you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Feldheld 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thats a blunt lie.

None of these judged even dared looking at the evidence. All these cases were thrown out by some "standing" argument which is a judges way of saying "Im too cowardly to take the responsibility for something as big this".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes - they did - and found that the lawsuit had NO MERIT. The lawauits were reviewed. They were deemed unworthy of a court hearing, because they NEVER INCLUDED APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE.

[–]Feldheld 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, what else could you do other than keep lying and doubling down. Lies are what your whole world is built upon.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No need to be infantile. How it is lie? To repeat a comment elsewhere in this thread:

Are you a lawyer? Do you know a lawyer? Are you repeating what R. Paul said? Could R. Paul be misleading you?

Discovery is not necessary in the preparatory stage of a civil procedure. There are several steps before discovery is necessary.

Most of those lawsuits were obviously not ready for discovery because they contained no reasonable evidence. This is commonly known.