Replying to Avatar SuiGenerisJohn

My instinct is that this is closer to the truth than we know and it could be far more insidious, e.g., maybe they got a different deal to _not_ fight this case. That is a super scandalous allegation and I’m not saying its true, I’m just saying that I don’t buy that a case that everyone seems uniformly convinced was so constitutionally important couldn’t get sufficient funding for it, I just don’t buy that.
Avatar
dern 1w ago 💬 1

How would you think about putting together defense arguments in this case?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
SuiGenerisJohn 1w ago 💬 1

I wouldn’t because I don’t have access to the information that his lawyers did, I wouldn’t even begin to pretend how to do that, but the problem is they apparently couldn’t generate money to defend themselves which is curious to me.

Avatar
dern 1w ago

Yes i understand you didn’t take discovery in this case. My point is that i also don’t buy the idea that funding was the constraint.

This was a losing fight from the jump. Their lawyers probably recognized this.