Lawyers are a$$ and idiots part 2: So I do some pro bono work for non-profit & to do so recently gained reciprocity in state been licensed in IL since 1992. B/c just admitted to bar here, I have a "low" lawyer #. So, you'd think other members of the bar would be extra civil
2/ to a new lawyer. Nope. It's like carte blanche to be an extra big a$$. Opposing counsel in case refused to adjourn upcoming Summary Judgment even though discovery dispute; discovery not complete; and case is 2 months old & discovery dispute is NUTS! Refuses to answer
3/ clear RTA b/c it is dispositive against his client, forcing 2 months on my part. In last 2 years have agreed to extend every deadline asked ~12ish. That's the a$$ part. Here's the idiot part:
4/ On the surface he is a well-respected attorney at a well-respected firm. He likely sees me as irrelevant as I'm neither (as far as he knows). But you know what, over last 2 years, I've found 2 firms I'd 100% recommend folks to based on representation of Defendants.
5/ 5-7 I'd never recommend. Beyond "normal" folks, know well managing partner at largest firm in state & NDLaw alumni connection (or here), who might need local counsel. His outrageous conduct has burned more bridges for him & his law firm then he will ever know. Just to be a$$.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: I'm been sitting on this cognitive dissonance for going on two years now, so here's a little thread. As my regulars know, our son has cystic fibrosis. As a result, "normal" things can be extremely dangerous to him, such as naturally occuring bacteria in soil, water, 1/
2/ and colds, flu, etc. When kids w/ CF exposed to bacteria, they often colonize it in their lungs for life, which starts a loop of inflamation, infection, inflamation, etc. Some CF bacterias are extremely dangerous & lead to quick decline possibly death & prevent transplants.
3/ And CFers need to be very careful of exposure to other CFers b/c they cross contaminate each other. So as could be expected, doctors offices & hospitals are riskier for them. We did our research & therefore about 2 years before the CF Foundation recommended masking at
Trikafta mini-update: DS has been on Trikafta for just about 2 months. Before his lungs have been so healthy (thank you God), he hasn't noticed any real changes. We'll know more when he does his annual Xray if the minimal lung inflamation has decreased & re nasal polyps & 1
2/ whether he still colonizes staph, which he has since 2 weeks old. BUT the huge yippee is his GI issues which have always been the worst--worst his CF doctor has seen. Since he was ~1 year horrible problems, daily
3/ stomach pain w/ me basically rocking him all day other than meals & treatments, one obstruction hospitalization. Things stable for about 4 years after we found solution which requires 6 full doses of Miralax per day, plus 2 shots of milk of mag per day & senna ~3 per week.
6/ On the other hand, if I include Feb, Mar, Apr, May, and June AND the total of those months the graph looks like this:
7/ But note, a "total" column appears AND the total for Title 8 skyrockets too. At first I thought this was just some interns silly mistake, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how @CNN and @brikeilarcnn could accidently create the graph they did.
8/8 They've been ignoring the question so far, so maybe you all can ask them to provide the data they used to create this graph: Or maybe @brianstelter can help me out here?
I still haven't gotten any clarification and don't see a correction from either @CNN or @brikeilarcnn. Did some number crunching. Here's another interesting graph.
3/ I'm happy to share my calculations if anyone wants to double check them, as I don't quite have the staff or budget of say @cnn or @brikeilarcnn to double check to make sure I don't make a mistake, say by
2/ Abbott and states likely can do some things, but just not the E.O. I also agree w/ points re fed government failing. But bottom line, as a matter of constitutional law, thefederalist.com/2021/08/04/tex…
3/ he is wrong. Suprmacy Clause preempts THIS E.O. It's not even a close question. And you'll note, other than conclusory statements, there is no discussion of legal standards or analysis in his piece. Rather than fight over this, which court has already stayed, lets: