**************************

Date: February 19th, 2018 8:33 PM

Author: Diamond Dallas Chad

I would be your worst nightmare. I decimate anal biglaw dorks in state court all the time. The most predictable thing about you guys is that you all feel the need to respond to and thoroughly debunk whatever I put into an MSJ, no matter what.

I love filing lengthy, well written MSJs (from a polish standpoint) with a bunch of inadmissible/irrelevant stuff that makes your client look like shit, and a bunch of threadbare legal arguments that aren't even entirely supported by the cases cited. Of course, you can't have your client look like an asshole so your reply also contains a bunch of irrelevant shit to correct the record (only further drawing attention to it). You revel in pointing out the inconsistencies and distinctions between my cases and arguments. You shoot down every argument in painstaking detail, no matter how frivolous. You likely go over the line a bit, and say that my central argument is NOT THE LAW and WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED. All the while, you were unknowingly making admissions that hurt you badly on the "real" argument, as was the point of my smokescreen of sophistry.

Then the morning of the hearing comes, and I file my laser-focused reply brief, citing all of the cases that you hoped I wouldn't find (and probably some you weren't aware of). They weren't necessarily your main focus because you had seven other somewhat frivolous arguments to deal with. However as to the real argument, the overstatements in your response are completely debunked as I run through a series of posterboards split down the middle, quotes from your response on one side and directly contradictory quotes from my case law on the other. I probably even took a pot-shot at the length and breadth of your response (even though I caused it). By the time it's your turn, the judge won't even listen even though you were actually right on the law and I am just a charlatan.

My favorite one has to be a case where I knew they would rely heavily on depo testimony from a third party witness to try to create a fact issue. I used a very short paragraph with a couple of depo quotes taken slightly out of context and a bit of my own innuendo to imply that the witness and defendant's corporate rep had an affair. The response went on for about 2 full pages debunking the idea of this "affair." Lmao @ biglawyers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440509)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898037&forum_id=2#35441416)