The judge wants to decide first on whether to let us subpoena Twitter, and she's asked for briefs on the issue. This is (probably) a slight win for us. And a loss for the clever lawyers at Davis Polk.
Alex, You said, "What Davis Polk did with its letter was classic angle shooting ... ." I don't agree. What Davis Polk did was classic big firm deceit. Big firms are known for this. Rules require that attorneys act ethically and with morals. Davis Polk did not because they ALTERED what your lawyers gave them to gain an edge.
I agree that Davis Polk altered the submission that Alex's lawyer in good faith gave them. AND they did it in bad faith, to gain an unfair advantage. The fact that the firm wasn't stupid enough to revise or shorten the substance of plaintiff's argument is not dispositive. Reformatting is in fact altering and the alterations were not immaterial. If Alex's lawyer had done this, Davis Polk would probably argue that his bar license should be revoked - or at least that he should be disqualified from further participation in this case. This alteration may seem like a small matter, but it's not, because it could have prejudiced Alex - plus, it's indicative of the kind of dishonest, untrustworthy individuals all too often populating my former profession.
Yes, I’d pay to read this in novel form. Alex is such a great writer. I’ve read several of his books and this all makes for great content for his next!
I remain astounded at the unbelievable incompetence of every health agency in America who just rolled over to the pharmaceutical industry. The complete disregard of our government to look out for the BEST interests of the ppl and ignore our constitutional rights over a largely innocuous virus is mind blowing.
I truly hope AB wins this one. Git that Goliath right between the eyes.
Feels like we have a front row seat - enjoy your firsthand accounts of the lawsuit shenanigans. Little wins add up to big wins - so pulling for you, Alex!!
It will not be the last time defense counsel "angle shoots" you. Count on it. It has only just begun. Take, for instance, staying discovery until after a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. This sets up a situation in which your claims become your evidentiary "facts" in an ad hoc bench trial with the defense presenting their "evidence" in the ad hoc "trial." (This is not consistent with Rule 8, but it the way they're now handling cases.) So you have a judge making a dispositive decision (you go to trial or you are out of there) based on two sets of "facts." As there is no discovery and you have no right to cross examine the defense's "evidence," they can make up anything they want. And that includes an in-depth argument of why your claims are not valid and you are not qualified to even engage in discovery. And their case will be presented as if they stand equal with you in the matter of hearing "evidence." (Which they do not if the law is followed.) So you will feel the angle shots in great volume. And, meanwhile, your right to a jury trial (see the Seventh Amendment) is violated because you will be getting an ad hoc bench trial lacking in standard trial procedure (such as cross examination). AND the judge can deny your request for Motion to Dismiss oral argument during which you might protest the defense lies. I wish I knew these things ahead of my tangle with the Federal Court. Maybe my experience can help you prepare. (I have found attorneys do not always take the case as seriously as you might and they all too often allow procedural missteps that should be avoided or for which they should prepare an appeal.) It is really worth your time to study the dissenting opinions in Twombly.
I would hope he checks the messages on his stack. Even if he did, it would not be wise on his part to comment. Better to just prepare the case as best as one can. Hopefully, my comments give him reason to engage in conversation with his counsel.
Sounds like it's going well, my friend. I believe this is a can of worms that the veterinarian and the rooster don't want. They will be eating crow both of them for Christmas this year.
She recognized what they did immediately. Smaller font sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb and she is experienced and likely played a bit with the e-file to confirm her suspicions about the original font of the plantiff's side. She may have simply wanted to read it without magnifiers and the change became obvious, and likely annoying.
Typical lawyering... then you realize our entire Government is ran by ivy league lawyers playing fast and loose with our Constitution. So instead of holding the Government accountable for constitutional violations they just volley back and forth arguing what this or that amendment actually means until the news cycle moves on to the next urgent threat by one party or the other.
Davis Polk might have angle-shot themselves in the foot. Unless one or more of their partners is friendly with the judge, the Court will take a dim view of their letter-shrinking shenanigans. For their part, your attorneys have to realize that the gloves are off, and start looking for some edges and angles of their own to exploit for their client's benefit.
Matt Taibbi’s latest is fascinating and frightening. Everyone should check out his SUBSTACK as well as his X thread. No doubt Alex will be found in their list of targets.
Silly, petty and easily detected. Her clerk has probably seen stupid stuff like that before and pointed it out. The lawyers at Davis, Polk likely did themselves no favors. Meanwhile their longer letter probably reveals more about what they plan to argue than the letter they shrank so you can beat them to the punch with the longer pleading now requested. Judge probably did that because that's what she wants to see happen.
Alex, You said, "What Davis Polk did with its letter was classic angle shooting ... ." I don't agree. What Davis Polk did was classic big firm deceit. Big firms are known for this. Rules require that attorneys act ethically and with morals. Davis Polk did not because they ALTERED what your lawyers gave them to gain an edge.
I agree that Davis Polk altered the submission that Alex's lawyer in good faith gave them. AND they did it in bad faith, to gain an unfair advantage. The fact that the firm wasn't stupid enough to revise or shorten the substance of plaintiff's argument is not dispositive. Reformatting is in fact altering and the alterations were not immaterial. If Alex's lawyer had done this, Davis Polk would probably argue that his bar license should be revoked - or at least that he should be disqualified from further participation in this case. This alteration may seem like a small matter, but it's not, because it could have prejudiced Alex - plus, it's indicative of the kind of dishonest, untrustworthy individuals all too often populating my former profession.
THANK YOU for your professional evaluation of the situation. You nailed it. I hope Alex reads this.
Agreed. Don’t give them credit Alex. That was a slimy thing to do and the judge should call them on it.
This is better than Grisham!!
Yes, I’d pay to read this in novel form. Alex is such a great writer. I’ve read several of his books and this all makes for great content for his next!
Movie fodder. :-)
IKR?
I remain astounded at the unbelievable incompetence of every health agency in America who just rolled over to the pharmaceutical industry. The complete disregard of our government to look out for the BEST interests of the ppl and ignore our constitutional rights over a largely innocuous virus is mind blowing.
I truly hope AB wins this one. Git that Goliath right between the eyes.
Particularly his last book.
Too bad this isn't a novel but real life in our lawyer system.
It really feels like good vs evil here doesn’t it?!!!
That’s because it IS.
Feels like we have a front row seat - enjoy your firsthand accounts of the lawsuit shenanigans. Little wins add up to big wins - so pulling for you, Alex!!
It will not be the last time defense counsel "angle shoots" you. Count on it. It has only just begun. Take, for instance, staying discovery until after a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. This sets up a situation in which your claims become your evidentiary "facts" in an ad hoc bench trial with the defense presenting their "evidence" in the ad hoc "trial." (This is not consistent with Rule 8, but it the way they're now handling cases.) So you have a judge making a dispositive decision (you go to trial or you are out of there) based on two sets of "facts." As there is no discovery and you have no right to cross examine the defense's "evidence," they can make up anything they want. And that includes an in-depth argument of why your claims are not valid and you are not qualified to even engage in discovery. And their case will be presented as if they stand equal with you in the matter of hearing "evidence." (Which they do not if the law is followed.) So you will feel the angle shots in great volume. And, meanwhile, your right to a jury trial (see the Seventh Amendment) is violated because you will be getting an ad hoc bench trial lacking in standard trial procedure (such as cross examination). AND the judge can deny your request for Motion to Dismiss oral argument during which you might protest the defense lies. I wish I knew these things ahead of my tangle with the Federal Court. Maybe my experience can help you prepare. (I have found attorneys do not always take the case as seriously as you might and they all too often allow procedural missteps that should be avoided or for which they should prepare an appeal.) It is really worth your time to study the dissenting opinions in Twombly.
Taming the Wolf, I hope you can get this information directly to Alex. It seems vital and he may not have time to read all responses. Maybe email him?
I would hope he checks the messages on his stack. Even if he did, it would not be wise on his part to comment. Better to just prepare the case as best as one can. Hopefully, my comments give him reason to engage in conversation with his counsel.
Sounds like it's going well, my friend. I believe this is a can of worms that the veterinarian and the rooster don't want. They will be eating crow both of them for Christmas this year.
She recognized what they did immediately. Smaller font sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb and she is experienced and likely played a bit with the e-file to confirm her suspicions about the original font of the plantiff's side. She may have simply wanted to read it without magnifiers and the change became obvious, and likely annoying.
Typical lawyering... then you realize our entire Government is ran by ivy league lawyers playing fast and loose with our Constitution. So instead of holding the Government accountable for constitutional violations they just volley back and forth arguing what this or that amendment actually means until the news cycle moves on to the next urgent threat by one party or the other.
THANK YOU ALEX for fighting for millions of us. I hope G-D grants you the energy you will need.
Davis Polk might have angle-shot themselves in the foot. Unless one or more of their partners is friendly with the judge, the Court will take a dim view of their letter-shrinking shenanigans. For their part, your attorneys have to realize that the gloves are off, and start looking for some edges and angles of their own to exploit for their client's benefit.
Lawyers... Can’t live without them, can’t shoot them
Not sure if it applies but have you seen the latest work Public and Racket are working on and if anything regarding you is in there.
Matt Taibbi’s latest is fascinating and frightening. Everyone should check out his SUBSTACK as well as his X thread. No doubt Alex will be found in their list of targets.
Very Impressive Alex, being a pro card player, you got this!!!
Who is writing the script for the movie?
Silly, petty and easily detected. Her clerk has probably seen stupid stuff like that before and pointed it out. The lawyers at Davis, Polk likely did themselves no favors. Meanwhile their longer letter probably reveals more about what they plan to argue than the letter they shrank so you can beat them to the punch with the longer pleading now requested. Judge probably did that because that's what she wants to see happen.
Legal games require meticulous attention and diligence - stay vigilant and wow.