Short and sweet. No need to deeply address the bamboon's insane misreading of the various laws, he agreed to aribitration both written and later verbally, 'reverse psychology' (lol) or not. So send him to arbitration where he can't drool on Heidi Klum in person.
I've no doubt it was all bluff but I would love, no matter the outcome of this, for some reporter to pick this sorry saga up...and his ensuing posts detailing how "misunderstood" he is.
I’m guessing he was always just “using reverse psychology” on that point, just like when he thought he could reverse psychology the defendants into putting him on TV to avoid paying $1750.
It somewhat surprised me they actually made just a pure straight response instead of a terse couple pages with a couple string cites in them. I'm pretty sure the generic motion to compel language is from a brief bank. It's just too polished to have been come up with in a hurry. The rest is directed at Russhole's idiotic opposition that actually helped the defendants, as they gleefully point out, repeatedly admitting to absolutely improper litigation practice, especially abuse of process to use a lawsuit as a publicity stunt rather than an actual pursuit of valid legal goals.
What's your thoughts on them asking the lawsuit to be dismissed after order compeling arbitration?
I am most likely wrong, *[yes I am] but it seems to make sense that this way they have the judge compel Russhole to go to arbitration, and then prevent Russ from doing any more fucking around/moving the goalposts in the future after arbitration dosen't go his way. Russ would have to refile the whole thing again with new claims which would this time be crushed instantly.
If they dismiss the lawsuit, Russ can appeal like he said he would. If they instead ask for a stay pending the results of arbitration, Russ couldn't insta-appeal. That's my issue with the request.
You know they already had this and have brought out this gimp mallet of a half-page string cite before. It looks fairly polished, with the Nevada stuff up front and the rest from California, all in the Ninth Circuit no less. Seriously, though, if you wanted to go full ham on this particular legal issue, that is, enforceability of arbitration agreements, you could literally do a state-by-state on it and come up with a string cite ten pages long.
I can't prove it because I don't want to go to the effort, but his stuff reads like he cuts and pastes bits from other filings he has found and patches them together with Colossal Crunch flavored Russ drool. He'll make sense for a sentence or two and then veer off into his delusions.
You’re talking of those US tards who think if they write their name with strange punctuation, they can be “the living being known as” etc, and not subject to the laws?
It's of American origin, although oddly, one of the best legal opinions on these nutty theories is from Canada, Meads v. Meads. This opinion enumerates and eviscerates all these arguments. One of the weirder things when people from another country adopt sovcit legal "reasoning" is that they have some weird fetish for citing the Uniform Commercial Code, which not only isn't law in their country, but isn't even law in the United States itself (although most states have adopted most of the UCC you cite the state law codifying it and not the UCC itself which is essentially a list of suggestions).
Come on, everyone knows that people with seven fingers on one hand tend to create things slightly off-center.
But hopefully they’ll try, because it’s about time Russ got a decent smack where it hurts for his frivolous filings. He’ll explain it away as AGT fining him for pointing out disability discrimination, of course. They were just too embarrassed knowing he was right!
I'm sure those supporting documents are true and honest, but is it just me or do they look a bit like something from a Nigerian email scam? At the very least, I'd expect them to be notarized or otherwise verified by a third party that they are copies of the original. Or are US courts a bit less anal about that sort of stuff than they are in my part of the world?
You are looking at this from a European-like viewpoint. No insult meant, of course
