Trouble At The Law Firm Filing Patently Ridiculous Lawsuits On Behalf Of Tulsi Gabbard
from the and-also-representing-rudy dept
We've covered the two ridiculous lawsuits filed by Tulsi Gabbard in the past few months -- one against Google and another against Hillary Clinton. In both cases, the lawsuits were filed by lawyers at the law firm Pierce Bainbridge, and we questioned why they'd want to sully their own reputation by filing lawsuits that seemed clearly destined to fail, and which only seemed to serve a PR purpose in playing to her supporters.
A few days later, NBC News posted quite an incredible story about how partners are bailing from the firm as a bunch other questionable activity has been alleged. Oh, and also, it appears that the same law firm representing Tulsi Gabbard is also representing... Rudy Giuliani as the DOJ looks into his role in various Ukrainian activities. Oh, and also Carter Page.
A law firm representing Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine affair is locked in a bitter court battle with a former partner that has revealed allegations of financial misconduct, sexual assault and office masturbation.
The firm, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, has faced an exodus of lawyers as the litigation stretches on, including two who were defending Giuliani amid a criminal probe launched by New York federal prosecutors.
The article goes on to describe quite an incredible set of lawsuits and countersuits between the firm and a former partner -- with some pretty extreme claims being thrown in both directions, and with each side insisting the other side is making stuff up. Either way, what is clear is that eight partners have left recently. The founder of the firm, John Pierce, insists it's because they couldn't hack it, and came up with quite the ridiculous analogy comparing his firm to Navy SEALs.
Pierce downplayed the loss of eight partners and said the firm has added roughly the same number of lawyers. "As I have said from the day we launched, this firm is the legal industry equivalent of the Navy's SEAL Team 6 or the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment," said Pierce, who co-founded the firm in 2017. "I will accept nothing less. Not everyone is cut out for SEAL training or Ranger school."
That's one way to spin things.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: john pierce, law firms, rudy giuliani, tulsi gabbard
Companies: pierce bainbridge
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Great company you've chosen there, Representative Gabbard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"GABBARD FOR PRESIDENT!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like how you quoted that. Kinda like you couldn’t bring yourself to actually say it. Like “you’re a gigantic tool!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Huh?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You call yourself a tool when you judge others wrongfully as in look in the mirror and see Karma staring you in the face wise one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we all remember that sad taunt from grade school bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t remember anyone from grade school using the word “Karma” outside of, like, maybe social studies or literature class in the 5th or 6th grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to miss the inference. Read between the lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm glad I don't know you. You are very unhappy person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Setting aside the fact that I was mostly joking anyways, what “inference” did I supposedly miss, just to set the record straight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to extend the military comparison a bit
In the ensuing firefight, you exchanged 8 experienced officers for 8 straight out of bootcamp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Have you ever been to bootcamp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
A right to passage. Don't talk about boot camp unless you've been there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Why are self-proclaimed military guys always so thin-skinned and bad at English?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Just don't talk about something you don't know anything about. You have never been hated like you will be in bootcamp. Its an indoctrination that will show you what the government is in regards to the citizens they intend to throw into war. I'm not saying you don't have a right to talk about it, but you shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Wait, you aren’t saying that people shouldn’t say anything that even uses the term “boot camp”, are you? Because the original comment just said this:
That’s not saying anything about military boot camps themselves; it’s using an analogy by comparing the differences between newbies who just finished their training/degree vs. those with substantial real-world experience. The harshness of the training itself is irrelevant there.
I don’t know much about military boot camps—though I understand that it is extremely harsh and rigid and I would never want to go through one even if the end result wouldn’t be to put me into situations where my death is substantially likely and my chances of killing someone else is even higher—but I do know enough about experience and tactics in general to say that an experienced soldier would be better to have than someone fresh out of boot camp. Nor does that observation have anything to do with what happens within boot camps.
Basically, I don’t see how your comment relates to the original reference in any reasonable way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
"You have never been hated like you will be in bootcamp"
Yes, I fortunately had other options and enough education to know what signing up for that would mean. I'm sorry if you either had no option or didn't research before enlisting, but your bad experience there is hardly my fault.
"I'm not saying you don't have a right to talk about it, but you shouldn't."
But, I will. Stop me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Its an indoctrination that will show you what the government is in regards to the citizens they intend to throw into war.
They're not throwing you into war unless you're being drafted. Since joining the military is voluntary, it's a choice you're adult enough to make.
It's a stupid choice, but then again, I certainly won't infringe on your right to be an ignorant dipshit who makes shitty choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
To be fair, there is a difference between going to a foreign country to fight a war on their soil and fighting to defend our soil from external threats, and there’s also a difference between fighting to help our allies from an actual threat (e.g. the annexation of Crimea) and fighting over things that don’t really involve us, are based upon bad intel, or are the direct result of our own actions (e.g. the War in Iraq, all of them, or the current conflict with Iran). That is, they may be questioning the choice of which wars they get thrown into by those in power.
Sure, that comes with the territory, but my point is that it’s not completely unreasonable for someone enlisting to not expect to be thrust into specific wars they want nothing to do with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a
In addition, prospective recruits may not have anticipated a so called commander in chief that claims "They knew what they were getting into" and disparages the families of fallen soldiers while using the military as border patrol nannies. Now I read that some service members are being used as some sort of secret police patrolling the streets for immigrants. Immigrants today, those that do not goose step tomorrow. This needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a
Sure, that comes with the territory, but my point is that it’s not completely unreasonable for someone enlisting to not expect to be thrust into specific wars they want nothing to do with.
Yes it is. They're adults, and fully aware of the decision they're making. It's not as if they've never heard of Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the prospect that they can be farmed out to the Saudis for the right price.
If they choose not to learn from those things, again it's their choice.
Nothing wrong with holding the ignorant to be responsible for their decisions. I have to deal with a shit-flinging moron in the white house elected by half a country of dipshits. Let those stupid enough to join the military (or stupid enough to stay in) deal with wars resulting from electing those idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
I'm curious: as someone who implies you went through boot camp: did you go through BCT or OTS? Because I think we're talking about OTS here. It's not quite the same thing as BCT as you're being trained to make snap decisions based on other people's lives, not being trained to follow those decisions no matter what your personal outcome of following may be.
They're both a horrible experience. But as a vet, how would you react to being told "Your officers have all retired as of 5 minutes ago. They will be replaced by these men, fresh from OTS."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
"A right to passage. Don't talk about boot camp unless you've been there."
Where the hell are you from anyway, private?
Sir, Texas, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Bootcamp, for when you barely scraped a GED, and need a career but you're not good enough to get a job flipping burgers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Is our volunteer army full of recruits that chose the armed forces or is it the choice of last resort?
Can't find a job that pays a living wage? Join the army, it's not a job, it's an adventure. Be a merc, then when you come home with missing limbs you can crowd fund your recovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
You chicken, haha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
I'm chicken you claim but do not elucidate use of the word chicken.
It is funny that you type things and others have no idea what you meant. Just giggling to yourself I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Get down and give me 50 maggot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
You're elucidating alright as in hallucinating sound bytes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:in order to avoid embarrassing yourself further
You should probably stay away from the insults bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
"independent agencies" which perpetuate their jobs through false accusations against those who can fire them, for those who can't win elections (democrats).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Yet the military and those in it tend to do your fighting for you so you can sit in your mom's basement eating the turkey sandwich she just climbed down the stairs to give you so you can badmouth the very ones who keep you free so you can be a worthless loudmouth!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
"tend to do"
What do you mean here? They sorta do it sometimes ...
"your fighting for you"
What fight am I in right now and who put me there? What bad decisions has our administration made that has put me and everyone else in a fight?
"you can sit in your mom's basement"
I envision you saying this like Ace Ventura in the ass talking scene.
"badmouth the very ones who keep you free "
Keep me free of what? Badmouth whom? I do not speak poorly of our armed forces, just those who pull the strings. Our volunteer army is lacking volunteers, could this be due to them being treated like mercs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Nobody needs to do my fighting for me. I didn't pick a fight in Syria or Afghanistan. And none of those recent "fights" had anything whatsoever to do with American freedom, at least not the preservation of it. If anything, we've less freedom now than before those wars were fought "because terrorists" and to enable more draconian laws back home.
Face it: You joined the military because you lacked other options, not because you wanted to preserve the American way of life. And now you cling to bullshit to justify what you've done or to bolster your flagging ego. Give it up. Those who didn't join are in charge. You never were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Oh, you were in WWII? No? Then shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
I thought the military made men. Not thin skinned whiny bitches like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
no basement, that's literally the cheap shitty cliche of every 3rd rate whiny bitch.
second, no-one's fighting for any freedoms. Go on, tell me how exactly any 'freedoms' are being threatened, and how the military is combating them. well, there's poverty, I guess - with all the benefits like housing, etc. added in it's something like $29,000/year pay for an E-1, and for those that don't know, E-1 is the rank that you get starting out, after 4 months you get promoted to E-2, (and yes, you can be promoted to E-4 [specialist] not on merit, but literally time-in-service, and it takes about 5 years from boot to E-5. Yet the military pay scales list incremental increases for E-1 to 20 years)
The free market says if you have some more skills, you're worth about half that.
It's about ego and money, the old military enlistment, and fuck all else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Geez, if any one ever needed to get some discipline of the mouth, it would be you answering your own posts and repeating yourself as if everyone need the reiteration of a mouth full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
please do whine some more, show you don't understand how to read threading, also, it sounds exactly like you enlisted and are utterly butthurt that your lack of value to society forced you to a choice you now expect to be cheered and hailed for, and are pissed and upset you're not getting it.
You can now go back to curling up in your bed and crying as you suck your thumb, like you did in Basic,and we'll carry on calling you "PFC shithead" [PFC standing for 'pathetic fucking crybaby'] like they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Classic, the drill sergeant nasty archetype screams at the top of his voice, treats other humans like dirt, and his first response is to whine about language. Because... I don't know, it's supposed to be a humanizing trait? Or an attempt to build some rapport with the grassroots-level infantry? Hell if I know why you meatheads ever expect this to work. You fucktards are a jock's dream come true. When you guys swear in the army it's like children discovering rude language for the first time and using "fuck" in every other sentence like a teenager trying to be edgy.
I mean, you guys do know that Nathan R. Jessup eventually got arrested for his delusions, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a
I looked up the “Nathan R. Jessup” allusion, and while I only skimmed a summary of his character, I can certainly see the similarities, though what Jessup did was far, far worse than anything we’re seeing from this guy. (At least, I don’t have any reason to believe this person gave an order that was somehow responsible for a fellow soldier’s death from hazing, nor that they ever tried to cover up a crime or their involvement in such.) But yeah, the insistence that the military can do no wrong and only does what it does to protect our freedom, that that somehow means that people should never question or criticize the methods they use (ignoring the fact that that’s one of the freedoms they’re ostensibly protecting), the looking down on and dismissal of civilian critics and observers… There are certainly some parallels there.
That said, it should be pointed out that Jessup is a fictional character. I believe a number of people would argue that in the real world, especially under this administration, a real-world equivalent of Jessup would not be arrested. Additionally, Jessup was arrested because a Marine (or two) died from two other Marines hazing him/them under his order(s) and tried to cover it up. “[H]is delusions” themselves weren’t directly responsible for his arrest; they just failed to protect him.
Finally, I don’t believe Jessup was a drill sergeant (he was a commanding officer), and while this AC does seem to have been in the military, I don’t see anything that points to them having actually been a drill sergeant, specifically. I’m also uncertain how accurate the stereotype of people in the military swearing extremely frequently actually is. That said, I do appreciate the irony/hypocrisy in them criticizing someone else for their mouth in the same sentence they refer to that person’s contributions here as “full of shit”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Uh, actually, this was the post they were replying to in that comment you’re addressing.
Additionally, each of the four comments in between yours and theirs (in the threaded view) were all written by different people, and all were responses to yours. You can tell they were different people because the colored, patterned squares next to the words “Anonymous Coward” are clearly different from each other. While that’s not a perfect indicator that they’re different people (the squares are determined based on IP addresses, and there have been unregistered users who have switched IP addresses between comments), it’s still fairly decent evidence that they were written by different people. And you can tell that they are all responses to your comment because they are all exactly one level deeper than yours and there are no intervening comments at a deeper level, so that’s pretty easy to determine.
This left me confused about what could have confused you in [this] post, so, having found nothing helpful from the threaded view, I checked the chronological view to see if this AC had simply made several similar posts within the same time frame in multiple threads in this comment section. Nope. The two previous posts (chronologically) were from Zof, and while they were hidden, the ones before that were clearly from another AC.
In fact, this particular AC only wrote one other comment in this thread prior to the one you’re replying to, and unlike what was implied by you’re saying that they’re “repeating [them]self”, it doesn’t actually contain anything repeated in the later comment aside from being filled with clear disdain for the military. It was also the comment that your other comment was responding to, so I’m even more confused why you would think they were “answering [their] own posts” when they very clearly weren’t.
Are you seriously that confused about how the threaded view works? I mean, I normally can see a plausible reason for the confusion in more complicated threads, but this particular one seems extremely straightforward for this particular case. What in the world are you talking about?
The only other explanation I can come up with is that you don’t believe that they should respond to a response to their own post to elaborate on their original post and address your issues with it, but that’s just ridiculous (even if they did so in a crude and disrespectful manner).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
Yet the military and those in it tend to do your fighting for you..
You mean those wars of choice we've been fighting for the last 30 years? I didn't support them, so stop thinking that you or anyone else who thought it'd be a good idea to join the military were doing me any fucking favors.
If you weren't drafted, the choice to join was yours. Same as any other career choice. Don't expect me to kiss your ass for something you chose to do and get paid to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
To be fair, I do think we should give a pass to those who enlisted before the Second Gulf War. They couldn’t have known what would happen later on. It was perfectly reasonable at that time to believe that wars would be rare and that the military would mostly just do drills, some protection of ourselves and our allies, or actually having to fight for something worth fighting for. Things went completely crazy after 9/11.
(Yes, the First Gulf War, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War were also somewhat questionable (listed in ascending order of acceptability for getting involved in the first place), but the Second Gulf War was definitely a major turning point and the first war in the 20th to 21st centuries that could only be described as a war of aggression and that completely lacked the check Congress should have over the ability to wage war.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
"Yet the military and those in it tend to do your fighting for you..."
You mean the ones fighting unwarranted wars of aggression exclusively dedicated to plundering resources in Iraq for large campaign contributors?
Those utter tools?
Or did you mean those who recently betrayed their closest allies (who they also convinced to do all the heavy lifting and real fighting in syria)?
Let me know when any part of the US military, other than search and rescue or the national guardsmen doing flood relief, have ANY military merits worth defending, kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
barely scraped a GED..
Nice try numbnut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: to extend the military comparison a bit
oh wow, you mean you didn't even manage that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to extend the military comparison a bit - The Replacements
Experienced or not, who wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with the “Chief Emoji Officer”?
“Dan Terzian (Los Angeles) – Dan is a commercial litigator . . . He is also the Firm's Chief Emoji Officer.”
https://www.piercebainbridge.com/2020/01/07/pierce-bainbridge-announces-promotions/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pierce Bainbridge like the gift that keeps on giving. The next partner replacement will be a trained elephant. It would fit in with the clowns under the big tent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pierce
Somehow Pierce Bainbridge has "SEAL Team 6 or the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment" confused with "Dumb and Dumber".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A law firm representing Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine affair is locked in a bitter court battle with a former partner that has revealed allegations of financial misconduct, sexual assault and office masturbation.
The firm, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, has faced an exodus of lawyers as the litigation stretches on, including two who were defending Giuliani amid a criminal probe launched by New York federal prosecutors."
Seems like business as usual!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy Pierce is manna from crackhead lawyers heaven.
Look at this....👀👀👀👀
The Army Ranger Creed includes: “Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.” But Pierce’s own personnel have stated in writing:
“John is probably deep in the sauce and coke.” – LaVigne when Pierce was AWOL during the workday.
“What’s his status? Puking? Stinky? Incoherent?” LaVigne at 8:40 a.m. on a Tuesday allegedly twenty minutes before Pierce missed an important 9:00 a.m. meeting with a funder and a former LaVigne colleague from Skadden Arps because “he’s soooo drunk still,” according to a text from Schaefer-Green.
“i can’t handle the drinking again. this is the only area in which he threatens me . . .then his life implodes all over again.” – Schaefer-Green, one of several times she complained in writing about Pierce and the bottle.
“(PB is a) free for all with a narcissistic socio-path at the
helm.”
You can not make this stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I'm wondering why they turned me down for a job right out of college. Sounds like I would have been a perfect fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Pierce Bainbridge and its founding partner named John Pierce recently found themselves facing additional regulatory scrutiny by a former client who filed Motion For Fraud on Court against Pierce Bainbridge who John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge screwed over entirely!
https://www.scribd.com/document/428522352/Greenway-Nutrients-Inc-vs-Selakovic-Et-Al
There is one email from John Pierce threatening his clients, as evidenced in Exhibit #15 in the link above.
Worth the read and genuinely unbelievable that these guys can still practice law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I can't believe that the managing partner of the firm wrote that to a client. Doesn't he have better things to do? Like focus on retaining firm partners? Or even win cases. Have they won any within the past year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I expected the link would consist of the word salad typical of pro se filings. I was not disappointed. Every piece of evidence attached to that monstrosity of a pleading supports Pierce Bainbridge's position, not yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Hilarious! You must a paid lawyer or shill who either works for or is married to a Pierce Bainbridge attorney!
You obviously did not read exhibit #15 that is Pierce Bainbridge’ Founding partner John Pierce’ email to a client stating “I don’t care what you consent to, and this will not be a pleasant experience for you!”
And, yet you somehow want to blame the victims who put their faith and trust in that arrogant , unethical, deceitful, no good - prick of an attorney.
Btw, if you actually took the time to read the content of those pleadings - instead of attempting to distract others from doing the same, your unread happy ass would have discovered that John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge are GUILTY of covering up a multi-billion dollar transnational Microsoft and Adobe Systems counterfeit software scam entitled “Operation Software Slashers”!
Look up or ”google” ”David Dragan Selakovic Adobe Systems” and you’ll find that David Dragan Selakovic is at the head of a multi billion dollar international counterfeit goods scheme and that military wannabe John Pierce and his band of mutts at Pierce Bainbridge quietly attempted to quietly sweep that disturbing information under the rug until their clients caught them!
So, yeah, before you spew any more flaming pro Pierce Bainbridge BS nonsense out of thin air DO YOUR HOMEWORK and stop attempting to lead people away from uncovering the truth!!
Pages 4-24 Pierce Bainbridge FRAUD ON THE COURT and the evidence is all there for the reading!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Unbelievable email to client!!
Exhibit #15 is an email actual court filings and email from John Pierce threatening a client who appears to be the victim of an ongoing federal crime!!
Appears to be nothing more than Unabashed and crooked lawyering too me!
John Pierce and his Self-proclaimed fastest fizzling and non-growing law firm on the planet ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Really? Exhibit #15 seems to be John Pierce (admittedly unkindly and bluntly) giving his clients fair notice of his intention to withdraw as counsel prior to actually doing so (as he is ethically obligated to do); it doesn’t appear to be a threat of any sort.
As for the ongoing federal crime, based on the filings provided, the reasoning behind the withdrawal appears to be a lack of evidence connecting the defendants to the alleged federal crime (which has not yet been prosecuted) and the plaintiff’s refusal to back down on whether or not to drop certain plaintiffs from the lawsuit. This is an irreconcilable difference, which is generally a pretty good reason to withdraw as counsel; in fact, the lawyer would be practically obligated to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Well, I am a lawyer, and I do get paid--but I have no connection whatsoever with Pierce Bainbridge, and don't even recall that I'd heard of the firm before this post.
Yes, exhibit 15 is blunt. It's rude. It's something that I wouldn't ordinarily expect the managing partner of a well-known firm to write to a client. And you're misquoting it, in that the two phrases you quote as a single sentence actually weren't.
But, however rude it is, the substance of it is correct. You engaged PB to sue (among others) your alleged former lawyers. They (foolishly) believed you when you said they were your former lawyers. When those lawyers pushed back, PB asked you to provide evidence, which you were unable or unwilling to do. There's one piece of evidence, which you absolutely would have if it existed, that would prove this point: an engagement/representation agreement signed by both you and them. You didn't give them that document. As a result, they reached two important conclusions:
As much as you blather about counterfeit software, it had nothing to do with your case--the case was dealing with your own product being sold improperly. No doubt your confusing these completely unrelated issues added to Pierce's frustration.
And, since you're apparently confused on this subject, pages 4-24 of that 150-page mess aren't evidence of anything--they're simply your claims.
It's important to note that I don't have (or claim) any independent knowledge of your case--everything I'm writing is drawn from the documents you linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I see a “Dan” Terzian on the firm’s website. It says he is “The Chief Emoji Officer.” That is not the onion, it’s actually true. You could look it up. Anybody got a Chesterfield?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I am a lawyer too. I too spend my precious free time dissecting pleadings on the internet and writing novellas in response. I find arguing legal concepts with strangers in the comments section sharpens me up for court. Or sometimes I just do it for kicks, it turns me on.
How much are you getting paid, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
That is a witty tool you lawyers have in your bag of tricks; you know how to shut someone up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
On what evidence do you base your assumption that Dan is being paid for this? Do you have any objections to any of the substance of his comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Hey “Dan” two things. They never said they were the client. So yeah you didn’t actually read the post. Not like that’s 90% of a lawyers job or anything. Secondly any reputable law firm would fire you the nano second they found out you were giving out, what sounds an awful lot like, unsolicited legal advise to people “presumably” involved in ongoing litigation that you aren’t a party too. So if you don’t already work for PB, unlikely as that sounds. You should apply ASAP as you’re the kind of scumbag lawyer they are looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
IANAL, but it’s fairly common for lawyers to comment upon lawsuits—including their merits or lack thereof—that they have no involvement in whatsoever. Ken “Popehat” White, Kevin Underhill, and Marc Randazza immediately come to mind, and there are many others whose names escape me at the moment. Furthermore, Dan didn’t initially identify as a lawyer, nor does he appear to be speaking from his point of view as a lawyer per se. Nowhere does he claim any independent knowledge, nor does he make any claims based upon his experience.
A lot of people tend to mislabel a lot of online analyses of and commentary on laws, criminal cases, legal threats, and/or lawsuits as “legal advice”, especially if the one commenting/analyzing is a lawyer. The fact is that no firm, legal ethics board, or court—at least in America—considers that sort of thing to constitute “legal advice” or “unsolicited legal advice” as meant by various ethics rules. Nothing Dan said comes close to “unsolicited legal advice” as far as I can tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Fair enough; I inferred that from Juan/Susan/Polly's posts and apparent passion about the case. But it's possible, I guess, that he/she/it/they is/are simply disinterested observers who hate Pierce Bainbridge for unrelated reasons. In that case, "you" (and variants) should be substituted with "Greenway" in my posts above.
Since you don't know what legal advi[c]e is, it's to be hoped that you aren't involved in a law firm in any serious way. I advise my clients, who fortunately have nothing to do with the word salad that is the linked pleading (or, to my knowledge, with anything else that's discussed on this site).
It's entirely possible for two things to simultaneously be true:
I don't have any particular opinion on the first; I certainly wouldn't argue against it and could easily believe it to be true. As to the second, I believe it to be true from what I can see in those very documents. I also find it telling that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has made any attempt to demonstrate that I'm wrong (which is certainly possible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your insight or lack thereof, since YOU ADMIT that YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR with this case or the factual allegations supported by the plaintiff's emails and written documentation to John Pierce & Pierce Bainbridge you MISTAKENLY referred to as "claims"!
First off, these plaintiffs were contacted by the United States Department of Homeland Security ("D.H.S."), who informed these clients that David Dragan Selakovic is the CRIMINAL MASTERMIND behind a MASSIVE TRANSNATIONAL ADOBE AND MICROSOFT COUNTERFEIT SOFTWARE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION SCHEME entitled "OPERATION SOFTWARE SLASHERS" THAT Jon Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge are guilty of attempting to cover up!
As evidenced on page 4-6, exhibit #2 of that very same link that YOU JUST FALSELY CLAIMED THAT YOU READ ENTIRELY!
https://www.scribd.com/document/428522352/Greenway-Nutrients-Inc-vs-Selakovic-Et-Al
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REVIEW THAT LINK AGAIN DAN, BECAUSE YOU WILL ONLY MAKE YOURSELF LOOK EVEN MORE FOOLISH THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE ...
Moreover, if you had honestly taken the time to read pages 6-8 like you obviously did not read, and precisely, exhibit #3, you would have also realized that those same attorneys that you claimed never represented these same clients GOT CAUGHT LYING about supposedly having never received, reviewed, or represented these poor clients who John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge took advantage of and screwed over entirely!
Even worse, had YOU taken the time to review these same pages that you claimed to have read, you would have also noticed those same attorneys were hired to prepare a Private Placement Memorandum ("PPM") to help these clients later take their company public.
Those same attorneys that you claimed never represented these clients got caught stealing and misappropriated these clients' confidential information that John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge attempted to cover-up!
John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge withheld a non-disclosure / non-circumvent agreement that these clients attorneys did, in fact, prepare on behalf of their former clients that John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge concealed from being disclosed to the court. As evidenced in Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Selakovic et al. civil case #9:18-cv-81104 Docket entry 102 page Exhibit #7.
How would you NOT CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE DAN? You are an attorney, and you should have known better!
It is important to note that John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge failed to investigate any of their clients' evidence, did not speak to any of their client's witnesses, performed no discovery, and did not take any depositions during John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge' botched representation of these same clients. As evidenced in Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Selakovic et al. civil case #9:18-cv-81104 Docket entry 102 page
Bottom line, John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge failed these clients miserably to cover-up these former clients attorneys' direct involvement in David Dragan Selakovic's multi-billion dollar counterfeit goods scheme.
In fact, the same attorney named James Daniel Ryan that stole these clients' confidential attorney-client privilege information has repeatedly defended David Dragan Selakovic's multiple lawsuits by Adobe Systems and The Microsoft Corporation.
As evidenced in Adobe Systems' vs. David Selakovic, civil case# 9:14-cv-81102
Please feel free to let us know if you would like me to continue Dan because we can run fact-based legal circles around you and anyone else all day long!
Happy Presidents Day!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Pages 4-6 of that document aren't evidence, and aren't part of any exhibit. Exhibit 2 only consists of two pages. Try again (or better yet, don't).
Exhibit 7 (at least, the two pages of that four-page letter that were included) doesn't say that. It says Plaintiffs provided no sufficient evidence that the James Ryan, Michael Ryan, or Ryan Law ever represented them, and as a result PB would not pursue that claim further. It advises Plaintiffs to drop that part of the suit, and says PB will withdraw from representing Plaintiffs if they do not.
But really, what I think doesn't matter--I'm not the judge. How did the court rule on that motion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Exhibit #2 doesn’t prove that PB are covering up anything, nor is it on pages 4-6. All it says is that PB doesn’t represent Greenway with regards to the DHS investigation, only the civil case, contains the standard warning for the client not to contact the defendants or their counsel except through PB, and mentions the Ryan case, saying that they aren’t yet sure whether the allegations in “the Colorado complaint” would be helpful for the plaintiff or the defendants. It also includes Greenway’s response, which appears pretty standard as well. Nothing about any concealed evidence.
Exhibit #3 doesn’t prove the Ryans lied or got caught lying, nor is it on pages 6-8. It’s just an email that James Ryan sent to PB denying that he, Mike Ryan, or Ryan Law have ever represented Greenway in any capacity.
What is on pages 4-8 are allegations that supposedly involve those exhibits, but the exhibits don’t really support the allegations (other than that PB was aware that there was supposedly a DHS investigation going on that related to a different civil case and that James Ryan sent an email denying the allegations against him, Mike, and their current firm). So yes, all of the troubling claims about Pierce, PB, James, Mike, and Ryan Law are just allegations unsupported by the evidence, not evidence in themselves.
The rest is also either unsupported allegations, undisputed facts that don’t really matter here, or exhibits that don’t prove what you claim they prove. In particular, Exhibit #7 says nothing about NDAs or anything. It (along with Exhibit #15) does refute a different claim made by Greenway that they were blindsided when PB submitted a notice to the court that they were withdrawing representation and that PB lied in that filing when they claimed to have notified Greenway previously about their intent to withdraw. It also refutes Greenway’s claim that PB never explained why they were withdrawing or why they wanted James, Mike, and Ryan Law dropped from the suit despite the evidence Greenway provided to prove those defendants had indeed represented Greenway. It actually spells it out quite clearly: it explains that Greenway’s evidence is insufficient, why it is insufficient, and what evidence would be sufficient. It also explains how their decisions in each of these areas are motivated by legal ethics, which they also explain. Again, that’s not evidence of wrongdoing.
As for Adobe Systems v. Selakovic, that’s a different case entirely. We’ve been talking about this specific case based solely upon the contents of this particular filing. Unless you can link to (or at least quote) specific evidence that the James Ryan in this case used privileged information obtained from and regarding Greenway within the Adobe Systems case, that case is immaterial to this discussion. Actually, I don’t even know if James Ryan ever represented Adobe or Microsoft either, so I’m not sure why you think he got any privileged information from Adobe and/or Microsoft and then used that info to benefit Selakovic somehow. At the very least, I see no evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
The specific filings being discussed in this thread do not mention John Pierce or Pierce Bainbridge having any connection whatsoever to Microsoft or Adobe Systems or any involvement with or participation in any counterfeit software scam, nor could I find any mention of any “Operation Software Slashers” anywhere within the filings at all. It absolutely does not prove that either or both were guilty of covering up such a scam.
I did read all of the filings linked, and outside of Pierce being a bit rude in one of his emails, I’m not seeing any evidence of Pierce or Pierce Bainbridge doing anything wrong in this particular case. The filings actually seem to disprove many or possibly even all of the claims by the plaintiff that anyone (except possibly the plaintiff itself) is committing fraud on the court or doing anything unethical, deceitful, or dishonest at all.
What Pierce or Pierce Bainbridge may or may not have done elsewhere is immaterial, and none of it gets mentioned in the filings anyway, so it’s irrelevant. Pages 4-24 are nothing but allegations (so they prove nothing in and of themselves), and some of them actually appear to contradict each other or reflect a complete lack of understanding about court procedures, legal ethics, or what constitutes “sufficient evidence”. Many of the remaining allegations from those pages are clearly refuted by the exhibits attached to the filing—and those have stronger evidentiary value than mere allegations—and the remainder are unsupported by the exhibits.
Then you claim to pull a quote of John Pierce’s email from Exhibit #15:
That quote doesn’t actually appear anywhere in Exhibit #15, at least not like that. Near the beginning, there is this sentence:
in reference to the client supposedly “threatening me/us” and/or failing to “leave me off your emails” as Pierce told them to. That is completely different from saying, “I don’t care what you consent to.” If anything, it seems Pierce is accusing his client of not caring what he consents to, not the other way around. Then at the end, after several more sentences, there is this sentence:
So it appears that you took two different, nonconsecutive sentences, completely misquoted the first, and then combined that with the second to form a completely new sentence and pretended that it was a direct quote from the exhibit, which it absolutely is not. I wouldn’t even call it paraphrasing, since the first clause of the misquote has a completely different meaning from the original statement and the second clause appears way later in the email.
Basically, I have read the whole thing, but I’m not completely convinced you have based upon what you claim to be in there that actually isn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I don’t see any threats in Exhibit #15; just a warning that they intend to withdraw as counsel, which is something they are ethically required to do before requesting the court to be allowed to withdraw as counsel. It’s not exactly polite or anything, but I wouldn’t call it threatening. It also undermines the Plaintiff’s assertion that they hadn’t been notified about Pierce Bainbridge’s intention to withdraw prior to the appropriate motion being filed in court, as do a number of other exhibits that also say that they are or are likely to try to withdraw as counsel well before Exhibit #15.
And while IANAL, I also have to agree with Pierce that the evidence the Plaintiff provided doesn’t prove that James or Mike Ryan or the Ryan Law Group represented the Plaintiff at any point; only that James’s brother Tom and a previous law firm apparently did. That wouldn’t be enough to support the claim that James or Mike Ryan themselves were their representatives, nor does the fact that, at a minimum, Mike was a member of the previous law firm and the Ryan Law Group mean that Mike or the Ryan Law Group were their representatives. There is nothing purporting to be from Ryan Law or that was personally signed by James or Mike that suggests that they have ever represented the Plaintiff. I don’t understand how the Plaintiff can honestly say they were blindsided by any of this when the exhibits themselves explain exactly why Pierce Bainbridge wanted to withdraw and provide good reasons for doing so. The Ryans didn’t need to refute the evidence provided because it was insufficient in itself, as Pierce Bainbridge observed and pointed out. There were no signed retainer agreements and no legal documents or court filings that could firmly and indisputably establish that James, Mike, and Ryan Law actually represented the Plaintiff in any legal capacity at any time.
The Plaintiff also seems thoroughly confused by how a Motion to Dismiss works, although Pierce did try to explain it to them. In a Motion to Dismiss and the ruling of it, all reasonable and well-pleaded allegations in the complaint must be taken as true for the sake of argument. Generally, no factual allegations from either party are actually being adjudicated in the dismissal stage; only whether the allegations in the complaint adequately support a claim. In other words, it’s a judgement about how the law applies to the allegations, regardless of whether or not the allegations are actually true or supported by evidence. Therefore, anything stated in the Motion to Dismiss that was pleaded in the complaint is not actually deemed an admission of those facts, nor is a ruling to deny a Motion to Dismiss an affirmation that any of the factual allegations in the complaint are true or that any of the factual allegations in the Motion to Dismiss that aren’t in the complaint are false. No weighing of the facts occurs in ruling on a Motion to Dismiss. Filing a Motion to Dismiss is like saying, “Even if these allegations are true, they are insufficient to state a claim that I/we did anything illegal/unlawful/tortious/actionable.” Denying a Motion to Dismiss is like saying, “If the Plaintiff(s) is/are able to prove that their allegations are true with evidence (or get an admission/concession from the Defendant(s) on certain facts), then that will prove that the Defendant(s) are, in fact, liable to the Plaintiff(s) by law, so we need to go through some discovery to assist in making factual determinations.”
In this case, regardless of what the Ryans said in their Motion to Dismiss, it cannot be construed as an actual admission of any facts, so there is no contradiction or changing of stories going on there. As for the court ruling to deny the Motion to Dismiss, the judge was obligated to presume that the Ryans did, in fact, represent the Plaintiff sometime in the past for the purposes of deciding whether or not to dismiss the complaint because that allegation was well-pleaded in the complaint itself. That the motion was denied doesn’t mean that the judge ruled or actually believes that James, Mike, or Ryan Law ever actually represented the Plaintiff; only that if they did and the other allegations in the complaint are true, the Plaintiff may be able to prevail under the law. Heck, even if the judge granted dismissal, that still would not constitute a ruling on whether the claims are accurate or supported by any evidence at all. The Motion to Dismiss and the ruling denying it prove nothing that would refute the Ryans’ denials or Pierce’s determination of the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether James, Mike, and Ryan Law have ever represented the Plaintiff in the past.
Now, I’m not a fan or defender of Pierce Bainbridge in general; I’m not a lawyer, judge, or legal expert; and I don’t have any knowledge—personal or otherwise—about or familiarity—personal or otherwise—with this particular lawsuit, any related cases, the underlying facts, or any of the involved parties (aside from information provided by Techdirt on Pierce Bainbridge in other cases) outside of the linked document and its attached exhibits. I’m only saying that, based solely upon what you provided (and some basic understanding about court procedures and legal ethics rules), what Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge did makes perfect sense and that the Plaintiff doesn’t appear to have a leg to stand on on this issue in this case, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people are cut out to read Soldier of Fortune and talk shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of Human Space
John Pierce has been a lying, substance abusing, scam artist for years. He was awful to his wife who left him. He was kicked out of K&L Gates for punching another lawyer while drunk. John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel lives rent free in his head. None of this military toxic masculinity tough talk is surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haters Are Going To Hate
All of you can keep posting from your mother’s basement’s on Valentine’s Day. What have any of you done? Pierce Bainbridge is a young firm and already has Tulsi Gabbard, Don Lemon, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Avenatti and George Papadopolous as clients. The firm using cutting-edge technology and is changing the way the game is played. You sad, little people, trying to tear it down from you mom’s basements is like a tiny passing of gas in the wind. Do not hate, congratulate. There’ith end’ith the lesson. Happy Valentine’s Day to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haters Are Going To Hate
Projection. Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nooooooooot exactly a good law firm to bank on when two of their five highest-profile clients have been convicted in a court of law (one of whom was convicted just today), one of the remaining three is being investigated for his role in the Ukraine extortion scandal, and one of the remaining two after that has a (barely) middling presidential campaign and a(n obviously) frivolous defamation lawsuit to her name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi Pierce
Hitting the bottle a bit hard today are we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hi Pierce
Well, I would rather have a bottlein front of me than a frontal labotomy! You are proof why!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hi Pierce
“bottlein”
Seems you already do bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi Pierce
That was pretty weak...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haters Are Going To Hate
Read that again, only this time pretend you exist outside the Trump bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haters Are Going To Hate
I'm pretty sure that this is a troll..
Michael Avenatti was convicted only a day ago.
Since his name came up, "Ken, is Michael Avenatti a good lawyer?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popcorns. Are Going To Pop
“changing the way the game is played”
You know I seem to recall Prenda saying nearly the exact same thing bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Popcorns. Are Going To Pop
Seriously, enough with the "bro", bro. It's super tired. At least switch things up and try out a few other childish jabs like "son" or "child". Maybe even "n00b".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Popcorns. Are Going To Pop
That wasn’t the same guy. There have been several ACs who have said “bro” in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I meant to do that.'
Oh is that excuse sad... 'Eight people bailed on us not because the firm is a dumpster fire, but because they just couldn't hack it, something I'm sure the new hires who almost certainly have less experience will be able to manage just fine.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marked As Spam? Hidden?
The snowflakes want to run down a young firm that has made incredible strides and garnered international attention. I say one good comment and it gets marked as spam and hidden? That is unfair. Pierce Bainbridge is growing into a dominant global litigation force. If you can’t take it, accept it or embrace it, that is sad. Hate if it makes you feel better about yourself, but at least be fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marked As Spam? Hidden?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marked As Spam? Hidden?
Indeed. If he keeps going at this rate, soon he might overtake Liebowitz in the running for the "dumbest shit lawyer in the world" crown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They’re not exactly getting the kind of attention that they might want, all things considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attention
That depends, Steven. If the objective is to be like the Homie the Clowns of the legal industry they’re batting like the Houston Astros with garbage pails banging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth hurts eh?
Damn bro that a lot of butthurt right there. How fragile is your ego bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truth hurts eh?
Now, now, Anonymous Coward. Let he who has not compared effing lawyers to Navy SEALS and Army Rangers cast the first stone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truth hurts eh?
Oh I wouldn’t compare them favourably. That’s for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marked As Spam? Hidden?
The snowflakes want to run down...
I say one good comment and it gets marked as spam and hidden? That is unfair.
Your lack of self-awareness is funny as fucking hell!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tulsi Gabbard Sues
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, says it aims to hold Clinton and other "political elites" accountable for "distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election." It also says Gabbard suffered an economic loss to be proven at trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well,
If Giuliani's representing them, Trump will be happy to pardon them no matter how corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well,
Obama pardoned Pollard, the worst spy in US history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well,
John Walker, Earl Pitts, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen did far more damage than Pollard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well,
And boom someone lets off a whataboutobama like a stink bomb in the school hallway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not like HRC, but that lawsuit it ridiculous. Lawyers? Navy SEALS? My goodness. It sounds like this firm has direct access to the very best drug dealer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That sounds like CCCP Chinese propaganda to me. Have you gotten your paycheck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You realize that China is not the former СССР, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well we know who’s not gonna get their paycheck now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"As I have said from the day we launched, this firm is the legal industry equivalent of the Navy's SEAL Team 6 or the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment," said Pierce"
He's trained in gorilla lawfare, and is the top griper in the entire US ABA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your fallacy, tech dirt, is one of a hasty conclusion. How is it that you consider the libel against Gabbard, by Hillary, who none can doubt implied she was the either witting or unwitting agent of a foreign power, sans evidence of any kind whatsoever, is frivolous? A valid case also exists if you incorrectly claim a woman or man has an STD. That's because s/he might have a real hard time getting into a relationship.
THE REASON DEMOCRATS FAVOR TORT REFORM IS THAT THEY ARE LIARS, AND THAT THEY PURSUE TORT REFORM IS ALL THE PROOF WE NEED EVERYTHING DEMOCRATS SAY IS LIES!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You state that like no other elected official has ever made false statements. And libel against public figure is a notoriously high bar to clear, otherwise half of Congress would be in civil court (as defendant's)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
dont kitchen sink me. and high bar or not, hardly "payently ridiculous" as tech derp says in the title. ridiculous is someone complaining about something realistic or plausible, or it it is jest. hillary is hardly a comedian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you copy impaired or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All I’m getting out of what you said is “don’t use your fancy book learning and logic on me!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, the question of whether or not it’s defamation also entails whether it is a statement of fact (which is questionable) that says something bad about the plaintiff (also questionable) and if so, whether the speaker either knew it to be false or really, really should have known it to be false. Based upon the context, it seems extremely unlikely that the statement in question fills those conditions. Calling the case “patently frivolous” is a reasonable opinion for one to have about the case.
Second, you don’t have to be a comedian to tell a joke or say something in jest. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary has—at some point—said something in jest. I’m not saying that she has ever said something that is actually funny and was intended to be funny, but even a joke that falls flat cannot be defamation. I’m also not saying that this particular statement was said in jest; it appears more to be an off-the-cuff remark about Russia’s attempts to influence our elections and that Gabbard is likely to become an unwitting target of their “support” in a similar way that Jill Stein was in 2016. (Note how this says nothing defamatory about Gabbard herself and doesn’t say much that could be considered factual statements.)
As discussed in a previous thread on this topic, just because it may reflect poorly upon Gabbard and may not have any actual evidence to back it up doesn’t make it a statement that defames Gabbard. Even some false statements of fact that could potentially do some reputational harm to someone are not defamatory. In this case, I cannot really see any way in which Gabbard could possibly win. Her best case scenario is that Hillary chooses to settle the case rather than fight it out because that’s the only way I can see her not losing the case outright in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I frankly see no way that Gabbard has any real chance of actually prevailing in the end (outside of some sort of settlement) as I don’t see how the statement in question says something provably false and defamatory about Gabbard and could plausibly be proven to have been made with actual malice.
Oh, and about your STD example, if I was to state—without any evidence, BTW, that, say, Bill Clinton has some sort of STD, I would probably still win a defamation lawsuit because I don’t know that it’s false, nor do I have any reasonable or lawful access to any information that would definitively prove that it’s false. Even if I was to talk about a private figure, I’m still not 100% certain I would lose because I don’t think it could be shown that I was even being negligent (again because I have no lawful access to information to disprove it). But that is neither here nor there since we’re talking about someone who is clearly a public figure, for which the burden of proof for the plaintiff is much, much higher.
Also, it seems that you have it backwards. That Hillary lacks evidence that her statement is true doesn’t matter; if she did, that would make the case even more frivolous than it already is, but that she lacks such evidence doesn’t hurt Hillary’s chances, either. The question is whether she had or should have had evidence proving that her statement was false at the time she said it. Since such evidence is highly unlikely to exist, the case, as far as we can tell, appears quite frivolous and unlikely to succeed.
As for tort reforms, I don’t recall any Democrat who as advocated in favor of making it any easier for plaintiffs to prevail in a defamation lawsuit; quite the contrary, actually. There are also a lot of torts unrelated to defamation. Just because someone doesn’t support tort reform for the specific tort you want or in the direction you want it to be reformed doesn’t mean that they’re lying when they say they favor tort reform. Both many Republicans and many Democrats honestly favor immigration reform; they just disagree on how and which way to change it.
It should also be noted that lowering the burden of proof on defamation in the way you seem to want would require modifying the Constitution, which isn’t exactly likely to occur in such a way. Simply modifying the existing torts wouldn’t cut it as these legal concepts are based upon Supreme Court rulings about what statements can constitutionally be considered unlawful defamation. Anything broader would be declared unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if Tulsi has the same lawyers as Taylor Swift
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
It's their idea of fun. Humorless sour losers love misery.
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
HRC is a waste of oxygen but Trump is no better. The first functional adult that comes along will take the next election regardless of political alignment. Sadly, we seem to be in short supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Uh, Clinton-hater here. Gabbard is still being a fuckwit. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Calling out Google for violation first amendment rights is normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
And fraudulent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Google is not the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Google has placed itself above ALL GOVERNMENTS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Some believe that the multinational corporations have taken over the entire known universe and are actually run by lizard people, are you one of those types?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Are you writing a book? or just a theisis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
I thought it was a legitimate question, based upon your prior comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Google didn't place itself anywhere. Our own government placed Google, Chevrolet, McDonalds and every other corporation on the level they're on when each filed their articles of incorporation. And corporations (and every other non-government entity) cannot violate the 1st Amendment, only the government can do that.
Put away your pitchfork and torch until you understand what and who you're actually fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Besides governments, who has placed more than 88 spy satellites in orbit around the earth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
SpaceX, Rocket Lab, United Launch Alliance, and others. I’m not sure why you’re asking about commercial satellite launch companies though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking T
The lizard people overlords told him to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
That has nothing to do with anything that has been discussed at all, nor do I know of any evidence that any private corporation(s) or entity(ies) that have placed any spy satellites in orbit around the Earth, particularly none without the government doing so for them (with a few recent exceptions). So, to my knowledge, no one besides governments has placed more than 88 spy satellites in orbit around the Earth, nor would that affect anything said previously here at all. It’s a complete non sequitur and is unproven to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
"Besides governments, who has placed more than 88 spy satellites in orbit around the earth?"
Everyone with a rocket?
Seriously, after the US government made the Space Race a thing for corporations you are surprised it's geting mighty crowded up there?
If anything Google has a lot less "spy sats" than all those jokers currently trying to build an entire satellite constellation network. By several orders of magnitude.
Seriously, Jhon, stop waving your google hateboner in everyone's face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Really? Because I’m not seeing it. They seem to be complying with all laws, court orders, subpoenas, rules, and regulations as best as they can from what I can tell as long as those orders, rules, etc. are legally valid, not unreasonably cumbersome, and they don’t have a very good reason to challenge them. And if they lose, they seem to follow through in the end. They often go beyond what is requir led, too.
So please explain how Google has placed itself above all governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain how Google, a non-government entity, violates the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And If your Aunt had a dick she’s be your uncle
Now if only Google were The Government you’d have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad Clintonites love attacking Tulsi
Outside of filing a lawsuit or something (or certain contract requirements about what can or can’t or must or mustn’t be said anywhere), there isn’t anything Google could feasibly do that could possibly violate anyone’s First Amendment rights as Google is not a government or quasi-government entity; it’s a private company running some websites and other software.
Also, that had absolutely nothing to do with anything the AC said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad zof love attacking Strawmen
“Humorless sour losers love misery.”
You should get that tattooed on your forehead bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad zof love attacking Strawmen
Angry childish people (clinton supporters for example) are very easy to bait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad zof love attacking Strawmen
“Angry childish people (clinton supporters for example) are very easy to bait.”
You are the fucking proof in that pudding bro. Every single time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad zof love attacking Strawmen
brother.. you said a mouthful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad zof love attacking Strawmen
Still attacking strawmen, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Gets Better
Pierce said: “The reality is this is not an easy firm to work at . . .Our people must have not only thick skin but skin made of kevlar combined with titanium at times. The only lawyers who should join our firm are the ones who can do all of those things and who can swallow some risk.”
These guys are Hard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Gets Better
“who can swallow some risk.””
Did that sound as dirty to anyone else as it is to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It Gets Better
They want to do bad things to you.
It’s a solid marketing pitch. We say stupid stuff and file laughable law suits. If you like to swallow the risk of getting disbarred, and you don’t do skin lotion, we’re the place for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way this is like any Seal unit, is because it's run by a guy who feels himself the litigation version of Edward Gallagher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avenatti Conviction Pierce’s the “Kevlar Skin”
Ehh hmm, well now? It does certainly appear as if John Pierce and his self-proclaimed fastest growing law firm in the world named Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht made the news again today!
https://www.lawfuel.com/blog/avenatti-conviction-pierces-the-kevlar-skin-of-pierce-bainbridge/
theh itskeepcoming #karma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]