- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
When I said trust, I was referring to being nice to fans and aren't wackjobs on social media. Not as I trust them with my life.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A crime... Yeah... Sure...a crime
Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!
Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.
He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime
Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!
- law twitter xoxoxo
Didn't Nick admit that it was going to be a longshot, but better than nothing?It wasn't like the brief wasn't going to be heard anyways.
It wasn't like the brief wasn't going to be heard anyways.
You faggots really have no life, do you?Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!
Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.
He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime
Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!
- law twitter xoxoxo
View attachment 1634125
How'd those Lawtwitter predictions go with the Sandman case? Heard they fell flat on their face on that prediction.Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!
Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.
He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime
Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!
- law twitter xoxoxo
View attachment 1634125
Wrong about 38.123 its right in section A.Oh, of course friends! I am always happy to help.!
The specific crime is §38.123
Section (a) is met by clause 5, since he was acting on behalf of a separate legal entity, i.e. his TX media company.
In section (b) the clause is met by not being in good standing with the Texas State Bar, because of this:
View attachment 1634266
There is more information in §81.102 too!
love, LT
There is more information in §81.102 too!
love, LT
Oh, of course friends! I am always happy to help.!
The specific crime is §38.123
Section (a) is met by clause 5, since he was acting on behalf of a separate legal entity, i.e. his TX media company.
In section (b) the clause is met by not being in good standing with the Texas State Bar, because of this:
View attachment 1634266
There is more information in §81.102 too!
love, LT
It could be argued that by filing this he intended to obtain superchats. Just saying “I don’t benefit from this” doesn’t mean someone else can’t argue that you did. This can be proven by looking at the general quantity of superchat donations he received before speaking of the brief, after speaking of it, and after it was filed as well as quantity of views/clicks on monetized videos on platforms.Wrong about 38.123 its right in section A.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person:
And if I recall from the Amicus brief he said it was to no economic benefit sooo.....
Doesn't this confirm the fact that Nick can't be Vic's lawyer because he doesn't practice in Texas. Ultimately defeating the purpose of Casey and Lemongrab asking Vic if he was and trying to make up reasons why he was his lawyerHello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!
Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.
He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime
Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!
- law twitter xoxoxo
View attachment 1634125
I wouldn't hold my breath considering who would be doing the arguing. I mean Ty lost the case but in the following Dahlin Depo hearing the defense got KO'd and then the Fee hearing they got ROFL stomped again in arguments. And most likely the Supreme court is not going to give a shit either since it was an Amicus Brief.It could be argued that by filing this he intended to obtain superchats. Just saying “I don’t benefit from this” doesn’t mean someone else can’t argue that you did. This can be proven by looking at the general quantity of superchat donations he received before speaking of the brief, after speaking of it, and after it was filed as well as quantity of views/clicks on monetized videos on platforms.