Perhaps the key lesson of the fen-phen crisis is that every approved medical treatment, no matter how miraculous it might seem at first glance, has its risks

Optimistic of you to assume there would be an event of any kind, rather than a scammer hoping someone is fool enough to buy “tickets”.

Disney isn’t going to pay her nuisance money. This is a lawsuit that’s only happening because it caught Phony Stark’s hamster-like attention span and he paid for some lawyers.

There’s so much dragging in their dismissal motion:

Kinja hates links, so I’m pasting a link to the dismissal motion below with the right slashes removed.

In lawyer terms, this is some fucking shade.

Wendig also didn’t throw a tantrum or file a lawsuit against Marvel.

Next he’ll argue that it doesn’t matter because he was just offering “food for thought” or was “making a larger point”. Truth is irrelevant, only tribalism matters.

As an experienced attorney, surely you are familiar with the scenario where the opposing side’s lawyer makes up a complete BS reason you’re not allowed to ask their client that question.

You know, people keep saying this, and I think y’all are forgetting that insurance companies are involved. If you think a single one of them - for the city, for the bridge, for the ship, for cargo companies that lost money due to the shutdown - are going to eat a dime of loss instead of putting it on the other guy,…

1) This is standard language in their responsive filing; “fault, neglect, or want of care” doesn’t mean “we have no responsibility for what our ship does”. It means that they are saying they did everything they reasonably should have done.

I took it as satirical comparison between Amazon and the old free stores, but maybe it’s just Tomato.

Admittedly, we should bring back the Automat.

Girl, no.

Federal sentencing guidelines are extremely complex and judges don’t have a lot of discretion. “The DA asked for twice as much” doesn’t tell you anything.

He never thought the rules applied to him.

Doesn’t it need a bit more than “non-violent” and “first-time offender” to qualify for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act?

Indeed. Courts rarely start off opinions with this much of an AYFKM to one side.

Thank you for linking to the court’s actual ruling.

I thought the SEC was taking a harder look at SPACs used in this way?