Dave Brian Muscato / Danielle Tatiana Muscato / Danielle Brian Muscato - Half-Assed Trans Activist, Fully Arrested, Rape Appropriator, Currently Trying to Extort His Parents

[AirdropShitposts]

Do you think he unconsciously preemptively destroys his reputation with screeds like this rather than dishonestly stringing some attorney along thinking it might be a legit case or does he really think that just shitting out every thought about Dr. Joe Muscato is the best way to convince someone to take the case?

Or has he already done the first part enough to where every attorney in town has heard this so he's just playing to the internet with no actual belief that any attorney is interested in this?

Compulsive liars are fascinating.

I love the part about how much he's willing to settle for. Really can't seem to stop himself from giving all the elements for extortion. Good thing Dr. Joe Muscato is such a narcissist (exactly like Trump) that he wouldn't fall for the scheme.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Do you think he unconsciously preemptively destroys his reputation with screeds like this rather than dishonestly stringing some attorney along thinking it might be a legit case or does he really think that just shitting out every thought about Dr. Joe Muscato is the best way to convince someone to take the case?

Or has he already done the first part enough to where every attorney in town has heard this so he's just playing to the internet with no actual belief that any attorney is interested in this?

Compulsive liars are fascinating.

I love the part about how much he's willing to settle for. Really can't seem to stop himself from giving all the elements for extortion. Good thing Dr. Joe Muscato is such a narcissist (exactly like Trump) that he wouldn't fall for the scheme.

I guarantee that Dave's Narc. personality disorder permeates all the layers of his psyche. Not to mention his complete and utter lack of self-awareness is likely just as prevalent. Even at a sub-conscious level I doubt he has even a shred of any redeeming quality or care for others.

Dave has better ways to attempt to get internet sympathy points from the other troons than to need to bring up looking for an attorney, I have no doubt he truly believes 100% that he has a real and valid case. If nothing else Dave has thoroughly demonstrated his incredible and persistent capacity for complete self-delusion.

Something else I thought of, isn't there a maximum cap on assets for anyone collecting social security disability? Shane Nokes mentioned something about that once. What are the odds that Dave is concealing his assets and is lying to the government in order to make sure he can keep all his guitars? Given the fact that Dave has no qualms about committing other types of felony fraud, I don't think disability fraud would be something he would be above doing.

 

[lindsayfan]

ahhh hahaha dave's 5 foot 3 ??

hahahahahahhahaaha

sorry, i know this is a low-effort post, just had somehow missed that crucial piece of this stunning & brave puzzle.

so not only is dave a fat middle-aged bald guy waddling around town in a stinky BLM shirt demanding hugs from the ladies, but he also barely comes up to their navels. magnificent

EDIT:


it's been touched on before, but this is what lawyers do to make you go away. if they tell you your case sucks, then you'll argue, which is a waste of their (overpaid) time.

 

[Spunt]

it's been touched on before, but this is what lawyers do to make you go away. if they tell you your case sucks, then you'll argue, which is a waste of their (overpaid) time.

As I understand (and law kiwis may wish to correct me on this) there's a liability issue as well. If you tell someone that their case is hopeless, and they pursue it anyway and just happen to win (weird things can happen in court), they may then be able to sue you for trying to put them off pursuing what turned out to be a valid case. Far easier to say it's a great case but not one you're able to pursue right now.

 

[Aunt Carol]

He seems to think that if he is just allowed to tell his story in front of a judge and jury, they will break down crying and find Dr. Joe not only owes him $100 million dollars, but that Dr. Joe and Dr. Mary must both be put to death for their horrific crimes against Dave and humanity as a whole.

You're right: it's way too optimistic of Dave to assume he can just tell his story and win everyone over.

That's why he needs to finish his rock opera.

 

[Bookwork]

Do you think he unconsciously preemptively destroys his reputation with screeds like this rather than dishonestly stringing some attorney along thinking it might be a legit case or does he really think that just shitting out every thought about Dr. Joe Muscato is the best way to convince someone to take the case?

Or has he already done the first part enough to where every attorney in town has heard this so he's just playing to the internet with no actual belief that any attorney is interested in this?

Compulsive liars are fascinating.

I love the part about how much he's willing to settle for. Really can't seem to stop himself from giving all the elements for extortion. Good thing Dr. Joe Muscato is such a narcissist (exactly like Trump) that he wouldn't fall for the scheme.

Having watched other litigious cows for a while, I think Dave posts legal threats to feel powerful. "Imma get you." The threats are laughably lame and, would be painfully self-revealing to a normie making them, but that doesn't register with Dave.

Since he's controlling the narrative (by lying), he believes he is controlling other people's reality. Yet his family insists on acting otherwise. A lawyer will have the credentials he lacks to enforce his invented reality through the court system.

He has a driving need to hurt his parents and his brothers. He's done that every way he's been able to think of, but has failed to crush them. More power, he needs more power! He also wants a luxurious life he doesn't have to earn. Taking his parents' money is the only way to do it. But he's not greedy, he's abused!

Did he do a screening call with one lawyer?

Possibly. But I think "all the lawyers" he called equal no more than one. He's lazy, the first turndown would have hurt his fee fees, and everything else in that post is a lie so why would "all" = "many"?

"All the lawyers" may also just be the team that worked on his disability claim. Their business model worked for that, but they recognize Dave's further legal goal is not going to help pay their rent.

Dave has so liked referring to them over the months. "My lawyers." My lawyers get me what I want and now what I want, daddy, is to destroy you.

 

[monstrous bubo]

Do you think he unconsciously preemptively destroys his reputation with screeds like this rather than dishonestly stringing some attorney along thinking it might be a legit case or does he really think that just shitting out every thought about Dr. Joe Muscato is the best way to convince someone to take the case?

I have no doubt he truly believes 100% that he has a real and valid case.

He thinks he has a valid case, but why is he pursuing this? If it is to win beaucoup bucks, his tactics and behaviour are idiotic. If it is to harass and embarrass his father, his tactics are sound. I honestly think any joy from money he got out of this nonsense would be incidental to the pleasure in avenging his narcissistic injury. Remember, he didn’t try to manufacture a case against the city PD: he just wanted to destroy his twin brother’s career because fuck him, that’s why.

As I understand (and law kiwis may wish to correct me on this) there's a liability issue as well. If you tell someone that their case is hopeless, and they pursue it anyway and just happen to win (weird things can happen in court), they may then be able to sue you for trying to put them off pursuing what turned out to be a valid case. Far easier to say it's a great case but not one you're able to pursue right now.

Tedious ill-informed nonsense ahead, I’m afraid.

Spoiler: sperg

US lawfags can correct me but in my humble outpost of King Charles’ dominions you would have to show genuine, serious negligence, falling well below the standard of an ordinary competent practitioner. That essentially means knowing the law that applies to the case at the time of giving the advice, doing your paperwork and filing in a timely manner, and not fibbing to or defrauding your client. Amazingly these are not the hardest standards to meet.

If you give your honest opinion that the case is a stinker, and that is a reasonable opinion for a lawyer in your field to have, you should be fine. If the client then wins after another lawyer says yes, and they sue, they have to get yet another lawyer to give evidence on how negligent your advice was, and show what they lost by following your advice. Lawyers only give evidence in legal negligence cases if it’s egregious and they’re beyond caring about being a snitch, and the client probably lost nothing because, well, they didn’t follow your advice. No lolsuit to see here.

If the opinion is not honest and reasonable, the client might be able to sue. Lying to encourage Dave to continue, just with someone else, would be dumb if he then wasted resources trying to find the right lawyer. Dave then might have a basis to sue, and your licensing would also be at risk. As noted above, I think at best they have told him only that the conversion case could be a goer, and Dave is gilding the lily. More likely he’s just lying.

With law, it’s always helpful to think in terms of the policy position underlying a particular law/s. What behaviours are you trying to encourage or discourage? As a policy position, the Anglo tradition is to dissuade frivolous litigation as a waste of everyone’s time, and to encourage lawyers to tell the truth. If a lawyer were to be punished for giving an honest and reasonable opinion that the case was not good, you would be encouraging lying and also stupid and pointless litigation.

That's why he needs to finish his rock opera.

And I for one have my sound system set up to blast it to the world.

 

[Bookwork]

Tedious ill-informed nonsense ahead, I’m afraid.

From my swamp hut in the U.S., I concur. The bull's eye was struck by the commenter who said that a yearning litigant cannot argue with the lawyer's invisible calendar, so buh-bye now and havaniceday *click*.

There's also a marketing angle: If the reject is soon driving faultlessly through a green light and gets t-boned by a shithead with great auto insurance, would not the rejecting (personal injury) lawyer like a fresh case to review? If one is nice to the people with bullshit cases, perhaps one will return with tenderloin.

 

[monstrous bubo]

There's also a marketing angle: If the reject is soon driving faultlessly through a green light and gets t-boned by a shithead with great auto insurance, would not the rejecting (personal injury) lawyer like a fresh case to review? If one is nice to the people with bullshit cases, perhaps one will return with tenderloin.

If the client has a bullshit case, you tell them no, and they’re cool about it, sure. If the client is a crazy retard, no, not really.

 

[Bookwork]

If the client has a bullshit case, you tell them no, and they’re cool about it, sure. If the client is a crazy retard, no, not really.

Well, yeah. Someone who keeps calling back every day or stands out front with a sign defaming you or prints bumper stickers doing same or goes on Facebook doing same or stomps after you on your way to court doing same, etc., would become the subject of legal action - again - not a client.

Clients, though, I must say are the worst part of lawyering even when they're not Dave.

 

[Plum Smuggler]

Having watched other litigious cows for a while, I think Dave posts legal threats to feel powerful.

Nowadays this is all that Dave has. He peaked in 2017. Something has happened since then. We have the Facebook post from the one woman about Dave’s creepiness. I’m fairly certain there was a split between his last few ball washers regarding the money raised from his arrest in Tennessee. The only support he seems to have now are a few Facebook house frau’s and local college kids too idealistic to see Dave for who he really is.

 

[A. G. Peak]

Up yours, Dr. Joe!


Link

 

[Plum Smuggler]

Up yours, Dr. Joe!

View attachment 6252577
Link

Imagine asking your pill popping son for a kidney. Dave wouldn’t survive the surgery.

 

[Bookwork]

If only my father were at my mercy, I could torture him bwahahaaa. Why isn't he at my mercy? Imma call another lawyer right now.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

ahhh hahaha dave's 5 foot 3 ??

The most hilarious part about this is that is a perfectly reasonable height for an actual woman. If he wasn't such a fat sack of crap, and didn't look like the ass end of a rhinoceros, along with even a modicum of effort to seem feminine, he would have had a much better chance than most other men to pass as a woman. Height is one of the elements that works the most against troons passing. If I see a 6 ft "woman" the first thing that gives it away is the height, women of that stature are truly rare. At this point, there is no hope for Dave, and realistically there never was given his goblin-like appearance. Imagine having the one feature that would help sell you as a woman, but having absolutely nothing else that works in your favor. For men being that short means that many women would actually have to look down to see you, which is embarrassing. So, as a man, or as a woman, Dave was always bound to fail. Maybe that old saying about being ugly inside is reflected on your outside actually does happen to some terrible people that deserve it. If that has even a shred of truth, Dave is the living proof.

As I understand (and law kiwis may wish to correct me on this) there's a liability issue as well. If you tell someone that their case is hopeless, and they pursue it anyway and just happen to win (weird things can happen in court), they may then be able to sue you for trying to put them off pursuing what turned out to be a valid case. Far easier to say it's a great case but not one you're able to pursue right now.

Also not a lawyer, but with some legal training, I don't think that is how it works. The determination of the merits of a given case is likely considered part of one's professional determination and discretion. A lawyer could easily argue that elements revealed during the trial, which were not disclosed or could not have possibly been known to them for evaluation when weighing the merits of the case, would have made a substantial difference in how they viewed its potential. It could also likely be argued that with a different judge, different jury, etc... that the outcome could have been substantially different and the lawyer was right to refuse the case based on the predicted negative outcome. It's too fraught with crystal ball gazing to be able to say "he told me I had no case and he was wrong" to really have any validity. Also, just like any other professional, as long as their decline is not based in discrimination of a protected minority class or characteristic, they have the right of free professional association. No one has the right to demand the services or work product of a professional, or the company for which they work, if said professional does not wish to provide those services or work products to that individual, again, assuming it is not based in discrimination that is against he law.

I guarantee, between his gross obesity, and the amount of medication and illicit drugs he currently, and in the past, has shoved into his body, there is no chance any of his organs will do anyone any god in the future, including him.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

As I understand (and law kiwis may wish to correct me on this) there's a liability issue as well. If you tell someone that their case is hopeless, and they pursue it anyway and just happen to win (weird things can happen in court), they may then be able to sue you for trying to put them off pursuing what turned out to be a valid case. Far easier to say it's a great case but not one you're able to pursue right now.

No, you're not liable because you saw a loser and someone else got a win*. If you know enough to say "that's not a claim/won't win," you can, and some find a (personal) obligation to do so. But tbh there's just no reason to get into it, especially with a clearly unhinged person already oozing hate all over your phone or conference room. You reasonably can determine that you don't likely have enough info after 15 minutes to say something has no possibility of success in any way; you can only weigh useful and non-useful facts, blah blah. But taking on a client isn't an obligation, and part of the decision is whether you think it has merit, and part is your own interest in taking this person on as a client**. The most likely reaction attorneys have to Dave (and his desires for revenge litigation) is, "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!!" while they mentally flap their arms and have lights flashing everywhere***.

* See ABA MRPC 1.16 and Comment. Duties to prospective clients revolve more around conflicts and disclosure of information.

** Blog relevant. More practical advice.

***That's a Lost in Space reference, kids. Which I saw in re-runs a decade or two later, not originally, tyvm.

 

[Spunt]

Ok I was wrong everyone calm down lol

 

[Bookwork]

Ok I was wrong everyone calm down lol

You were interesting. You probably still are.

 

[niggers]

Up yours, Dr. Joe!

Link

castrated man
fantasizes death
get a job david

 

[Real Ariana Grande]

ahhh hahaha dave's 5 foot 3 ??

hahahahahahhahaaha

Yes, but he takes up a remarkable amount of space as a person. While I do mean it literally because Dave is fat, if you ever see Dave in a crowd, you'll notice people instinctively stand further back from him than everyone else around him (I'm sure there are pictures from Cons he attended that demonstrate this). He gives off bad vibes immediately.

One of my first encounters with an insane BPD person was a woman who behaved remarkably like Dave. In her 30's, came from a wealthy family, never held a real job, didn't finish college (I can't remember if Dave actually ever graduated, I just know he changed his major every semester or two), extremely resentful of her parents whenever they didn't give her exactly what she wanted (they almost always did though), obese but blamed it on exaggerated medical conditions, exaggerated personal status & accomplishments, claimed every ended friendship/relationship involved severe abuse...they really think they're so clever, they don't realize they're literally all acting out of the same book (the DSM).

Women are 90-95% of the cases of diagnosed BPD, so when a man actually gets diagnosed with it, you know he's something special.