Fogbow

Reality Check wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:07 pm Krakpoots?

Estiveo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:43 amDuh, Krakheads.

The Michigan lawyers say they signed the filings, but did not prepare them, so they should not be responsible, while the out of state attorneys say they prepared the filings, but they did not sign them, so they should not be responsible. And, the out of state attorneys say that even if they did prepare and sign the filings, they are immune from this Court’s review, because they never followed this Court’s rules to be admitted.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:39 pm The blister is OK, but it’s not likely to alter the judge’s thinking.

What will make a difference is the proof of service on the attorneys who denied receiving Detroit’s papers (pp 3-5) and the devastating evidence of Wood’s acknowledgment of and boasts about his involvement in the Michigan action (pp 16-19).

I also liked this:

The Michigan lawyers say they signed the filings, but did not prepare them, so they should not be responsible, while the out of state attorneys say they prepared the filings, but they did not sign them, so they should not be responsible. And, the out of state attorneys say that even if they did prepare and sign the filings, they are immune from this Court’s review, because they never followed this Court’s rules to be admitted.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:10 am
It's a good idea when the judge clearly wants to focus on one particular aspect of a case to at least try to be responsive in any subsequent filings. Not doing so is an...interesting choice?