|
|
|
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 |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
