or the detention is false imprisonment. "Probable cause" is irrelevant to a private individual. That I was found to not have committed a crime necessarily means that I was falsely imprisoned, even if there had been probable cause to believe I had committed a crime.
>
>Bob Dancer
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
