No Protective Order for SCOTUS Doxxer's Drama; Law Firm Walks: High-Profile Florida Federal Court Case Exposes the Courts’ Waning Control in the Digital 'Wild West'
It's obvious that Jennifer Couture is the party who retained you, Luthmann. Why are you concealing that fact? Also... I saw you in court. You were there and listening. You know for a fact that Wicker Smith left because of ethical reasons. There was no mention whatsoever of concerns over public criticism. Why would there be? They had been on the case for what? 6 months? I can't think of a single instance of anyone saying anything about them publicly. I think it's fairly obvious that the ethical concerns they expressed in support of withdrawal likely relate to Garramone's and Couture's insistence with moving forward to trial. The evidence against them is already overwhelmingly in favor of Danesh Noshirvan, and there is 4 to 5 months of discovery remaining! It's truly mind-boggling that the defendants thought it wise to hire someone with your history.
I will state for the record that I was not retained or paid by Couture or Garramone.
I will further state that on the record Wicker Smith claimed "irreconcilable differences" with the client.
I sent them a request to expound upon that. I will publish their response, but I'm not holding my breath.
My theory, based on what I see, is that Wicker Smith wasn't getting paid great and/or Cincinnati Insurance Company had a number budgeted and they hit it. I think they wanted a reason to get out so they could pick up an easy construction or director & officers defense case. This case is difficult, and I think they are afraid of what Danesh and McGibney can do, particularly where the MDFL judges have allowed all parties a "license to doxx."
My history is well-known. I'm not worried about it. The first one to bring it up is usually the one with the most to hide, so I dig deeper. Plus, I'm a unicorn. A machete-wielding Prince fan.
It's obvious that Jennifer Couture is the party who retained you, Luthmann. Why are you concealing that fact? Also... I saw you in court. You were there and listening. You know for a fact that Wicker Smith left because of ethical reasons. There was no mention whatsoever of concerns over public criticism. Why would there be? They had been on the case for what? 6 months? I can't think of a single instance of anyone saying anything about them publicly. I think it's fairly obvious that the ethical concerns they expressed in support of withdrawal likely relate to Garramone's and Couture's insistence with moving forward to trial. The evidence against them is already overwhelmingly in favor of Danesh Noshirvan, and there is 4 to 5 months of discovery remaining! It's truly mind-boggling that the defendants thought it wise to hire someone with your history.
I will state for the record that I was not retained or paid by Couture or Garramone.
I will further state that on the record Wicker Smith claimed "irreconcilable differences" with the client.
I sent them a request to expound upon that. I will publish their response, but I'm not holding my breath.
My theory, based on what I see, is that Wicker Smith wasn't getting paid great and/or Cincinnati Insurance Company had a number budgeted and they hit it. I think they wanted a reason to get out so they could pick up an easy construction or director & officers defense case. This case is difficult, and I think they are afraid of what Danesh and McGibney can do, particularly where the MDFL judges have allowed all parties a "license to doxx."
My history is well-known. I'm not worried about it. The first one to bring it up is usually the one with the most to hide, so I dig deeper. Plus, I'm a unicorn. A machete-wielding Prince fan.