Re: Club Owners

["Dan Billings" <billings@suscom-maine.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Faneuf" <tklaundry@juno.com>
To: <billings@suscom-maine.net>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Club Owners


> If you pay an attorney an outragous amount of money for legal advice and
> to protect your interests, and then don't take that advice why bother
> with an attorney?   Sure, he could have said won't answer questions
> instead of can't but the bottom line is the same, just as a DA will say I
> can't answer questions, sure they can but they won't risk their case.

Agreed.  But by saying that they "can not answer questions due to the on
going investigation," they are trying to give the impression that a law or
something else official keeps them from talking.  Some people will here a
statement phrased that why and think that they really can't speak.  I would
hope that a reporter would not repeat that phrase but would instead say that
the owners decided not to answer questions upon the advice of their lawyer.
That would be a more accurate statement of the facts and a journalist should
make it clear that the owners are free to answer questions, bit have chosen
not to.

The contrast between the owners actions and those the bands are also
interesting.  Jack Russell has answered questions since yesterday morning.
Of course, he's playing before 300 people in a bar in Rhode Island so he
probably has little in the way of assets to worry about, though the band
and/or their staff, IMHO, are much more likely to face criminal charges than
the bar owners.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine