Yknow, I have something for the law faggots and orbiters that lurk here. After seeing all their little pissing matches since the start. I think I can fully address them now.
These dipshits are basically legalese shitposters, nothing more than that. This is not an opinion it's a fact statement that not once have they answered a question directly, without putting a spin on it to make them appear to be the one correct in the conversation.
These Fuckwits are A.) Not Qualified to Answer in any real concrete way because they are bullshitting their way around this. B.) Are litigators but failure of ones or not litigators any longer, thus their takes are at the position of "washed out hasbeens". or C.) Are litigators who don't understand that what they say on the internet really carries weight, they are still living in the age where the internet/social media is a just a neat fad, and don't realize it hasn't been that for 10+ or so years.
This is just an amusing fad to them, they hardly consider people on the other side as being really human. None of these cowards would be able to handle a face to face conversation speaking the way they do on twitter. They go on about "Not using your real self as your avatar" when really they seem to be trying to avoid the admitting that they are doing the same thing thinking they are invincible on the internet with the mask of anonymity that they accuse anyone that questions them that don't use their picture as an avatar as being cowards. Yet every single time, what happens when people start looking at their public information? *Goes to Private* It's almost like they can't handle their skeletons being brought out for everyone to see. That is the sign of a true coward, those that can talk shit, but can't handle being basically confronted/called out on their bullshit.
Any real lawyers that have spoken on this have gotten strangely less chatty about this topic.(Hi Akiva Cohen). You have then the zooligist/VOLUNTEER litigator, Mike Dipshit Dunford, means what he says doesn't qualify as legal advice. Then there is Greg Bankrupt Grifter Douchette, he basically is in a state where he can basically say whatever the fuck he wants, cause there is no one who is insane enough to hire a BANKRUPT Litigator. Then there is whatever her face is, the retired appellant litigator crazy cat lady, she comes across as basically a washed out hasbeen. Then there is the Martin Bettik the "paralegel" when in reality if he was in any point of worth in the litigation area, he would have been fired on the spot once word got to their employers of the type of bullshit he spews out daily on social media. There is also Kathryn Tewson, who isn't a litigator or anything of the like.
There are other lawyers who have chimed in, but usually left with a very vague and otherwise very neutral or dismissing statements, only ones that truly focus on this case, are basically losers, washed out, and pathetic dipshits and their orbiting space trash shitposting with legalese. So if "70 litigators" equates to any of ABC, this was a lie and fabricated, because "Litigator Septic Tank Waste" sounds less appealing.
Anyone that actually had a litigator career would never have the time to post 300+ tweets a day. Even 50+ or so tweets replying to yourself, that's just fucking exceptional degrees of fuckery there. No one, absolutely no one that has a somewhat successful litigator career or a career in general would post that much. These dipshits are the basic bottom of the barrel tier of "litigation commentators." Who have latched onto the Vic case, because it gives them attention they so yearn for to bring self-validation to their faded and insignificant lives. Want to know why Nick kept covering the Vic case? Cause the defendants are fucking lying sacks of shit who's lawyers are exactly the same amount of exceptional and skeevy fuckwits as they are, save for maybe Sam Johnson.
Early Morning Commentary Summary of Law Faggots and their orbiting trash. Might also be a tad buzzed.