BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

One of the papers submitted to the court had the wrong complaint filled in; this is in every way a Negligence case, not the Malpractice case that the above welcoming statement described.

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that Elizabeth does not deserve her title of “Respected”. Repeated accusations prove that she is underhanded with her spending.

It seems that maybe Elizabeth should not be so respected after all, at least for her tax preparation skills. This case is now closed; Benjamin is the winner. The fine is $244,541.

I’m sorry, it seems this case was closed in error. Buried somewhere in this stack of papers, Trigon also submitted some documents that confirm Elizabeth’s side of the story. The winner is instead Elizabeth, and the fine is $0. Now the case is closed.

(I hadn’t noticed that Trigon began representing Elizabeth - and the FOR vote now decreases both parties’ guilt instead of just Benjamin, which was the tipping point between who won.)

Maybe “whose Attorney made a comment” means whose Attorney at the time the comment was made, not at the time the case is closed. It could be worth CfJing, but I don’t think I’ll be able to write it up tonight.

To this, all I can say is… they must have been planted.

(That was supposed to be a clever scam but I didn’t think it out very well.)

And no, I’m sure it means at the time the case is closed, since it’s all evaluated at that moment. I accept my mistake.

Yes, the rule dates back to a time when it was possible to generate cases with the same Attorney representing both clients. It was written bearing that situation in mind.