Will this Allred/Romney/Sternberg divorce thing go anyhere?

[geek_sabre]

27. Nope.

A- I don't think you can testify to the future value of a stock in a divorce settlement. In divorce cases, what matters is current value, which was $2.25 per at the time. IF the judge lowballed her share based on $2.25 being too high, it will be apparent not in Mitt's testimony, but in the court's decision. You can't use later value of the stock to prove what he stated at that time, under oath, was untrue. If there was testimony from someone else, which disagreed with that assessment, then that would be something, but again, she wouldn't be entitled to future value, but current value.

B- The ex-wife made the bad decision to sell the stock prematurely, and is trying to undo it in court. If it comes out that Romney was her financial advisor, then there'd be something. It just seems that she's playing for money now, and using the pressure of the national political stage to get money she's not legally entitled to.

C- At this point, its all "she say" in a VERY ugly, drawn out divorce that started in 1987 and was finalized in 2002. The timeline will shed some light, but I can't see how this will end up looking bad for anyone but the Stembergs.

D- This isn't the first time Allred has exploited the political newscycle to get a punch in for her client. I hope that Obama stays out of it completely.

E- There's more than enough to destroy Romney that actually involves him and his decisions. TAX RETURNS? ABORTION SCANDAL?