Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Follow Up on the 'Fake' Document at the Supreme Court" video.

They got lucky to deal with incompetent judges with axes to grind. If they had gotten caught, that likely would have resulted in close scrutiny of everything they wanted to enter into evidence.
14
Even if you take their statement at face value, they're admitting that they didn't do their job in terms of verifying that they had a witness to testify to the evidence they were trying to get admitted into evidence. I do appreciate that they exist as we need attorneys to cover these things, even if they're on the wrong side of history. When I was in middle-school we had a black defense attorney come in and explain his job and a bit about a, at that time, recent case where he defended a white supremacist that was caught on camera smashing a journalist's camera. It basically came down to somebody needs to defend unpopular defendants and positions in order for the system to actually work and it was more a question of whether he could uphold the expectations of a lawyer to put up a proper defense than his personal feelings about the defendant. I don't know what the ultimate outcome of that case was as they had him dead to rights on tape that was widely broadcast.
13
@neues3691 The whole basis for the case was that there would be requests for that service, which violates the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Without the request, they would have had to wait until there was one to file the suit.
7
TBH, he's an attorney and I'm sure he's used to people being very angry at him. Not that it really makes it OK, but it is common for one litigant or another to be very angry at the attorneys involved when they don't like the outcome.
7
The fact that they don't know, or at least are claiming not to know, should be sufficient grounds for that not being allowed into the case in the first place. The rules of evidence can be rather complicated, but typically you can't get something entered into evidence if you can't produce a witness as to how the evidence was collected and that it reflects the condition in which it was collected. If they don't know that the statement was by the man they assert it is, then the entire proceeding should have been tossed as that was literally the whole basis for the court case was that somebody had requested the services. There really should be sanctions for the attorneys that brought this to the court knowing full well that they hadn't done any work to verify the authenticity of the cause of action.
6
There probably will be sanctions of some sort. This news just broke. The other thing is why is there personally identifying information in the court record without the person whose information it is having the opportunity to file a motion to have it redacted or verifying the accuracy? It seems rather poor behavior to include that in public records without putting any effort into verifying that it even reflects a party involved in the proceedings.
5
@neues3691 There is no controversy without the request. The proper thing was to wait until there was a request and as such both damages and a controversy before filing. There's nothing in any of this that couldn't have been resolved with cash and a change to the law if the designer had won.
3
@fakjbf3129 They regularly refuse to hear national security letter and no fly lists for lack of standing. You typically can't even get a full trial on those matters because of a lack of standing, let alone have the matter get all the way to the courts over something that is clearly a constitutional use of government power. If we had qualified jurists on the court they would have come to that conclusion as the matter had been extensively litigated up until this ruling.
1