When you sue a giant number of people and file an (I think) over-length reply brief, this is not the right tone. 
OH WHY DID NO ONE EVER THINK OF THIS. If you just *assert* something is irregular, the presumption of irregularity no longer applies! Genius.
(Also, this “Contrary to _____,...” is very weird phraseology.)
(Also, this “Contrary to _____,...” is very weird phraseology.)
I’m really not sure this argument works the same way when you amend a complaint to REMOVE a theory as when you don’t name it with precision in the first place. You intentionally removed the theory. To fail to address that...
Anyway, yeah, this latest Trump brief is completely detached from reality, and — unbelievably, really — doesn’t seem to contain a single record citation for its fact assertions. You lose on that alone.
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
HELL. Look at the TOC (I do this more after watching @questauthority do it to great effect). If your issue with the opposition briefs is that they ignore your facts, PUT IN A FACT SECTION. HAMMER THEM ON IT.
But Giuliani et al. don’t have anything IN the record.
But Giuliani et al. don’t have anything IN the record.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
