Originally Posted by lexmark

Can someone please clarify for my tiny brain. If TG's anti slap appeal is successful, that means the suit that Mitchell is bringing against them will not go ahead. I get that bit. But does that mean that the TG countersuit won't go ahead either, Is that right?


john

.

No. The countersuit still goes ahead.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

No. The countersuit still goes ahead.

Thanks, Jace.

Jace, I don't know if you want to answer this but if I don't ask, I won't know.

The fact that Guinness reinstated the DK scores against overwhelming evidence that they shouldn't have, how does that fit into the picture? I mean, it doesn't look good for TG that they did that?



john

.

Originally Posted by Streetwize

He indeed does not show up in the list of LA-based attorneys regarding Business Litigation. Would this be worth pointing out to the court? Turns out it isn't illegal, but something is definitely up.

No. This is a colossal waste of everyone's time. Lawyers take cases because it's their job to provide legal representation.

Jace: Is TG's appeal available? Put mildly Alarcon's decision raises some interesting questions about California defamation law.

Originally Posted by bh_

Jace: Is TG's appeal available? Put mildly Alarcon's decision raises some interesting questions about California defamation law.

Currently, what is publicly available is the notice that TG will be filing an appeal.


The actual appeal is going to come some time later and it will accompany the case to the appellate court. That document does not exist publicly yet.

Originally Posted by bh_

Lawyers take cases because it's their job to provide legal representation.

While I'm not going to debate your answer (in that it shouldn't), you are oversimplifying things here. From what I have witnessed and gathered, lawyers specialize in certain areas of law. Don't you think a proper lawyer would point a client to someone who could better handle their case instead of simply "taking cases because it's their job"? Should a lawyer that focuses on real estate really handle matters on bankruptcy "because it's their job to provide legal representation"? Again, you're oversimplifying.
Turns out lawyers can't simply take any and all cases anyway since some states require a certification in certain areas of law to represent others in such. That is irrelevant to TG's case, but still worth pointing out.

i dont want to ever dismiss anything is irrelevant but at the same time i am having trouble seeing what makes the lawyers qualifications so interesting to this. is the implication that billys lawyer is possibly defrauding him, breaking the law, or not providing (not able to provide) sufficient help? even in these cases it would seem thats between the lawyer and the bar, or the lawyer and billy? is there some implication that his would be anything TG would bother to present in court?

if the point is he's merely not that well versed in this type of case, then the only implication i can see is, that its good for tg that billy got a lawyer who wont be that effective.

Originally Posted by Streetwize

Don't you think a proper lawyer would point a client to someone who could better handle their case instead of simply "taking cases because it's their job"? Should a lawyer that focuses on real estate really handle matters on bankruptcy "because it's their job to provide legal representation"? Again, you're oversimplifying.
Turns out lawyers can't simply take any and all cases anyway since some states require a certification in certain areas of law to represent others in such. That is irrelevant to TG's case, but still worth pointing out.

If Billy hired a buffoon, that's his problem.

Originally Posted by Snowflake

i dont want to ever dismiss anything is irrelevant but at the same time i am having trouble seeing what makes the lawyers qualifications so interesting to this. is the implication that billys lawyer is possibly defrauding him, breaking the law, or not providing (not able to provide) sufficient help? even in these cases it would seem thats between the lawyer and the bar, or the lawyer and billy? is there some implication that his would be anything TG would bother to present in court?

if the point is he's merely not that well versed in this type of case, then the only implication i can see is, that its good for tg that billy got a lawyer who wont be that effective.

That is a fair question, and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. While I have thought of those possibilities you mentioned, I admit I cannot give an absolute answer behind the lawyer's actions. I'd be resorting to speculation on someone I have made zero observation on. The most I can do is call his experience into question. Casey Ross amped this lawyer up quite a bit saying he is so confident in his chances of winning that he is working pro bono. That is extremely bold, suggesting that he knows what he is doing. The lawyer is part of a law firm where 40+ attorneys are present in each area to cover a myriad of areas within law. While lawyers are present that can handle defamation cases, said lawyer is not among them. What gives? It's not illegal, but it doesn't make any sense. On second thought, money does talk, and BM did ask for a lot from each person he has sued...

Assuming their meeting wasn't intentional, all I can reasonably assume is that there was a mix-up somewhere. The closest thing this lawyer has to what BM's case has anything to do with are the words "bad faith litigation". He could have asked for this attorney specifically after seeing those words or perhaps he was referred to Gibbons when he brought up TG acting in bad faith. It's not uncommon for people to assume that something means what they think it does based on a word or two of a phrase, dismissing any context the rest of it would provide. I really wish I knew what the word or phrase for this was. It's a similar train of logic Mr. Mitchell has demonstrated in court by stating it's possible for a PCB to display the girder finger in transitions because it's seen when DK wrecks the girders at the start.
Try as I might to be sound, I do admit this is conjecture. If Gibbons or Mitchell speak up, I could easily not have a leg to stand on. All I can really do is point out that a lawyer who doesn't claim to practice this area of law is handling this case, when there are others where he works who could do such.

Originally Posted by floodberry

If Billy hired a buffoon, that's his problem.

Can't argue with that. Not that I'd ever put it so bluntly.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

No. The countersuit still goes ahead.

Excellent news. I can't thank you enough for going after vexatious con men that have been abusing the legal system to hide their own guilt. I will also say after reviewing the deposition list, there's going to be a lot of people that have provable facts on their side concerning the shenanigans that went on, and a handful of people that will perjure themselves with EASILY impeachable testimony.