I'm familiar with MLive, but even good organizations are capable of making mistakes. As for "evidence presented to the court" that is not what this is. It is a motion to compel discovery in hopes of uncovering such evidence. Such motions can be quite legitimate and well founded, but they can also be desperate fishing expeditions. Either way, they are not evidence in and of themselves. For MLive to report these claims without highlighting the lack of support behind them is sloppy at best.
Please stop misrepresenting the facts. The endless parade of ad hominem attacks isn't helpful either. Read the site guidelines before you decide to keep digging that hole.
> The endless parade of ad hominem attacks isn't helpful either. Read the site guidelines before you decide to keep digging that hole.
My mistake was assuming good faith and a reasonable disposition, and not looking into your activity before replying. Your bio and spate of recent replies make it clear that any conversation in good faith is impossible. Citing the site guidelines is a convenient and lazy escape hatch draped in irony as you seem to flaunt them at will. Rest assured, we'll have no further interaction.
I’m not sure extremists are able to actually apply logic and understand that difference though - the kind of mindset that leads people to join paramilitaries that commit terrorism and murder police isn’t especially vulnerable to reason. The lawyers that they follow (Lin Manuel, and the other Kraken lawyer) are currently being sanctioned for this exact same pattern of dishonesty, and know that their followers will accept their words unquestioningly, regardless of reality.
You can see it in their reply to you: they skip over the argument to focus in on the part they think will discredit you. The fact that he thinks he’s successfully categorized you as “antifa” means that they can safely dismiss your idea. Your argument didn’t reference MLive at all, but they needed to fixate in that part as the logic in your answer wasn’t debatable.
You’re not going to reason with them, for the simple fact that reason has nothing to do with this. They’ll just cherry pick one part of your argument and throw in more unsubstantiated allegations and then use the fact you want proof as more evidence that you’re against them.
The disgraced lawyer is Lin Wood. Lin Manuel Miranda is the guy who did Hamilton. The name of the other “Kraken” lawyer you’re thinking of is Sydney Powell.
Please stop misrepresenting the facts. The endless parade of ad hominem attacks isn't helpful either. Read the site guidelines before you decide to keep digging that hole.