3 ms·
"There was no technological reason." Ok stipulated. But under the "every man for himself", um, "doctrine" the attorney should have made a more noble effort eve
by larrys 12y ago
"There was no technological reason."
Ok stipulated. But under the "every man for himself", um, "doctrine" the attorney should have made a more noble effort even if it ended up in failure. [1]
Kind of the related a bit to the "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Here give it a try the best you can. [2] In this case an answer was needed to the question. Not a white house dodge. Stipulate it didn't exist. Doesn't mean he couldn't have creatively offered something that at least attempted to pass the smell test. And I don't think that would have been disrespectful either.
[1] At the very least to burnish his reputation.
[2] Isn't that what attorney's do? Try to win the case even against all odds with a "guilty" client? Buy being creative?
- ghshephard 12y agoI actually agree with you in the "Don't Dodge" part. He could have saved everyone time and effort by just saying, "No. The particular configuration of equipment at Aero exists solely so that they abide by the law, and, in fact, they do abide by the law, obeying all relevant statutes regarding transmission." There was no need to start with a "Well" when it was abundantly clear that Aero is basically a very clever hack on the legal system, which, unfortunately, ran into some justices who don't care so much for the letter of the law, as they do the spirt of the law.