Fogbow

Gregg wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:12 pm Dr. Taitz, Esquire,CRS, GAA, CCIM and Aromatherapy Professional

forgot WTF BBQ

Of course Dr. Taitz Esq. … but let's be careful about provoking Foggy's flashbacks of those torrid hours he spent in The Dental Chair Of Lurve with Orly and Charles Lincoln.

Maybe that's what led him to cut the brake lines on Orly's Tesla?

Is it possible that this is just a scam for Lumpy to squirm out of his debts?

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:06 am Is it possible that this is just a scam for Lumpy to squirm out of his debts?

That perhaps assumes a level of sentience that Lindell so far has avoided.

He's already bankfuckt, he'll be bankrupt soon-ish, surely?

I think it's pretty clear that he genuinely has spent a ton of money on this scam. Montgomery will have milked him for as much as possible, and that guy has a lot of experience at milking.

Whether he is really broke now is anyone's guess.

he is pathetic asking people to pay into his "legal defense fund"


some dude said he and his wife give 250 monthly. WTF for????

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:34 pm he is pathetic asking people to pay into his "legal defense fund"

some dude said he and his wife give 250 monthly. WTF for????

I keep saying they should give that to Shriners, St. Jude, or an animal rescue.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:49 pm

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:34 pm he is pathetic asking people to pay into his "legal defense fund"

some dude said he and his wife give 250 monthly. WTF for????

I keep saying they should give that to Shriners, St. Jude, or an animal rescue.

yes

we give to St Jude

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:34 pm he is pathetic asking people to pay into his "legal defense fund"


some dude said he and his wife give 250 monthly. WTF for????

LOL. Yeah, and another caller suggested Mikey give out a code so the customers could pay FULL RETAIL on this stuff.

I was like

go a head dumb azz

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:34 pm he is pathetic asking people to pay into his "legal defense fund"


some dude said he and his wife give 250 monthly. WTF for????

Because it is a key indicator of tghe MAGA faithful that they give a middleing part of their fixed income to purported billionaires and multimilioniares who need it more, to fuel their private jets and such.

less $ for dotard

A question for the Lawyers out there.

If you drop a client because he has not paid any of his bills,

Do you drop him from all your cases, or just the ones that are over 90 days in arrears?

5 days after the filed a motion to withdraw in the defamation lawsuit, the same lawyers filed a slew of motions in the Zeidman case.

Mike and Brannon are LIVE on Lindell TV Channel 1. https://frankspeech.com/live/watch-lindell-tv-live-247

Mike is 20 minutes in, it's all been his sell. Showing the new commercial that's launching nationwide on Monday. Get your kitchen towels now! Limited supply on his Christmas products. Anything that's 80% off are overstock like the couch pillows "They're beautiful but they serve a purpose, not just decorative. They're beautiful." Mattress pad, the MyPillow bathrobes "don't get talked about enough, they are absolutely amazing. I'm telling you -- there is no better robe in the world". Mike is directing Brannon like Orly directed in her court case "Up, up, no, over, down, up, down, down more..."

Now he's moving to other things -- 3 new commercials, he says he found new lawyers coming on, couple million dollars a month in legal fees... Judge ruled his old lawyers can drop out of the Smartmatic case today. He insists the Lindell Offense Fund will NOT be paying for Mike's lawsuits.

And he's using MY idea ... he's doing the TELETHON ON OCTOBER 28!

I just may watch that....

orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 7:22 pm Mike and Brannon are LIVE on Lindell TV Channel 1. https://frankspeech.com/live/watch-lindell-tv-live-247

....
And he's using MY idea ... he's doing the TELETHON ON OCTOBER 28!

Maybe Conan O'Brien is available.

I really enjoyed Foggy’s use of “might could.”

Our pal Mike was ANGRY at Stephen Colbert (but man does he LOVE Jimmy Kimmel). Colbert, in Lindell mustache, explains to the pillow he's speaking to that it'll be better for both of them -- then smothers it. Mike was REALLY STEAMED. About 9 minutes in (should be queued):








Here's Kimmel on Lindell. Mike worships Jimmy and is convinced that really, truly, Jimmy is his biggest fan. He thinks that if Kimmel had his way, he'd have Mike on for the full show explaining his election theories. Last night, Brannon asked Mike if they should run the clip and Mike was like erm no -- but they RAVED at how the Kimmel staff recreated his office "even the Amazing Grace sign" so beautifully.








Mike's ex lawyer on the news:









It's becoming a tradition -- and drinking game -- whenever Mike Lindell says DISGUSTING, everybody drink. If he says it twice in a row, first one to say DeFlamation (yes, he's still mispronouncing it) makes the other folks drink a double.

Mike Pillow is having a mad at Stephen Colbert: https://www.rawstory.com/mike-lindell-stephen-colbert/

On Thursday, Lindell reacted to the monologue by calling Colbert a "scumbag."

"Yeah, he's a scumbag," the pillow executive griped to Steve Bannon. "Did I spell that right? S-C-U-M-B-A-G-S. I can send to them lawyers, this guy's even worse, Colbert."

"He attacked my employees directly, making fun of them," he continued. "Gee, I want to protect my company, so I'm not going to continue with $2 million a month lawyer bills. I'm not going to let everything go down because of frivolous lawsuits and lawfare."

Lindell said Colbert and his audience "all laugh about my employees."

"They have families, these guys have been with me for 20 years, we're not going anywhere," he vowed. "And I know when I watch this, it just, it just sickened me.

It's not about his employees. It's about YOU you dumbbell

Apparently he is saying that he's will represent himself if he has to....

Chilidog wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 7:27 pm Apparently he is saying that he's will represent himself if he has to....

Sometimes, the only one who can bring enough crazy to defend a crazy defendant is the crazy defendant.

Doesn't make it not crazy, of course.

Some action in the Robert Zeidman v Lindell case -- Filed 10/10 by PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC (it was expected they'd withdraw from this one too, but no Withdrawal has been filed. Maybe they think it's close enough to the end to not bother.) Anyway, it's kind of interesting; they go through the "Prove Mike Wrong" contest rules and argue the arbitration panel overstepped by not sticking strictly to the (basically impossible to win) contract. They do have a point.

37 Oct 10, 2023 MEMORANDUM in Support re 35 MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award filed by Lindell Management LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Beck, Alec) (Entered: 10/10/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.37.0.pdf

Zeidman's was filed in August --

24 Aug 4, 2023 MEMORANDUM in Support re 22 MOTION to Confirm Arbitration Award (ROBERT ZEIDMANS MOTION TO CONFIM THE ARBITRATION AWARD) filed by Robert Zeidman. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Exhibit(s) A)(Joshi, Cary) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.24.0.pdf

What's the Fogbar view on this? I glanced at the document linked by OL. My understanding of the Team Pillow argument is that the arbitration panel didn't interpret the rules in the "ha! you fools! you can never win!" way that Mike Pillow intended, so its verdict was wrong and should be overturned.

I think (but might be wrong, I only skimmed the many wurdz) that they admit to not challenging at the time the panel's acceptance of Zeidman's "reasonable person" interpretation of the rules rather than their preferred "you can never win" framing.

Lindell's people quote the restrictive rules for s court to overturn a panel's verdict and they are about significant errors, not about being sn unhappy loser.

They then justify bringing their "we're not happy" appeal on the basis that federal courts are"not rubber stamps" with, I guess, the implication that the court is free to say "rules, schmules" and busk it.

To my non-lawyer mind this suggests two points that should kill the appeal:
Firstly, appeals are about flaws in the original proceedings, not about rehearing the original evidence, which I think is the crux of Yeam Pillow's argument.
Secondly, if it's so obvious that the panel's interpretation was wrong, why did not Team Pillow challenge it more forcefully at the panel hearing? It can't be that bad an error if they took this long to locate some wriggle room.

As an IANAL outsider I wonder if "you can never win" is a legally acceptable contract clause or gets pushed aside by the court

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:49 am As an IANAL outsider I wonder if "you can never win" is a legally acceptable contract clause or gets pushed aside by the court

I dunno, NAL, but I wonder if the law would agree with the argument "you presented this as a fair competition but you devised conditions to make it impossible to win, therefore you fraudulently misrepresented it"?

That is definitely an interesting question for lawyers. Probably somewhere in first year contract law?

But! I decided to emulate Bob's Birthers over at the Post and eFail (stopped clocks and all that), so I took a moment to ask Bing. It included this:

Bing wrote:If a competition is designed in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to win, it could be considered fraudulent and illegal.

It also advised me to seek legal advice if I were planning to do this. I am not.