1. I am all about the kardashians and so over those who are so cliche and say shit like “they are famous for no reason” and “they have no talent.” Newsflash, these people have made millions off of a tv show about their lives and kim’s vagina. If you don’t get why you are obviously not paying close enough attention.
2. I heart Khloe Kardashian and my husband hates her. It is a source of tension in our marriage. I also heart Kim Kardashian and my husband thinks she is an idiot. The woman has figured out how to make millions. She knows how to do that so I do not think she is an idiot.
3. My husband bought me this week’s star magainze with the headline “Khloe attacks Lamar’s New Girlfriend” without me even asking. #reasonwhyilovehim#100. In it, there was a story that is right up my alley. GET THIS:
As we all know, Lam-Lam reportedly cheated on Khloe with some chic named Jennifer. Well, in this Star Exclusive, another mistress came forward who is NOT ONLY A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR but, wait for it, a criminal defense attorney! This bitch is one of us!!!
Polina Polonsky (photo below) was admitted to the bar in 2010 and works at a crimlaw firm, apparently with no official website, called Pensanti & Associates in Sherman Oaks. JJC reached out to Ms. Polonsky for comment but, as of press time, she has not responded.
According to Polonsky as reported by Star, she had a brief affair with LamLam from June to July but called it quits after Khloe stalked her and tried to physically attack her.
Top 3 reasons I believe Polonsky:
1. The article is SUPER detailed with specific times, places, and dates. Interestingly, or disgustingly, she and LamLam spent the night at the Vagabond Inn in Downtown LA to try to hide from Khloe. Um, you couldn’t pay me to stay at a Vagabond Inn in Downtown LA. Am I missing something? Isn’t the whole point of hooking up with a married NBA player to stay at the nicest most expensivest hotel there is in robes the entire time ordering massages and room service? Those would be my terms. Vagabond Inn my ass.
2. She took, and passed, a polygraph according to Star.
3. She is an officer of the court.
Man, let’s not forget about when LamLam went nuts on a paparazzi:
ugh my wordpress app isn’t posting the video. check back later.
Or click here.
JJC VERDICT: Polonsky is likely telling the truth, though I 100% judge her as being a bad person for having an affair with a married man even if he is separated. Wait for him to get a divorce. Also, this is the best photo she has for a national magazine? Girlfriend get a better headshot cause you’re lookin hurt. Also, I found out at a recent ethics seminar that as a member of the bar we are prohibited from, with the threat of disbarment, engaging in any act of moral turpitude even if it is not criminal and even it is 100% unrelated to being a lawyer. Really weird rule. Anyway here it is:
Corruption Irrespective of Criminal Conviction
Moral Turpitude, Dishonesty or
The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.
So I think the state bar prohibits us from sleeping with married men. Dear Polonsky, Nene said it best:
8/12/13 12:57 pm UPDATE: Your girl tipped off Above the Law and they reported on this as any respectable law publication would. Some commenter had an issue with my lack of a legal analysis on the potential 6106 violation. First, the point of my post was not that she will be disbarred. It is that this rule is so archaic and ridiculous that the potential is there. Of course, it is unlikely. Here is what I hit back at em (during my lunch break, yes, that is how dedicated I am to maintaining the credibility of JJC).
“It’s also unclear how much longer she’ll be in good standing with the California Bar, but we’ll get to that fun fact later on in our discussion.”
If you had a legal department, they’d probably have told you that you shouldn’t speculate that a lawyer’s private sexual conduct with non-clients could lead to disbarment, based solely on a website called Juice, Justice, and Corgis that provides absolutely no legal analysis beyond quoting vague statutory language. Language, which (btw) has been around for decades and is the subject of numerous California Supreme Court decisions, none of which you discuss or even bothered to research. More than anything, you also shouldn’t refer to your speculation as “fact
In reply to GTS109:
1. a website called juice justice and corgis sounds VERY credible. that is an awesome name.
2. here is some law to shut you up (you diy the analysis):
“As we have stated on many occasions, moral turpitude has been defined as “‘an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.’ ” (In re Fahey (1973) 8 Cal.3d 842, 849, 106 Cal.Rptr. 313, 316, 505 P.2d 1369, 1372,
quoting from an earlier case.) “The concept of moral turpitude depends upon the state of public morals, and may vary according to the community or the times, (citation) as well as on the degree of public harm produced by the act in question. (Citation.) The paramount purpose of the ‘moral turpitude’ standard is not to punish practitioners but to protect the public, the courts and the profession against unsuitable practitioners. (Citations)” (Ibid.)” In re Calaway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165, 570 P.2d 1223 (upholding discipline of lawyer dude who was involved in a gambling ring that cheated customers).
Also, I’m not the first one to point this out, check out the ABA’s report of California’s Lawyer Reguation System quoting the ABA’s comment to Rule 8.4 of the model rules:
“the use of the term “moral turpitude” should be eliminated from the statutes and rules relating to lawyer conduct and discipline. As stated in the Comment to Rule 8.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offense carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses
involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice.”
Don’t hate on me just because I’m the messenger!