TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:

ELB wrote:

TXBO wrote:
I don't know any of the particulars. It's reasonable, however, to assume that when you get reprimanded by the court and you have to pay defendant's attorney fees for bringing a frivolous case, you may have gotten bad counsel. I see no lack of morality in exploring that.

Judge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after dismissing lawsuit

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06 ... ismissing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TXBO wrote: ..
I don't know any of the particulars. It's reasonable, however, to assume that when you get reprimanded by the court and you have to pay defendant's attorney fees for bringing a frivolous case, you may have gotten bad counsel. I see no lack of morality in exploring that.

The particulars are that these types of lawsuits are frivolous both as a matter of logic and statute, and there are several cases on record affirming this. In the face of this they embraced their "bad counsel" and in fact signed up with their counsels employers as employees, and sought to use their "victim status" to damage innocent parties. They simply chose to roll the dice and see if they could get a judge who will ignore the plain meaning of law (not a bad bet these days!) and maybe force a payment from the defendants to make the plaintiffs go away (which the plaintiffs would trumpet as a political victory). I see no morality in that.

They may have a legal case, and I hope the brady bunch does burn up their time and energy pointing fingers at each other over this, but just like their complaint against Luck Gunner et al, they have no moral basis to complain about their lawyers. This was not a case of an aggrieved party whose independent lawyers had no goal but their client's best interest: these were political allies waging political lawfare, and their battle blew up in their faces.

ELB wrote:

TXBO wrote: ..
I don't know any of the particulars. It's reasonable, however, to assume that when you get reprimanded by the court and you have to pay defendant's attorney fees for bringing a frivolous case, you may have gotten bad counsel. I see no lack of morality in exploring that.

The particulars are that these types of lawsuits are frivolous both as a matter of logic and statute, and there are several cases on record affirming this. In the face of this they embraced their "bad counsel" and in fact signed up with their counsels employers as employees, and sought to use their "victim status" to damage innocent parties. They simply chose to roll the dice and see if they could get a judge who will ignore the plain meaning of law (not a bad bet these days!) and maybe force a payment from the defendants to make the plaintiffs go away (which the plaintiffs would trumpet as a political victory). I see no morality in that.

They may have a legal case, and I hope the brady bunch does burn up their time and energy pointing fingers at each other over this, but just like their complaint against Luck Gunner et al, they have no moral basis to complain about their lawyers. This was not a case of an aggrieved party whose independent lawyers had no goal but their client's best interest: these were political allies waging political lawfare, and their battle blew up in their faces.

You could be right. It could also be that they were persuaded to join with little to no reasonable knowledge of the law or the risks by unscrupulous attorneys.

Update:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... paign.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Phillips are apparently making the rounds of sympathetic media (MSNBC) claiming the judgment is forcing them into bankruptcy, which wouldn't surprise me, it is a pretty stiff bill. This would indicate that the Brady mob is not (openly) paying the judgment for them. But the blogger notes they are still listed as employees of Brady, so it makes him suspicious that the bankruptcy claim is for show, to draw sympathy, and that in the end Brady is going to cover for them.

I cannot bring myself to watch the videos of them boo-hooing, but the blogger at the link seems to be saying they are not telling people they are employees of the Brady organization when they go on TV. and the media is not doing so either.