Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9431237" data-attributes="member: 7038835">That's a pretty accurate summary of the whole thing yeah.Yeah it was a truly bizarre crossover for me - I am a fan of Mike Dunford, who works for the same law firm as Kathryn and his Discord has a blanket ban on discussing WotC related stuff because the firm sometimes does work for them.So imagine my shock and confusion when I read OC brief in response to the motion and recognized the name, then frantically googled to check maybe it was just another lawyer with the same name.  Nope.I think my favourite for this is how he asserts that the judge erred by using her own standard for what qualifies as IIED, and it shows because she didn't point to authorities... then he fails to make any case as to 1. what the standard actually would be in this case and 2. any basis for authority at all (a law paper about theoretical crimes of the future is not an authority, nor is Google Terms of Service) that he knows better than the judge. ie "Just trust me I know the law better than a District Court judge."[ATTACH=full]376038[/ATTACH]And by no authorities I mean, once again, authorities that work against him. He cites <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ratto-v-oliva" target="_blank">Ratto v Oliva</a> which stands for the general principle that generic threats, naughty word talking and unverified incidents cannot rise to the standard of IIED.He also argues he should be allowed to just be taken at his word that it's actually IIED by citing <a href="https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep559001/" target="_blank">Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York</a>, which is a complicated case over whether a city could have a RICO action over unpaid cigarette tax and includes in the majority statement:[ATTACH=full]376041[/ATTACH]Unfortunately US citations don't require pinpointing like New Zealand do, so it's not clear to me how he gets to this conclusion about the case other than if he's referring to the opinions of the dissenting judges... but yeah it's a stretch at best, but more likely completely unrelated.Later he makes this baffling statement which seems to imply that he, as a New Yorker, thinks that being an ex-cop is a reason that you should believe someone in NY owns a gun... not that it's a castle doctrine state with gun laws that make it fairly easy to own a weapon for self defence.  He also keeps saying "supposedly" like it isn't something that is confirmed or easily confirmed by a simple record check (it took me less than 30 seconds to confirm Tenkar's service and badge #).[ATTACH=full]376049[/ATTACH]He then cites Risetto v County of Clinton, where he once again quotes a quote within the document, which is a case where IIED was dismissed because even if all the facts were correct - it still didn't count as IIED.  Here it looks like Justin's lawyer interpreted the quote of from the defendant's memoranda of law as the authority, not the actual ruling by Judge Suddaby. Basically the whole thing once again has all the hallmarks of a lawyer who is not well versed in this area of law, doing rapid fire searches in databases and copy-and-pasting without reading to try avoid having to learn the specifics of the law and give reasonable advice to a client before agreeing to file a case and an expensive appeal.I can completely see why this is not comedy but simply a barrage of agony for [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] since while this would be merely entertaining as a inane drama between the excessively wealthy (like say the Carano v Disney case) it is essentially here illustrative of how this legal process can be effective in costing people time, money and stress even when wielded extremely ineptly.</blockquote>

Verification