Buffalo_Gal Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 39 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Boy, this comment gets it (second tweet): 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: No, if the case is not dismissed with prejudice, I go on vacation for a year. When it is dismissed with prejudice, you go on vacation for a year. That's the terms. Seems more likely he'll just create a new account. Kinda his MO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Joe Miner said: Seems more likely he'll just create a new account. Kinda his MO. Of course he will. He's an intellectually dishonest coward. He proved it with his last post. Accusing me of trying to create wiggle room when he's the one playing semantics. SuperShittyLawyerSection has brought nothing of value to this thread other than exposing his own ignorance -- and the fact that he's a terrible attorney who can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. Edited June 11, 2020 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Of course he will. He's an intellectually dishonest coward. He proved it with his last post. Accusing me of trying to create wiggle room when he's the one playing semantics. SuperShittyLawyerSection has brought nothing of value to this thread other than exposing his own ignorance -- and the fact that he's a terrible attorney who can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. And you still believe he's an attorney? Even after all the nonsense he's spouted!? And you believe he'd honor a bet when proven wrong? You're a good guy, but come on... he would never, ever uphold to the terms of the bet. He'd simply come back under a different nic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 39 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: And you still believe he's an attorney? Even after all the nonsense he's spouted!? And you believe he'd honor a bet when proven wrong? You're a good guy, but come on... he would never, ever uphold to the terms of the bet. He'd simply come back under a different nic. Yes, he could very well be an attorney. There are a lot of dumb attorneys in this world and I've dealt with my share. There are also a lot of very good ones that are a pleasure to work with. Point to remember: never, ever come to an agreement with an attorney without recognizing that their negotiations never end. You can have a signed agreement and they'll still try to squeeze a little bit more out of you. Even otherwise good attorneys will do this. Just never go to your bottom line until the final end. Leave some room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 This was helpful to me. Others may want to read her thread. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Thread. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 On 6/10/2020 at 3:54 PM, Buffalo_Gal said: Why do I get the idea SectionC3 is a receptionist at a law office and thinks he knows more than he actually does? Why disparage receptionists? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 15 minutes out. Here's the link to the livestream again for those curious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15exlPAA3U 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 And we're off... Powell up for 10 first. Then DOJ, then Sullivan's lawyer. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 One of several threads out there covering the play by play: 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Wall is making a case even a dummy like me can understand. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) "There's nothing 'magical' about the 'plea line'" -- DOJ argues. Says Fokker doesn't prohibit this stance. Edited June 12, 2020 by snafu 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Is the Court saying that the Government should disclose ALL reasons for wanting to dismiss? Is it the Court's job to "rank" reasons if there's more than one? Wouldn't a "good" reason to dismiss be just as important as a "bad" reason? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Does this Obama judge think Flynn killed George Floyd? This is weird. (For all I know it is common, but as a lay person, seems weird.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Does this Obama judge think Flynn killed George Floyd? This is weird. (For all I know it is common, but as a lay person, seems weird.) No, he's using this hypothetical as an example of a "bad" motive by the DOJ to pull the case. It is akin to the accusation in this case that the President brought pressure on the DOJ to dismiss. I think he's playing devil's advocate. Edited June 12, 2020 by snafu 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Another live thread: 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sullivan's attorney seems to be arguing... let's keep going. You never know what Sullivan is gonna do! Man, what Flynn has to say must really be something that the #resistance crowd is going to these lengths. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: Sullivan's attorney seems to be arguing... let's keep going. You never know what Sullivan is gonna do! Man, what Flynn has to say must really be something that the #resistance crowd is going to these lengths. Sullivan's attorney is floundering. Weakest of the three so far. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 I bet it comes down to (based on my knowing nothing): Trump judge - dismiss Obama judge - send back Reagan judge - ?♂️ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Sullivan's attorney is floundering. Weakest of the three so far. She's latched on to her only good argument -- that this motion for Mandamus is not timely. I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus. Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position. That IS adversarial. She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, snafu said: She's latched on to her only good argument -- that this motion for Mandamus is not timely. I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus. Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position. That IS adversarial. She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial. Hoax. The amicus assists the court’s understanding of an issue or of the case as a whole. That’s not adversarial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, snafu said: I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus. Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position. That IS adversarial. She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. The amicus assists the court’s understanding of an issue or of the case as a whole. That’s not adversarial. Normally, I'd agree. However, in this case, Sullivan instructed Gleeson to argue as if he were the DOJ. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) Wall's summary is using Gleeson's brief against Sullivan to argue why mandamus now IS a timely request -- and why this case shouldn't go to argument on July 16. HaHa, that was a puffball question at the end there. Edited June 12, 2020 by snafu 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Longer than expected, but an interesting hour and a half. Earliest action from the court expected Monday (I'm doubtful it'll be that fast, but who knows). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 27 minutes ago, snafu said: Normally, I'd agree. However, in this case, Sullivan instructed Gleeson to argue as if he were the DOJ. Fair point. The amicus still is a friend, but in this case the friend has a unique role to play. I mostly agree with your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Since Sullivan already has had time to "do the right thing and dismiss" - as a matter of fact, nothing is stopping him from doing it right now, well, nothing we concretely know, I am not certain what the point in continuing would be except to drag this out to when Sullivan "gets around" to signing. Edited June 12, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Who funds The Federalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 49 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said: Who funds The Federalist? Why don't you look it up and get back to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Cinga said: Why don't you look it up and get back to us? He's too busy trying to spread lies and gaslighting the board (then deleting the thread when he's exposed for doing precisely that). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Dream of FLYNNDICATIONNNN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said: Dream of FLYNNDICATIONNNN Music memes don't work if you don't match the syllables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 That's okay - liberals can't meme anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) And now he's here, to re-climb a hill he already died on. That's how desperate Gary's become. His cowardly dishonesty gets exposed (again), he deletes a thread then runs to try to change the subject from his own asshattery to ... a position he's going to end up looking foolish once again for supporting. Why does Gary do all this? Why does he go through so much trouble everyday just to troll? Because he's a bad person who is here with ill will and a mission to defend the indefensible. That's all he is. You can't even call him a man. He's like an early draft of a man where they just sketched out a giant, mangled skeleton but they didn't have time to add details like pigment or self-respect. He's Frankenstein's monster, if his monster was made entirely of dead dikks. Edited June 12, 2020 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: C'mon dog - this was 9 minutes ago 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He should be ignored by all. Stop being intellectually dishonest 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts