Somebody said that there is actually no hard date limits for Chupp to make a ruling on the costs, so theoretically Chupp could leave the ruling on costs in limbo forever.
You do not need to show how you can calculate damages to prove there was damage. Its insane to suggest that a prima facie showing should require the ability to calculate damage, at that point you might as well throw the tort out entirely because it becomes nigh impossible to make a case.
I'd think that if we enter the worst timeline and the appeals court upholds Chumpp's decision, the constitutionality of the TCPA might come into play if he plans to appeal to the SCOTX.Oh look at that, you can just let the COA know about the pending attorneys fees, and they accept it.
View attachment 997944
It's almost as if Lemoine was full of shit...
Also, judging by that last checkmark, looks like Ty won't be pursuing that possible constitutional challenge he mentioned a few months back on Nick's stream. Oh well, straightforward appeal it is.
I think that's excessive. It's very likely that Slatosch had paid for the security (being the event organizer) and there is no reason why a gentlemans agreement to reimburse Slatsch wouldn't be enough to constitute a contract. Slatosch saying as much in his deposition (that Vic was paying for the enhanced security) should be enough of a contract to pass.
There is a difference between "Technically applies" and "Certainly applies". It can, and will, be argued by Beard that it does apply, I personally hold that it should, but it would have been easy to get hard numbers here to shore up the case.
Yeah, this is what annoys me so much about Ty. He kept going on and on about how he was a strategic wargamer and how him and his team talked about this case every day and were prepared for everything, but then he clearly wasn't prepared for everything. It's frustrating.
We know Chupp skims these at best. Wouldn't you then, knowing Chup's chupness, want to ensure that these were as easy and smooth to read AS POSSIBLE?
and if that doesn't work and you get chupped? probably screw you later in higher courts if you short hand it for just 1 human instead of laying it all out there.
I never said short hand it, I said make it as easy and smooth as possible. Good punctuation, good formatting, put the effort in to make it a clean read.
Your asking a profession that only requires a degree not one specifically in English Writing/Lit. I mean sure there are lawyers with English Degree's and such but they are not common but not quite Unicorn status.
You don't need an english degree to write cleanly. Take your time, read it outloud, Hand it off to someone else, or two, and have THEM read it, It takes longer, but gets you neat, clean writing that gets a lot easier, and faster, with practice.
