|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CNMI: Couple gets payment after winning gun-control suit
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Marianas Pacific Law LLC, the law firm representing the Radiches, filed on Oct. 14 at the U.S. District Court for the NMI notice of payment and of receiving the amount of $101,638.61 as ordered by the court.
Daniel Guidotti, one of the two lawyers who represented the couple, said the payment is the amount due pursuant to the court’s fee order.
U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted the Radiches' request for payment for their attorneys' fees and expenses on Sept. 20.
The federal court awarded the couple a total of $93,495 for attorneys' fees and expenses. The award comprises $78,375 for David Sigale's work, and $15,120 for Guidotti’s work. The couple was also awarded $8,143.62 for other expenses. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/27/2016)
|
Sue government and win. Break even on expenses, never get hundreds of hours of your life back.
Sue government and lose, it costs you $101k out of pocket.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(10/27/2016)
|
The anti constitution people that voted for this measure should be paying this out of their own pockets instead of the tax payers.
The tax payers always loose. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
