• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Avenatti thread

The Big Dog said:
Thirsty got sued by the woman that Broidy allegedly knocked up.

the complaint is under seal, so I cannot say with assurance why Avenatti was named as a defendant. Of course Avenatti rushed right to Twitter to complain about it, and got destroyed by one of the plaintiff's lawyers in reply.

Here is some info. https://twitter.com/PeterStris/status/1015314117622521856

If I were a betting man, I would lay 2-1 odds that the woman/plaintiff went to Avenatti for advice about her NDA and Thirsty managed to breach it causing Broidy to stop payments.

Time will tell, but I think we can all agree that Avenatti is a complete bozo.
Click to expand...

What for? Playing into Avenatti's hands. If I were a betting man, I'd say it is frivolous.
 
The Big Dog said:
Thirsty got sued by the woman that Broidy allegedly knocked up.

the complaint is under seal, so I cannot say with assurance why Avenatti was named as a defendant. Of course Avenatti rushed right to Twitter to complain about it, and got destroyed by one of the plaintiff's lawyers in reply.

Here is some info. https://twitter.com/PeterStris/status/1015314117622521856

If I were a betting man, I would lay 2-1 odds that the woman/plaintiff went to Avenatti for advice about her NDA and Thirsty managed to breach it causing Broidy to stop payments.

Time will tell, but I think we can all agree that Avenatti is a complete bozo.
Click to expand...

Avid readers of this thread were no doubt waiting for the other shoe to drop, and boy howdy, did it ever. In response to Avenatti's thirsty decision to run litigation through his twitter account, the plaintiff's lawyer dropped this thermonuclear own:

Putting lies in legal documents doesn’t make them true. When YOU inevitably leak our complaint, it will be very clear why Judge Kwan provisionally sealed it for 20 days. Your media sideshow is a disgrace.:
Click to expand...

Damn.....

https://twitter.com/PeterStris/status/1016711156830834689
 
The Big Dog said:
Avid readers of this thread were no doubt waiting for the other shoe to drop, and boy howdy, did it ever. In response to Avenatti's thirsty decision to run litigation through his twitter account, the plaintiff's lawyer dropped this thermonuclear own:



Damn.....

https://twitter.com/PeterStris/status/1016711156830834689
Click to expand...
I fear your new hero will prove to have feet of clay. He comes across as a complete dick.


The seal will come off in twenty days, so we'll soon see what it's all about.
 
CapelDodger said:
I fear your new hero will prove to have feet of clay. He comes across as a complete dick.


The seal will come off in twenty days, so we'll soon see what it's all about.
Click to expand...

You do realize that all the lawyer is doing is replying to Thirsty's attacks on twitter right?

Avenatti went into court today without notice and claiming to represent the plaintiff to get the seal lifted. Seems like Thirsty failed again.
 
The Big Dog said:
You do realize that all the lawyer is doing is replying to Thirsty's attacks on twitter right?
Click to expand...
I've read what Avenatti has said too, and he doesn't come across as a dick. Your new hero does.


Avenatti went into court today without notice and claiming to represent the plaintiff to get the seal lifted. Seems like Thirsty failed again.
Click to expand...
Avenatti was acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one, so he was a plaintiff. Who did you think "the plaintiff" referred to?
 
CapelDodger said:
I've read what Avenatti has said too, and he doesn't come across as a dick. Your new hero does.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok

Avenatti was acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one, so he was a plaintiff. Who did you think "the plaintiff" referred to?
Click to expand...

wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok



wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.
Click to expand...

You're spinning. And it is funny.

Bechard is suing him for what? Seriously.

Avenatti was never ever Bechard's attorney so how has he breached any privilege? The answer is he hasn't. If Bechard has a complaint, she needs to take it up with her former attorney, Davidson.

What this proves is you can sue anybody for anything and totally without grounds. You may not win, but you definitely can sue.
 
The Big Dog said:
I feel terrific, thanks ever so much for asking.

Michael Avenatti just showed again what a sloppy, incompetent lawyer he is, and got his ass handed to him.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about when you say he had his ass handed to him? So Bechard sued him. Big deal. You keep making the mistake of confusing suing and winning a case. Huge difference.
 
Motion to unseal: denied.

It was a conditional sealing order so the lawsuit should be unsealed in 20 days, unless there are further motions to keep it sealed.

Chalk up yet another loss for Mike (although I expect he will be blathering about the contents of the complaint soon enough, because thirsty.)
 
The Big Dog said:
Motion to unseal: denied.

It was a conditional sealing order so the lawsuit should be unsealed in 20 days, unless there are further motions to keep it sealed.

Chalk up yet another loss for Mike (although I expect he will be blathering about the contents of the complaint soon enough, because thirsty.)
Click to expand...

So what? The motion was denied. This hardly qualifies as getting his ass handed to him.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmmm, you think that your hero is not acting like a dick, but the guy replying to him is? Ok
Click to expand...
Your new hero claimed that Avenatti has been begging him not to sue, which doesn't approach credibility - the action of a dick. Avenatti replies that Stris is lying, which is entirely credible since that's the sort of thing dick's do.


wait, "acting on behalf of the defendants in the secret suit, of whom he is one" in a suit brought against the defendants by a plaintiff makes a defendant a "plaintiff"? that is hilarious!! Oh man, thanks for the laugh!
Click to expand...
The motion to remove the seal on the secret suit is not the secret suit itself. It is a different thing. Avenatti is the plaintiff in the motion, and a defendant in the secret suit.


the fact that Thirsty put that on his pleading means he is either dishonest or spectacularly incompetent.
Click to expand...
It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it?
 
CapelDodger said:
The motion to remove the seal on the secret suit is not the secret suit itself. It is a different thing. Avenatti is the plaintiff in the motion, and a defendant in the secret suit.

It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it?
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

A person bringing a motion is called a "movant." Indeed the actual motion that Thirsty filed and which I linked to earlier refers to the actual plaintiff as the plaintiff and Avenatti as "Defendant."

The absolute cherry on top of that fail sundae was this: "It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it."

Pride goeth before the fall....

Fantastic. :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
The Big Dog said:
:eye-poppi

A person bringing a motion is called a "movant." Indeed the actual motion that Thirsty filed and which I linked to earlier refers to the actual plaintiff as the plaintiff and Avenatti as "Defendant."

The absolute cherry on top of that fail sundae was this: "It's more likely that you're rather confused, isn't it."

Pride goeth before the fall....

Fantastic. :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Pride goeth before fall. Can we quote you on that?
 
Scene: courtroom

Bailiff: Smith v. Jones
Attorney 1: Good morning, Fred Doe for plaintiff
Attorney 2: Hello Judge, Dred Foe for Plaintiff
Judge: Oh, where is defendant?
2: Oh I represent the defendant, but it is my motion, so I am Plaintiff.
Judge: falls off chair laughing, holds 2 in contempt.

Fin
 
The Big Dog said:
Scene: courtroom

Bailiff: Smith v. Jones
Attorney 1: Good morning, Fred Doe for plaintiff
Attorney 2: Hello Judge, Dred Foe for Plaintiff
Judge: Oh, where is defendant?
2: Oh I represent the defendant, but it is my motion, so I am Plaintiff.
Judge: falls off chair laughing, holds 2 in contempt.

Fin
Click to expand...

Some people amuse themselves. I wish I was that clever.

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom