|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...9761--spt.html |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On Jul 9, 6:10*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...g-charges-1345... Ask Lafferty to explain the meaning of "dimissed without prejudice." DR |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On Jul 9, 7:36*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:10*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...g-charges-1345... Ask Lafferty to explain the meaning of "dimissed without prejudice." DR No one needs Laf to explain this - the point is Armstrong's lawyers filed a media story and not a legal brief and they were definitely 'dimissed' as you say. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On Jul 9, 8:49*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:36*pm, DirtRoadie wrote: On Jul 9, 6:10*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...g-charges-1345.... Ask Lafferty to explain the meaning of "dimissed without prejudice." DR No one needs Laf to explain this - the point is Armstrong's lawyers filed a media story and not a legal brief and they were definitely 'dimissed' as you say. Whatever idjit lawyer signed off on that fluffer nutter filing shot Lance in the ass. Regardless of the "without prejudice" part, there's prejudice, and now Lance is 0-1 in filings. Most people will just catch the dismissed part. Without the fluff it might well have been 1-0. Stupid move. R |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On Jul 9, 6:49*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:36*pm, DirtRoadie wrote: On Jul 9, 6:10*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...g-charges-1345.... Ask Lafferty to explain the meaning of "dimissed without prejudice." DR No one needs Laf to explain this - the point is Armstrong's lawyers filed a media story and not a legal brief and they were definitely 'dimissed' as you say. Agreed. It's a media story wrapped around a legal complaint. But you are ignoring the Court granting "leave to amend," i.e. excise the media part and move forward with the legal portion. DR |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On 10/07/2012 01:10, Anton Berlin wrote:
Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time Get a ****ing life, or go and live with Raff, you can spend your empty hours blowing each other off. -- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lafferty was right - Armstrong's Lawyers DO SUCK
On 10/07/2012 01:49, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:36 pm, wrote: On Jul 9, 6:10 pm, Anton wrote: Sorry Lance - money won't buy you out this time http://sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro...g-charges-1345... Ask Lafferty to explain the meaning of "dimissed without prejudice." DR No one needs Laf to explain this You do boy although the attempt would probably be a waste of time. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hincapie Lawyers Up | B. Lafferty[_3_] | Racing | 14 | August 31st 10 04:16 PM |
bizarre lawyers | Jeremy Parker | UK | 10 | February 2nd 06 04:48 PM |
OT--The Lawyers Did It | B. Lafferty | Racing | 46 | August 10th 05 03:22 AM |
Lawyers lips | Callistus Valerius | Techniques | 45 | March 17th 05 12:31 AM |
another reason to hate lawyers | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 15 | September 21st 04 09:50 PM |