Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
to be economical with the truth when they are in a weak position.
When challenged they use their verbal skills to confuse the questioner into
believing that they didn't actually say what they were supposed to say or if
they did it didn't mean what you thought it meant.
Now that is a sign of a good lawyer. There are plenty of them involved in this
case?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
In my view, sanctions would be just, but I doubt that will happen. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
For sanctions et al, wouldn't you first have to prove that the
lawyers had actually read this? Otherwise, plausible
deniability.
Now with McN, probably a different case. Who signed the
filing?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
Two tweets...
Jonathan Schwartz @OpenJonathan
I guess
not everyone read our SEC filings. Kudos, once
again, @groklaw
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/article.php%3f
story=20120501005843202
DonaldOJDK
@DonaldOJDK
@OpenJonathan @groklaw Apparently even fewer people
read
the sentence after the highlighted one. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|