#promissory estoppel

[pupil-of-law]

List a few words that have the vibe of Sebastian? It can be objects, phrases, descriptors, metaphors. Just the little things that have a connection to him

antidisestablishmentarianism

[waterbearable]

day 2 of bar prep and my soul has not been broken yet. shocking, tbh, since they've started me off w reviewing contract law

[coffeebleeds]

I did not receive a hippopotamus for Christmas. Whom can I sue, and will you help me?

The relevant question here is whether you were promised, and relied upon said promise to your detriment, to receive a hippopotamus for Christmas.

[transmascxielian]

i love how a lot of ace attorney names would be nowhere out of place in a dnd campaign or otherwise fantasy setting. oh yeah this is my dnd party with klavier, apollo, athena, phoenix, edgeworth, and juniper woods. brilliant. this came to mind because i reblogged a post and tagged it as klapollo, then realised the degree to which klavier and apollo sound like a pair of almost contrived fantasy names which is just kind of funny given that they're lawyers. imagine if real life law was like that. yeah man im really stuck on this promissory estoppel case. whos my opposing counsel? oh its this guy eldroth. heard he's brilliant with contract law. you see my point?

[blackenedmagic]

Contracts.

As with much of legal terminology, the term “contract” is no stranger to polysemy. What has been firmly established is that contracts, along with torts (loosely synonymous as “delicts” in Roman law) and fiduciary law, form part of the law of obligations. The following are two widely accepted definitions in the United States.

Restatement of Law.—A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.

Uniform Commercial Code.—A contract is the total legal obligation that results from the parties’ agreement.

Secondary, largely academic authorities vaguely characterize a contract as any manifestation of agreement to exchange legally enforceable rights and obligations among parties.

A cause of action for breach of contract has three elements: 

a valid contract;

a material breach; and

damages. 

These elements will be analyzed in turn.

Generally speaking, six elements are needed to effectuate a valid contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, awareness, capacity, and legality.

An offer is a proposal by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree), indicating a willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms.

Acceptance of an offer constitutes the offeree’s agreement to the terms of the offer, resulting in a binding contract. Under the mirror image rule, the terms of acceptance must be identical to the terms of the offer, unless it is an offer for the sale of goods.

Awareness: Both parties must mutually understand and agree on the essential terms of the contract.

Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties, which can take the form of money, services, goods, or a promise to act or refrain from acting.

Capacity: Parties must be of legal age and possess sound mental capacity to enter into enforceable contracts.

Legality: The subject matter of the contract must neither be unlawful nor contrary to public policy.

A material breach is one so substantial that it defeats the purpose of the parties in making the contract. Only a material breach discharges the non-breaching party of its obligations under the contract. 

Damages are imposed whenever a party breaches a duty under contract. Types of damages include compensatory (making the injured party whole) and liquidated (predetermined amount specified in the contract).

Liability in absence of bargained-for exchange.

Promissory estoppel allows plaintiffs to recover reliance damages from defendants, despite the absence of a contract. The plaintiff must prove:

defendant made a promise;

plaintiff detrimentally relied on defendant’s promise; and

plaintiff’s reliance on that promise was reasonable.

The doctrine of estoppel in contract law is triggered in largely two ways: (1) when there is an oral contract that should have been in writing, and (2) when the agreement did not include consideration.

In many jurisdictions that permit pleading alternative, inconsistent theories of liability, promissory estoppel is often claimed alongside breach of contract. 

Restitution and unjust enrichment, meanwhile, are modern designations for the older doctrines of quasi-contracts, implied-in-law contracts, and constructive contracts. These concepts originated in contract law but have emerged as their own distinct body of law. Properly speaking, restitution is the remedy for unjust enrichment and follows the Latin maxim, jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem (“by natural law, it is just that no one should be enriched by another’s loss or injury”). As such, restitution is an equitable remedy.

If someone were to steal an item worth $100 from me, for example, I would be entitled, at law, to compensation of exactly $100. However, if the thief were to sell the stolen good at a profit, say $120, I would be entitled, at equity, to restitution of $120. In cases like these, restitution serves to punish and deter wrongful behavior. 

[dankusner]

Madonna Ordered to Appear for Deposition Amid Ticket Refund Dispute

MIAMI, FL—

Corwin Law, led by attorney Marcus Corwin, represents plaintiffs in one of three Bellwether lawsuits filed against Madonna in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where consumers seek refunds for tickets to her Madonna Celebration Tour at Miami’s Kaseya Center in April 2024.

Plaintiff Christopher Casanova alleges that Madonna started late, failed to provide an opening act, and directed the venue to turn off air conditioning, causing discomfort.

On August 6, 2024, Judge Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson denied Madonna’s motion to dismiss, setting the case for a jury trial and ordering depositions by November 6.

The lawsuit seeks damages under Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, promissory estoppel, and civil conspiracy.

[pancake-furby]

I've got Cotswold Esquire and Promissory Estoppel if you still need furby names

P is already taken but I can add Cotswold Esquire!

[jcmarchi]

Musk ends OpenAI lawsuit while slamming Apple's ChatGPT plans

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/musk-ends-openai-lawsuit-while-slamming-apples-chatgpt-plans/

Musk ends OpenAI lawsuit while slamming Apple's ChatGPT plans

.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper display:none; img width:100%;

Elon Musk has dropped his lawsuit against OpenAI, the company he co-founded in 2015. Court filings from the Superior Court of California reveal that Musk called off the legal action on June 11th, just a day before an informal conference was scheduled to discuss the discovery process.

Musk had initially sued OpenAI in March 2024, alleging breach of contracts, unfair business practices, and failure in fiduciary duty. He claimed that his contributions to the company were made “in exchange for and in reliance on promises that those assets were irrevocably dedicated to building AI for public benefit, with only safety as a countervailing concern.”

The lawsuit sought remedies for “breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, and accounting,” as well as specific performance, restitution, and damages.

However, Musk’s filings to withdraw the case provided no explanation for abandoning the lawsuit. OpenAI had previously called Musk’s claims “incoherent” and that his inability to produce a contract made his breach claims difficult to prove, stating that documents provided by Musk “contradict his allegations as to the alleged terms of the agreement.”

The withdrawal of the lawsuit comes at a time when Musk is strongly opposing Apple’s plans to integrate ChatGPT into its operating systems.

During Apple’s keynote event announcing Apple Intelligence for iOS 18, iPadOS 18, and macOS Sequoia, Musk threatened to ban Apple devices from his companies, calling the integration “an unacceptable security violation.”

Despite assurances from Apple and OpenAI that user data would only be shared with explicit consent and that interactions would be secure, Musk questioned Apple’s ability to ensure data security, stating, “Apple has no clue what’s actually going on once they hand your data over to OpenAI. They’re selling you down the river.”

Since bringing the lawsuit against OpenAI, Musk has also created his own AI company, xAI, and secured over $6 billion in funding for his plans to advance the Grok chatbot on his social network, X.

While Musk’s reasoning for dropping the OpenAI lawsuit remains unclear, his actions suggest a potential shift in focus towards advancing his own AI endeavours while continuing to vocalise his criticism of OpenAI through social media rather than the courts.

See also: DuckDuckGo releases portal giving private access to AI models

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: ai, apple, apple intelligence, artificial intelligence, chatbots, chatgpt, elon musk, gpt, grok, law, lawsuit, legal, openai, privacy, x

[molsons112000]

Black girl McDonald's messed up her order. She called 911. The police came she told the police they screwed up my order. The police went inside and told the people either you fixed her order or we're taking you to jail... It is thief of service.

Theft of services is a crime that occurs when someone receives services without paying for them or providing something in return. This can include a variety of services, such as labor, design, and other professional services. 



People Clerk

How to Sue for Theft of Services - People Clerk

Dec 4, 2023 — Theft of services is usually a type of crime where someone receives services without paying for them or giving something in return, even though they know they're supposed to. This can include a wide range of services, such as labor, design, and other professional services. If you are a business owner, freelancer, or provided services to a colleague or friend and didn't get paid for performing, you are able to sue them in small claims court. In the article below, we provide examples of theft of services, steps you should take before suing for theft of services, and how to take someone to small claims court.

Salvado Law

What does it mean to be charged with theft of services?

Sep 10, 2023 — Theft of services occurs when someone obtains valuable services through deception, force, threat or other unlawful means and does not provide compensation. For example, someone might eat at a restaurant and leave without paying for their food.

Theft of services can involve:

Using force, intimidation, or deceit to obtain a service

Intentionally failing to pay a company for its services

Continuing to take advantage of a company's services until the company demands payment or stops providing the service

Using a communication system, such as a telephone, computer, or cable television system, without payment

Using a public utility service without payment 

In Illinois, theft of labor or services is considered a very serious crime, similar to retail theft, misdemeanor theft, or felony theft. 

Business owners, freelancers, or people who have provided services to a friend or colleague and not received payment can sue for theft of services in small claims court. 

Generative AI is experimental.

By the way, this happens everyday.People steal from me. They don't pay me for my service....

Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki

Theft of services

Theft of services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when a person obtains valuable services — as opposed to goods — by deception, force, ...



davidleelegal.com

https://www.davidleelegal.com › the...

Theft of Labor or Services | Aurora Criminal Defense Attorney

Theft of labor or services involves the use of property, labor, or services without proper payment. The state of Illinois considers this a very serious crime, ...

American Legal Publishing

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com › lo...

§ 130.64 THEFT OF LABOR, SERVICES, OR USE OF ...

(A) A person commits theft when he obtains the temporary use of property, labor, or services of another which are available only for hire, by means of ...



LegalMatch

https://www.legalmatch.com › article

Theft of Service: Penalties, Charges and Defenses

Apr 27, 2021 — In criminal law, theft of services refers to a type of crime that may be committed when a person uses a service without providing

So I asked for 4 fire sauce. This is a verbal contract. They didn't give me my 4 fire sauce. They broke the contract.

Investopedia

https://www.investopedia.com › pr...

Promissory Estoppel Explained, With Requirements & Example

If one party fails to uphold their end of a contract, the other party can withdraw from that contract. Promissory estoppel is the exception to this rule

[juztize]

ARTICLE 51.      WHEN THE LAW CREATING OR RECOGNIZING THEM, OR ANY OTHER PROVISION DOES NOT FIX THE DOMICILE OF JURIDICAL PERSONS, THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS ESTABLISHED OR WHERE THEY EXERCISE THEIR PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS.

(G.R. NO. L-7991, May 21, 1956)

PAUL MACDONALD, ET AL, petitioners vs. The National City Bank of New York, Respondent

Ponente: PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals from which we are reproducing the following basic findings of fact:

Stasikinocey is a partnership formed by Gorcey, da Costa, Jr., Kusik and Gavino and doing business in San Juan, Rizal. 

It was denied registration in the Securities and Exchange Commission, due to a confusion between the partnership ang Cardinal Rattan, sometimes called the Cardinal Rattan Factory, Defendants Gorcey and da Costa are considered general partners of the latter.

Defendant Stasikinocey had an overdraft account with The National City Bank of New York, a foreign banking association duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, due to the failure of the partnership to make the required payment, later on it was converted into an ordinary loan and corresponding promissory ‘joint note non-negotiable’ was executed on June 3, 1949, by Louis F. da Costa for and in the name of the Cardinal Rattan, Louis F. da Costa and Alan Gorcey. 

This promissory note was secured on June 7, 1949, by a chattel mortgage executed by Louis F. da Costa, Jr., General Partner for and in the name of Stasikinocey, alleged to be a duly registered Philippine partnership, doing business under the name and style of Cardinal Rattan, with principal office at 69 Riverside, San Juan, Rizal.

During the subsistence of the loan, the vehicles were sold to MacDonald and later on, MacDonald sold 2 of the 3 vehicles to Gonzales. The bank brought an action for recovery of its credit and foreclosure of the chattel mortgage upon learning of these transactions.

Issue: Whether or not the partnership, Stasikinocey is estopped from asserting that it does not have juridical personality since it is an unregistered commercial partnership.

Held:

YES. Partnership Stasikinocey does not have juridical personality.

While an unregistered commercial partnership has no juridical personality, nevertheless, where two or more persons attempt to create a partnership failing to comply with all the legal formalities, the law considers them as partners and the association is a partnership in so far as it is a favorable to third persons, by reason of the equitable principle of estoppel. 

Da Costa and Gorcey cannot deny that they are partners of the partnership Stasikinocey, because in all their transactions with the National City Bank they represented themselves as such. McDonald cannot disclaim knowledge of the partnership Stasikinocey because he dealt with said entity in purchasing two of the vehicles in question through Gorcey and Da Costa. 

The sale of the vehicles to MacDonald being void, the sale to Gonzales is also void since a buyer cannot have a better right than the seller. As was held in Behn Meyer & Co. vs. Rosatzin, where a partnership not duly organized has been recognized as such in its dealings with certain persons, it shall be considered as “partnership by estoppel” and the persons dealing with it are estopped from denying its partnership existence. 

If the law recognizes a defectively organized partnership as de facto as far as third persons are concerned, for purposes of its de facto existence it should have such attribute of a partnership as domicile.

[lesbianlenas]

isn’t contracts the easiest law?

do you agree to this contract, yes or no? if yes they have to follow the agreement if no then they don’t

it is so much more than that….first of all there has to be a valid offer which has to be inducing the other party into acceptance such that they know if they accept it forms a contract. but they can revoke the offer at any point until acceptance unless there is an option contract made where they promise not to revoke offer until a certain time. then there needs to be proper acceptance which cannot include material alteration to the terms in which case it is a rejection and counteroffer that the offeror now has to accept or can reject. but if it is a valid acceptance there also needs to be consideration which is a bargained for exchange meaning that each party has to be inducing the other to do smth in return for what they want. so if there if there is no consideration there can’t be an enforceable contract like if it is a gift or there is nominal consideration. and then there is the issue of illusory promises where one party is saying that i’ll do my side if i feel like it which is not a valid contract either. but if there is no consideration then there can still maybe be damages if one party relied on the promise through promissory estoppel. and then we have to consider the statute of frauds which says all contracts over $500 or for land or that will take longer than 1 year have to have some sort of proof in writing that is signed or they aren’t enforceable. and THEN there is the issue of parole evidence and if it can be used to supplement the contract which depends on if it is fully integrated partially integrated or not integrated at all. and then if the terms are contradictory or not w the terms in the contract. and then how do you decide what additional terms or contradictory terms are used if the parties have different terms? then you have to look at UCC § 2-207 and if it is a merchant and a consumer additional terms don’t count but for two merchants they do count UNLESS!!!! they are a material alteration (an unreasonable surprise which we couldn’t assume the party would agree to) of the contract in which case the only accepted terms are the ones the parties agreed on. but that’s not even getting into misunderstandings abt the definitions of the terms where if the two parties have different subjective meanings then the court has to determine either if one party knew the subjective meaning the other had or if they were entirely different meanings then there is no agreement at all. and the. there is also the issue of precontractual negotiations where if a party breaches before the contract is made can there be damages still? perhaps the parties formed a contract to make a contract or the terms in the contract are so definite as to imply the parties intended to be bound already. and then there is anticipatory repudiation where a party might indicate they’re going to breach and the other party sues them before they even breach the contract and the specific way to do that and specific performance as remedy for smth so unique you can’t reasonable get it elsewhere but you can’t do that for service contracts you can only get an injunction to stop them from giving services elsewhere and then there is reliance where the breaching party has to pay back to other any benefit they incurred from contract and expectancy damages which are the normal damages which puts non breaching party in position they would have been if contract was kept and this is the cap on damages so they can’t be any higher than this and there is a certainty limit on damages and foreseeability limit and you also have to mitigate the damages and do i even need to get into defenses for breach of contract have u heard enough 😭 i wrote all this off the top of my head ok. i am in hell.

[imperiumallaboveall]

Watch "Promissory Estoppel - Contract law" on YouTube

[attorninong]

Art. 1247. Unless it is otherwise stipulated, the extra-judicial expenses required by the payment shall be for the account of the debtor. With regard to judicial costs, the Rules of Court shall govern. (1168a)

The general rule is that the debtor cover the expenses incurred for extra-judicial settlement of an obligation, the reason behind it, is that the debtor is the one who benefited. A stipulation to the contrary is the exception.

This article also speaks of judicial costs, in which the court will determine in accordance with the Rules of Court ( Rule 142, Sec 1). As a rule, the costs of an action is to be paid by the losing party, however, in special circumstances the court may order that either party pay the costs or as may be deemed equitable, divide it.

Article 1247 - Correlation to the case of Filinvest Credit Corporation v Philippine Acetylene Co.

Facts: 

Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc., defendant-appellant herein, purchased a vehicle from Alexander Lim, payable in installment.  Subsequently, Lim assigned his rights to the vehicle to Filinvest Credit,  which, in effect, the payment of the unpaid balance owed by Philippine Acetylene to Alexander Lim was financed by Filinvest such that Lim became fully paid.  

Phil Acetylene failed to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the promissory note and chattel mortgage since it had defaulted in the payment of nine successive installments. Filinvest then sent a demand letter whereby its counsel demanded to remit the amount in full with interest and charges or return the mortgaged property. 

Phil Acetylene thru its assistant general manager replied to the letter  advising Filinvest of its decision to "return the mortgaged property, which return shall be in full satisfaction of its indebtedness”.  As a result, the defendant returned the vehicle together with the document "Voluntary Surrender with Special Power of Attorney To Sell".

Filinvest then informed appellant thru a letter that it cannot sell the vehicle due to its unpaid taxes and  requested Phil. Acetylene to update its account by paying the instalments in arrears and accruing interest. Filinvest attempted to return the vehicle but Phil. Acetylene refused it. Filinvest instituted an action for the collection of sum of money, Phil. Acetylene in their defense argued that their obligation was extinguished when they voluntarily surrendered the mortgage property.

Issue: Whether or not the return of the mortgaged property extinguished the obligation of appellant?

Held:

No.  The Voluntary Surrender with SPA to Sell executed reveals that the possession of the mortgaged motor vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the appellant to the appellee authorizing the latter to look for a buyer and sell the vehicle in behalf of the former who retains ownership thereof, and to apply the proceeds of the sale to the mortgage indebtedness, with the undertaking of the appellant to pay the difference, if any, between the selling price and the mortgage obligation. With the stipulated conditions as stated, the appellee, in essence was constituted as a mere agent to sell the motor vehicle which was delivered to the appellee, not as its property. There is no estoppel on part of Filinvest to demand payment from the unpaid obligation since it never accepted the mortgaged motor vehicle in cull satisfaction of the mortgaged debt.

Illustration correlating Article 1247 to the case.

Applying Article 1247, IF the issue was not brought to the court and Phil. Acetylene settled the amount when Filinvest Credit sent a demand letter. According to Article 1247, Phil. Acetylene will be liable for the expenses incurred by Filinvest Credit when they sought the legal services of their counsel, which constitute an extra-judicial costs. That is in the absence of a stipulation between the parties.

As to the judicial costs, the court after affirming the appealed judgment, in this particular case charged the costs of the proceeding to Phil. Acetylene which was the losing party.

[queersatanic]

Are we lawyers? No, we are not lawyers

But going to throw it out there that Matt Kezhaya talking to judges like this on behalf of himself and The Satanic Temple may better explain his repeated sanctions and admonitions than any judicial bias.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Maybe try less sauce, Matt?

District Judges Wright and Kelley are biased.

Just beyond parody.

Here are the two people who sanctioned Matt Kezhaya for misbehavior while representing The Satanic Temple

For Belle Plaine, it was Judge Wilhelmina Wright, an Obama appointee:

Judge Angel Kelley who sanctioned Matt Kezhaya in the Boston Invocation case?

She's a Biden appointee:

As we have said before, if you are saying that liberal judges appointed by the most recent Democratic administrations are so reactionary and biased they can't give you a fair shake in court, why are you assuring your supporters that they should give you money and promising them you are especially well-positioned to win?

So much more can be said for the gross miscarriage of justice in Belle Plaine.

Poor thing.

So unfortunate that The Satanic Temple can't find a court anywhere that doesn't come to the conclusion they are obnoxious, incompetent trolls.

Although it might help if TST's lawyers knew the law in the states they were practicing, met their filing deadlines, and didn't try to re-litigate losing motions of an ongoing case by filing an entirely new one.

Kezhaya is correct to point out that he is currently appealing this ruling, but the details of his behavior in Belle Plaine are not ideal.

So too in Boston.

"Biased! Biased! You're all biased!"

Indeed, the Biden judge is too corrupt to give Matt Kezhaya and The Satanic Temple a fair opportunity in Boston, apparently.

(In reality, the judge in the Boston Invocation case has been extraordinarily patient with the antics of The Satanic Temple and Matt Kezhaya so far, especially given what they have admitted on the record so far.)

From the second of three links above:

Plaintiff essentially seeks immediate appeal of an order that never issued. TST, through counsel, grossly misunderstands the Court’s recent order granting Defendant’s motion for protective order [Dkt. 47]. In doing so, and by this most recent motion for certificate of appealability, Plaintiff critically misstates both the ruling and effect of the Court’s granting of the protective order with regard to the deposition of Mayor Michelle Wu. In its April 6, 2022 Memorandum and Order [Dkt. 47], the Court issued a detailed discussion of Plaintiff’s “impermissible antics and abusive tactics” [id. at 15] with regard to its “admitted intent to depose Mayor Wu solely for political and publicity-related reasons” [id. at 12; see also Dkt. 38].1 The Court found that Plaintiff had not only violated its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery, but also that the violations were so egregious that the Court was compelled to impose sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 45, for the Defendant’s time spent on the litigation surrounding Mayor Wu’s deposition noticed for Election Day. [Dkt. 47 at 12]. In Plaintiff’s currently pending motion for certificate of appealability [Dkt. 50], it significantly misunderstands and misstates the Court’s recent ruling [Dkt. 47] on Defendant’s motion for protective order regarding the deposition of Mayor Wu [Dkt. 33]. Whether such misstatements arise from simple incompetence or a more pernicious desire to misstate the record is something the Court cannot know at this time.

Yikes.

The Satanic Temple is an abusive, incompetent religious organization

We have made a lot of detailed criticism about The Satanic Temple while providing copious sourcing so no one needs to have faith in us or our characterizations of this abusive, incompetent religious organization.

There is no real disputing what is verifiable or defending what is indefensible.

And yet: Many still seem to think that "at least The Satanic Temple is doing something" in the fight for abortion access and justify their donations and other support accordingly.

Well, let's look at what the Temple is doing in Texas with the federal abortion-access case TST has been pursuing since February 2021.

First some idea of scale.

With the help of overly credulous traditional media seeking clicks and the exploitation of desperate, vulnerable people looking for a reason to hope, TST raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations between the announcement of the Texas "'bounty bill" going into effect in September 2021 and the end of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

But it's hard to track exactly how much TST is bringing in beyond what they announce themselves, whether programs like "Amazon Smile" are included or in-addition-to, and then of course all of the for-profit corporations and their revenue sources.

Stuff like membership cards people also buy because they think it provides abortion protections sends money to for-profit United Federation of Churches, LLC, dba "The Satanic Temple", for example, not tax-exempt church The Satanic Temple (Inc.).

All of that money pouring into TST's coffers, controlled by just two men, and to be spent on what — we don't know what.

But we can see some of the court cases and how they're going; in fact, most are not about abortion at all and are going quite poorly.

The Satanic Temple is very bad at court cases.

For The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al ("Ann Doe I"), we can see that the case is currently paused because TST's lead counsel Matt Kezhaya, who is based out of Arkansas and Minnesota, is appearing as a guest in Texas (that is, "pro hac vice").

However, Kezhaya has behaved so badly in other courts across the country, he's been sanctioned at least twice since TST Inc. v Hellerstedt started.

The federal district court judge in Texas stopped everything till Kezhaya explained himself to the court.

This is that explanation:

[seo-changbinnies]

changbin - music blood interview

[maygalodon]

Dude, law school straight up SUCKS