@JaredKubin@bonchieredstate Had an almost identical story. People need to realize less is often more when it comes to prenatal testing and that it is all in God's hands
@dilanesper Romney's documented years long animosity with Trump will always neutralize any argument anybody wants to make that his vote was based on conscience
@damintoell@Rach_IC I have heard the distinction between "lawyer" and "attorney", with the former meaning someone who graduated law school and the latter meaning a barred attorney.
I imagine she was getting at some technical loophole like that...
@davereaboi They're all the same
Usually has a former A-lister or perhaps a current B lister (think Liam Neeson or Mark Wahlberg) and a bunch of nobodys starring.
Often, entire movie takes place on 1 ser
She brought forth a sketchy lawsuit with Zero legitimate corroboration that was only allowed because the NY legislature amended the statue of limitation while specifically to Target him.
Further, her story was errily similar to a law and order episode. She also made some wacky statements that further support challenging the veracity of her allegations.
Lastly, her lawsuit was funded by Democrat donors seeking to "get Trump". So yes, it was-at the very least arguably- a case of lawfare
@dilanesper I just had identical thought.
If my memory from law school is still good, there was language of "substantial usage" or something.
So arguably even at 50% its illegal
@EWess92@charlescwcooke@UT_Civitas Also, think theres an argument that at %100 rate, it's a regulatory taking, so state would need to return the money as "just compensation"