Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
You are correct sir.
Modern dance rather than interpretative dance.
No-one puts Dantes in the corner.
Please tell me you’re having the time of your life.
It is impossible for a client to verify the time recorded for items such as research, internal discussion, drafting of briefs, depositions; question why 5 lawyers instead of 2 are required to attend a hearing; or argue that a brief is 1,000 pages too long with many arguments with little persuasive value.
I think it is fair to say that most lawyers will charge a client more if they are have a lot of money, no corporate accountability, and are heavily invested in winning a very difficult case.
To put it mildly.
Would assume Rudy would be putting his hair dye down as an expense as well
Six days to go. Have we seen any of this evidence that Dantes & Ross have been referring to - or just testimonies from unreliable sources and speculation over CCTV clips? I was expecting something blockbuster, a smoking gun given all the noise around this. Appears to just be earning Trump his final paycheck and time whilst he pardons his team
No such thing as a bad lawyer.
To answer this you'd need to understand the law over there, or even the equivalent law over here would give a you some idea of how injunction applications would play out if you pleaded fraud compared to if you pleaded constitutional breaches. Without that understanding, your best bet is to see what legal correspondents are reporting about the case, or failing that then just the mainstream news.
Last edited:
To explain this, you'd need to understand the type of law firm and how reliant they are on their long-standing clients. You'd also need to understand the two ways in which a court will assess costs. One would favour the payer and the other would favour the payee on each doubtful expense. Then look at some old cases, and see how what you describe above would translate to when you actually make the application for your costs. Then determine if that type of law firm is likely to exaggerate costs when even in cases they win, they are not subsequently recovered from the other party leading their own client to stump up the remainder.
Costs paid by the client usually far exceeds the costs awarded by the court.
Re: The client. An ex-president trying to overturn is not a long standing client/repeat client. He is a one-off money bonanza.
Source: I work for an American headquarted law firm. I know how this works.
Can you share some legal correspondents? I am not following mainstream news on it.
I only follow the court filings which you can get off google. The latest hearing is today in the supreme court Kelly vs Pensylvania. It's nothing to do with fraud. It's also nothing to do with overturning votes. It's to do with the us constitution. The likely outcome will be the judge declaring that the mail in ballots were unconstitutional, but there is nothing you can do about that now, in so many words. That will go down well.
What precisely did they reject?
Mail in votes unconstitutional? Trump himself voted by mail.
To be fair - Trump has won more cases than Dantes.
It’s just votes that aren’t for him that Trump believes are unconstitutional.
Oh.
Dantes will explain by way of a rhythmic gymnastics routine choreographed to a self-composed freeform jazz piece.
The Parler crowd are convinced that the new Texas case that's gone to the Supreme Court is the one that will give Trump his re-election.
The State of Texas is suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for ‘Election Irregularities’.
It's been brought by Texas AG Ken Paxton. I'm sure it's nothing to do with him being investigated for securities fraud and probably going to prison for the rest of his natural. Unless of course he was given a presidential pardon...
Supreme Court should be dealing with it Thursday.
The State of Texas is suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for ‘Election Irregularities’.
It's been brought by Texas AG Ken Paxton. I'm sure it's nothing to do with him being investigated for securities fraud and probably going to prison for the rest of his natural. Unless of course he was given a presidential pardon...
Supreme Court should be dealing with it Thursday.
I'm no mathematician, but that doesn't sound right to me.
Indeed. I'm no extrovert, but I suspect my days of being your go-to mathematician/lawyer/scientist are at their end.
Similar threads
