txhorns79 June 19, 2015 Share June 19, 2015 (edited) But I can't for the life of me piece together what Kevin, the kids and Jackie are doing in church. It can't be a christening for Kevin's new baby - everyone is too informal and the other attendees too random. For the same reasons, it doesn't look like a memorial service *for* someone. Fiona is missing in the pew shot but again, too informal for a first communion. And they all look too damn happy around Jackie. It appears they may be there for some kind of school event for Fiona. Doesn't she attend a Catholic school? It would explain why Fiona appears in an earlier shot at church, but not sitting with them in the pew. Edited June 19, 2015 by txhorns79 2 Link to comment
bunnywithanaxe June 20, 2015 Share June 20, 2015 I would be willing to bet my left nostril that the Chris Elliot thing was originally written to be a Michael Buscemi thing. 1 Link to comment
LuciaMia June 21, 2015 Share June 21, 2015 An endearingly delusional psych patient, Vigilante Jones Cause we all know mental illness is just so cute. Or, at least Hollywood still thinks so. Aaargh. 1 Link to comment
dangwoodchucks June 22, 2015 Share June 22, 2015 So, the previews seem to show O'Hara returning and making Jackie question whether she should be a nurse? Where was she a couple of seasons ago? Jackie needs to be in jail for her crimes. 1 Link to comment
The Solution June 22, 2015 Share June 22, 2015 Looks like they're trying to shove 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag next week. 3 Link to comment
OptimisticCynic June 22, 2015 Share June 22, 2015 (edited) They should have backed up the money truck to Eve Best's home in England a year ago. O'Hara's no-nonsense attitude has been sorely missed. Yes! I'm excited Eve Best is back. Edited June 22, 2015 by OptimisticCynic 2 Link to comment
albaniantv June 22, 2015 Share June 22, 2015 From her London base, Eve Best is doing well reviewed dramas, such as The Honorable Woman, where she actually was in every episode and had story arcs of her own. I am so glad she's in the finale. Link to comment
txhorns79 June 23, 2015 Share June 23, 2015 That's for the criminal case (and Wolfe, was it not established, specializes in employment issues, not criminal law). If I remember right, he represented Jackie in her criminal matter, so presumably he can handle both. Also, jumping ahead and on the assumption that the assembled are representing Eddie's pharma employer - if they're going to fire Eddie for malfeasance with his drug samples, they're going to do it - and probably call the police/DEA as well. There's not going to be a sit down where he gets to bring his lawyer in and argue his side. That's not necessarily true. It isn't clear what they do and do not know regarding what Eddie has done. They may have a general idea, but need to hear what Eddie has to say. It could easily be that they want Eddie to commit to a story on the record, so they can disprove the story, or want to see if he'll be honest and admit to what he has done. This way, they can avoid further trouble and possible lawsuits down the road when they do fire him. Link to comment
txhorns79 June 23, 2015 Share June 23, 2015 (edited) Well that was always the creative license they took from the beginning. There are very few attorneys who cross specialize in employment and criminal law. If you want the best, you get one or the other; and if they need cross specialization, that's what co-counsel is for. It's not really creative license. There are many general practitioners out there, because most people can't afford two separate attorneys if they happen to have a problem that crosses over more than one legal issue. He said at the beginning he specializes in dealing with nurses who have drug problems. That would almost necessitate a criminal law practice, along with a civil practice. The likelihood that an employee - who is exempt and in a probationary period (as Eddie would surely be in his first ninety days) - is going to be given special dispensation for a high level meeting with his attorney before he has been terminated for gross misconduct and begun a civil process is very slim. I say this as someone who has dealt with these issues before. The employer does the investigating with their counsel, and makes a disciplinary decision from there. I think as I noted, it isn't clear what his employer does and does not know. Speaking as someone who still deals with these kinds of issues, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a company wanted to establish a clear record, complete with the employee's videotaped statement, committing him to a version of events, so he cannot try to change his story later. It's not a special dispensation for him to have an attorney. If anything, that protects the company as well the employee. Edited June 23, 2015 by txhorns79 Link to comment
Recommended Posts