I’ve gotten a ton of digs in at Frank McCourt recently — and they’re legitimate digs, I think. But while I think that McCourt mismanaged the purchase of the Dodgers and has taken a approach to his asset that is not conducive to building a strong baseball team, at least there’s a sense of competence there. Based on Josh Fisher’s* dispatches from round two of the McCourt trial, however, I don’t think we can say the same for Jamie.
Her testimony today, if true, makes her out to be astoundingly dim for a trained and experienced lawyer, which is what she is. At issue is the big document in which she is alleged to have signed over the Dodgers to Frank. About that: Jamie testified that she doesn’t read legal documents. Why? “They’re boring,” she said. The content “is over her head,” she says.
Again. The woman is a lawyer, who has held the title of CEO in a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The only thing that saves her intellectual reputation on this score would be if she really did read and understand the documents but is attempting to claim she didn’t in order to win this case.
That, however, would be perjury, and I don’t assume that good, right-thinking Americans perjure themselves without proof, which we do not have here. Nope, we have to assume that what she says under oath is true: that she’s none-too-smart for a person of her education and experience, and that if she were in charge of a big business like the Dodgers she’d stink on ice.
*Note: Josh and his coverage of the McCourt divorce was written up in the New York Times today. Great going Josh!
