Ex-mistress of former U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards refuses DNA test to see if 'love child' is his"This a case that involves legitimate questions of public interest

2. he mistress of former presidential candidate John Edwards has refused to take part in a DNA test to establish the paternity of her daughter.
   Mr Edwards has admitted having an affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006, but denies that he fathered her five-month-old child.
   He offered to undergo a DNA test to prove this.
    

   
   
   
   Affair: Rielle Hunter who had an affair with former US Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has said she will not participate in DNA testing to see if her five-month-old daughter is his
   But Miss Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, said on Saturday that his client is a private individual who wishes to maintain her privacy and therefore she will not take the test.
   This means her daughter's paternity is still in doubt.
   Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born on February 27 this year, and no father's name is given on the birth certificate filed in California.
   A former Edwards campaign staff member is said to be the father.

   More...

   • Former US presidential candidate John Edwards admits having affair while wife fought cancer
   
   
   Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, confessed to ABC News that he had lied repeatedly about the affair with Hunter, then 42, who produced videos for Edwards as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign.
   In an interview which aired on ABC's 'Nightline' on Friday night, Edwards said he would be willing to take a paternity test to put the issue to rest but was not sure whether Hunter would be willing to.
   'I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established,' Edwards said.
   The National Enquirer first reported on the affair in October 2007, in the run-up to the Democratic primaries, and Edwards denied it.
   
   United: John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth who campaigned with him while he was running for presidential candidacy
   Last month, the Enquirer carried another story - the headline referred to an Edwards 'love child' - stating that its reporters had accosted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles where he had met with Hunter after her child's birth. 
   Edwards called it 'tabloid trash.'
   In a statement on Friday, Elizabeth Edwards said it was not easy to find out about the extramarital affair in 2006 but indicated she did not believe that her husband was the father of Hunter's daughter.
   'This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well,' she said.
   'Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.'
   Edwards declared his presidential candidacy in December 2006. 
   His wife campaigned enthusiastically with him and by herself in the months that followed. 
   
   Campaign trail: John Edwards stands with his family after a post-caucus rally in Des Moines, Iowa
   She announced in March 2007 that her cancer, formerly in remission, had returned and there apparently was no cure.
   Edwards dropped out midway through this year's primaries. He recently endorsed Barack Obama and had been mentioned as a possible running mate. 
   But as rumours spread of Edwards' possible affair it became clear that he was unlikely to speak at the Democratic National Convention later this month in Denve
   
   
   Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043351/Ex-mistress-U-S-presidential-candidate-John-Edwards-refuses-DNA-test-love-child-his.html#ixzz1L48gSMds

 Former presidential candidate John Edwards will again be asked a series of questions he earlier refused to answer under oath, this time with a judge on hand to immediately rule what's fair or foul in the privacy lawsuit filed by his mistress.

The closed-door resumption of Edwards' deposition with Superior Court Judge Carl Fox present was reminiscent of another Southern politician forced to deal with questions about his sexual past: President Bill Clinton's deposition during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. After a hearing Friday, Fox delayed a decision on whether all or parts of Edwards' deposition would be made public until the former North Carolina senator faces the additional questioning June 20.

"I'm a firm believer and have been for the entirety of my career of providing the press access, and the people access, to the courtroom. I recognize there are times when access may be limited for certain types of proceedings and certain types of testimony under specific conditions," Fox said after initially indicating he thought Edwards should face questions in public. "But generally speaking, to avoid suspicion and questions about the integrity of the court, it's important that they be open."

Edwards is the star witness in a privacy lawsuit his mistress Rielle Hunter filed against former Edwards campaign aide Andrew Young. Hunter contends Young improperly took from her sensitive materials, including a reputed sex tape showing Edwards. She wants the items returned to her.

Young said Hunter left them behind after leaving a hideout they shared while covering up Edwards' affair during the 2008 presidential campaign. Hunter said in an affidavit that she created a private video in September 2006.

The deposition taken from Edwards in February involved the former senator's testimony about "a relationship that led to the generation of those materials and the facts surrounding those materials," said his attorney, Jim Cooney.

The judge unsealed a pair of documents showing Edwards' attorney asked Fox to block further questioning by Young's lawyers that "unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress" the former senator.

Fox said he would decide after Edwards' deposition whether to make public other filings in the case.

Media outlets including The Associated Press had asked Fox to open the case to more public scrutiny, including some details of Edwards' deposition. A judge had ordered all involved in the lawsuit to keep Edwards' testimony private.

The media outlets were not seeking access to the videotape.

Hunter and Young had been able to fight their court battle in privacy far greater than allowed the average person, said Nathan Siegel, an attorney for the media outlets.

"Motion after motion has been filed under seal. We think it's time to step back," Siegel said. "This isn't just an ordinary privacy case. ... This case is about the fallout from the demise of a presidential campaign."

Hunter's attorney said whether she was considered a public figure or private person, the former Edwards campaign videographer still had a right to privacy that she was trying to reclaim through her lawsuit against Young and his wife. Making too many details of Hunter's dispute with the Youngs public before presenting them to a jury would further violate her privacy, attorney Allison Van Laningham said.

"This material, as your honor rightly said at the last hearing, should not be grist for the media mill. It should not be used for a commercial enterprise," Van Laningham, referring to Andrew Young's tell-all book of his time in the Edwards camp and a rumored movie deal.

Siegel said that after Hunter's revealing interview and photos in GQ magazine a year ago and a follow-up appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show, it's hard for Hunter to argue the lawsuit is a simple privacy dispute.

"This case is about as ordinary a privacy case as you could say the wedding that just took place across the Atlantic is a typical family gathering," he said, referring to the British royal wedding that took place hours earlier.

At the time of his affair in 2006, Edwards was a candidate for president, and there are few people who have less expectation of privacy.

"This should be grist for the media mill," Siegel said. "This a case that involves legitimate questions of public interest and acts and events in which all these people voluntarily took place and have talked about extensively."