Thank you mods. That poster seemed to think they were Deputy Dog.
6 Likes
Thank you. Several things were too much of a coincidence.
6 Likes
I must admit that I read it up-thread and included it but have no verification.
1 Like
I still have confusion about Bruce’s filing.
I do not get all the lawyer stuff, but I still do not get how a lawyer can file for someone who is not their client. I thought there was all kinds of stuff that had to be proclaimed for people to have that lawyer/client thing going on.
And how does an email sent after the deadline show they were answering?
Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Bruce to say - sorry, I did not realize I was representing these two people too and that is why I messed up?
6 Likes
He’s having to throw stuff up to see what sticks because there is no excuse for missing a filing deadline except acts of god.
11 Likes
That seems to be a very popular approach with the Ks and their minions.
5 Likes
Me too.
4 Likes
Well, I guess if it confuses you, then I have no chance of getting it.
6 Likes
Was it royalty? 
8 Likes
Just read the first Motion to Quash, what the heck, he wants a Protective Order for JK and KK!
Someone enlighten me please, for real?
4 Likes
It’s a protective order re: discovery. He’s basically asking the court to limit any info allowed, if the subpoenas aren’t quashed.
7 Likes
Thank you! (And explain to me the clicking of tractors… am confused!)
I have only read the first one, and I have the following observations:
- Quite boring to read compared to the filings of opposing counsels,
- Apparently attorney, like client, believes that if you repeat a lie often enough (verdict), either you convince someone or it becomes true,
- TYPOS! Can nobody proofread in this office?
- Exhibit A… hahahahahahahahahahaha!
8 Likes
As am I.
I can’t wait to see how they respond to Nagel’s statement that “As a threshold matter, as Defendants are well aware, Mr. Kanarek has a law degree, and any texts he had with his daughter which in any way relate to the incident are not only factually irrelevant to the case at hand, but potentially covered by the attorney client privilege.”
How can “texts that relate to the incident” be “factually irrelevant” ?
And the statement that because he has a law degree communications with his daughter may be attorney client priviliged is very reminiscent of the time I was at a client’s office doing a preliminary review of documents that our client would have to produce in discovery and was told by their not very bright in-house counsel that I should not review any documents in his office because if it was in his office it was “privileged.” He was not very happy with me when I pointed out that the New York Times sitting in plain view on his desk was not privilleged.
18 Likes
That website always makes me do the ReCaptcha thing a million times. Today the picture was tractors and the website was relatively cooperative, as I only had to go through it twice!
12 Likes
Ugh. I hate the “click on [crosswalks, boats, traffic lights, etc]” captchas - especially traffic lights. Is it just the signal? The pole?
9 Likes
To get to the site with the filings you have to go through one of those annoying click all the stoplights, buses, crosswalks, tractors.
5 Likes
I really, really hate traffic lights! Tractors are easy in comparison.
7 Likes
12 Likes
Me!!! Especially when I scrolled up and someone said “did someone say beetle” or something… I’m way behind as I just got home from the barn.
1 Like
Same!
2 Likes
