There would definitely be a contract for use of the facility, and I suspect it would have been paid for in advance. The money El Paso is seeking is overwhelmingly for police and fire department expenses, not the facility.
Georgia Elections Officials Recover Legal Fees In Trump Suit Over 2020 Results | Talking Points Memo
6 Likes
Danke
1 Like
There is much written about people being told to shove their invoices up their ass by Trump, for work there was a signed contract to perform. I don’t see as Trump cares whether there’s a firm legal obligation to remit what’s due. He just says “I have deep pockets, sue me if you don’t like it.”
1 Like
Squire Patton Boggs sounds like the villain in a Dickens novel.
5 Likes
Duh. This why the facility would, in all probability, demand payment up front.
1 Like
I wonder if the law firm will tack the legal fees onto their bill to Trump
2 Likes
Yes the firm was formed in 2014 via merger. I’m not sure why you’re repeating what I already know.
(for TW, this post is not intended to sound ‘unfriendly’)…
Apparently, you didn’t know when the antecedent firms were established, or you would have made note of the facts, instead of implying that the firm was begun from scratch in 2014.
Wasn’t this the only time he settled a case?
1 Like
Apparently my attempt at a bit of humor has upset you greatly. I will refrain from any attempt at humor in the future when you’re around. Apparently you’re trolling me trying to get a reaction. I can see no other reason for your unfriendly comments. Have a nice day.
“Ethically” in a sentence about the Trump election legal teams. Moot.
1 Like
It’s sad that you cite factual comments as “unfriendly.”
Trump and his campaign failed to reimburse the city of El Paso for expenses for rally he held there before 2020 campaign.
1 Like
The way Trump employs NDAs to prevent bad press there’s no telling how many settlements he’s agreed to that we’ll never know about.
2 Likes
1 Like
OT, but pay attention folks, because this is Roberts’ wet dream…the whole “the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating” argument…
To clarify: The original racist discrimination created a group of victims of only one race. These fuckwads would have you believe that because of that, any program the gov’t creates to fix that and provide redress for the damage that the original discrimination caused is also therefore “racist discrimination” as well. It is 100% circular logic that piggy-backs the original discrimination onto the program designed to fix it in order to declare it racist and discriminatory too. IT IS TOTALLY DESIGNED TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE DAMAGE AND DISADVANTAGE THE ORIGINAL DISCRIMINATION CAUSED BY PREVENTING ANY REDRESS OF IT. It is, in fact, a way of permitting the victimizers to choose a method of victimization that, by defining its victims by race, actually has now automatically built into it a legal justification for the government being prohibited from helping those victims.
And yes, that’s precisely where the SCOTUS will go with it. Killing “affirmative action” has been a lifelong dream of Roberts…arguably his raison d’etre.
1 Like
I love this guy.
2 Likes
No. He’s been party to 1000s of lawsuits. One has to assume a good percentage of them were settled.
3 Likes
Sure. But it’s also not a court ruling that your case was abject idiocy and so utterly frivolous it merits sanctions. They couldn’t allow that to happen, especially if it resulted in Bar action that would deter lawyers from helping them do it again in 2022 and 2024.
2 Likes
You have a problem with the way the Founders originally set up our government, take it up with them.
IT WAS 3/5THS FOR A DAMNED GOOD REASON OR THEY WOULDN’T HAVE DONE IT!!!