Dana White posts video of FedEx worker throwing packages into truck in NYC

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Hold on here. Based on your posted text it would appear that it's you who is texting with a Nevada licensed attorney claiming to be the affected individual. If so then you are claiming under false pretenses, Furthermore if a case comes out of this matter it would in all likelihood be tried in a New York State court. If your attorney is not licensed to practice law in the state of New York it is highly unlikely that the state of New York would allow your unlicensed attorney to argue the case in front of it's state court. If so then what your attorney has to say about the matter doesn't mean a thing.

As I said before the odds of the affected worker getting redress were not good but at the same time not impossible. If a state of New York licensed law firm sees Mr. White's actions as one that cannot be defended as a First Amendment case they might take up the matter. You can't always just go on your merry old way doing whatever you damn well please to any person you chose to then just run away and hide behind the First Amendment.
Look up the Latin term "pro hac vice." Means "for this occasion only." It's an exemption given lawyers who are from out of state and not admitted to a state's bar that allows them to work on a case in that state. As states have different laws the lawyer in question would usually work with a local attorney. We have all seen famous cases where prominent lawyers are hired to represent famous clients with the lawyers coming in from other parts of the country. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard fame, for example, representing O.J. Simpson. At any rate state laws don't supersede the Constitution so if a person has a 1st Amendment right to video someone then lawyers from any state can rightfully point out he's protected by the Federal Constitution.

P.S. If you listen to the video you can clearly hear the boxes hitting the floor of the truck. The best way to make sure you don't get fired for violating company policies is to not violate company policies.
 

Brown Down

Well-Known Member
Look up the Latin term "pro hac vice." Means "for this occasion only." It's an exemption given lawyers who are from out of state and not admitted to a state's bar that allows them to work on a case in that state. As states have different laws the lawyer in question would usually work with a local attorney. We have all seen famous cases where prominent lawyers are hired to represent famous clients with the lawyers coming in from other parts of the country. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard fame, for example, representing O.J. Simpson. At any rate state laws don't supersede the Constitution so if a person has a 1st Amendment right to video someone then lawyers from any state can rightfully point out he's protected by the Federal Constitution.

P.S. If you listen to the video you can clearly hear the boxes hitting the floor of the truck. The best way to make sure you don't get fired for violating company policies is to not violate company policies.
The brick wall won't listen
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
You have been told numerous times why you are wrong by a multitude of people. You are beyond an idiot who has no idea about laws nor how they work. Now go away maroon.
You went looking for an attorney who could in some way support your point of view while completely ignoring the fact that this individual's practice is limited to the state of Nevada and his legal opinions limited to the state of Nevada when the incident happened in New York. And when it was pointed out to you it made you mad. It's that simple Bud. Get over it.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
I like how you keep pointing out that your opinion about this situation is meaningless because you're not a lawyer.

We're all agreeing that your opinion is meaningless and yet you keep rambling.

Funny stuff.
Another stupid remark coming from a person who always feels that he has to say something no matter how stupid the comment might be.
 

Brown Down

Well-Known Member
You went looking for an attorney who could in some way support your point of view while completely ignoring the fact that this individual's practice is limited to the state of Nevada and his legal opinions limited to the state of Nevada when the incident happened in New York. And when it was pointed out to you it made you mad. It's that simple Bud. Get over it.
I'm going to go ahead and reply to this because this is proves exactly how dumb you are. I have already shown you it wasn't me that went to the Nevada lawyer you dip:censored2:. And by the way the corporate lawyer I know actually is licensed to practice in New York( The business has clients in multiple states) so shut the :censored2: up you :censored2:. Just more reasons of why you're :censored2:inwrong and are two idiotic to understand it. Now :censored2: off and go away
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
I'm going to go ahead and reply to this because this is proves exactly how dumb you are. I have already shown you it wasn't me that went to the Nevada lawyer you dip:censored2:. And by the way the corporate lawyer I know actually is licensed to practice in New York( The business has clients in multiple states) so shut the :censored2: up you :censored2:. Just more reasons of why you're :censored2:inwrong and are two idiotic to understand it. Now :censored2: off and go away
You’ve told him this twice now, and he has ignored you and continued on with his fantasy.
 

Brown Down

Well-Known Member
I'm also going to clarify another point that he tried to make I didn't go looking for a lawyer to back me up I went talking to my lawyer buddies to make sure I was in the right before I went further than what I started with because that's what reasonable people do.
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
I'm also going to clarify another point that he tried to make I didn't go looking for a lawyer to back me up I went talking to my lawyer buddies to make sure I was in the right before I went further than what I started with because that's what reasonable people do.
Chill, man! Your constant rebuttals are becoming as annoying as bacha’s opinionated delusions. Don’t let his drivel trigger you!
 

Mutineer

Well-Known Member
I don’t understand why you guys keep feeding the troll. He knows his take is stupid.

I disagree with that assessment. He believes that his take is correct, and it is unnatural for him to admit error, learn the lesson, and move along.

Instead of "stupid", I think that the words 'stubborn' and 'persistent' are more accurate.

Stubbornness and persistence are personality traits that have allowed for mankind's greatest achievements and discoveries. And also our most horrific blunders and disasters.

As such, I hereby nominate the Honey Badger as Bacha's spirit animal.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
You went looking for an attorney who could in some way support your point of view while completely ignoring the fact that this individual's practice is limited to the state of Nevada and his legal opinions limited to the state of Nevada when the incident happened in New York. And when it was pointed out to you it made you mad. It's that simple Bud. Get over it.
And you're completely ignoring the fact that any lawyer in any state can tell you whether an action is protected by 1st Amendment rights and that you have those same rights no matter where you are in the country.
 
Top