Garm
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Jun, 2019
They really need to hammer how Chupp set a ridiculously high bar for the evidence required and they need to point out that they could not meet Chupps evidentiary requirement because the defendants didnt comply with Discovery and the TCPA itself prevents the evidence Chupp wanted from being collected
By Chupp's logic, if someone burgles your house, steals your stereo, and your insurance replaces it with a slightly shabbier stereo, a crime was not committed.
Chupp just didn't know what he was saying when he did it. Nor did he care.
What Ty had should have met the requirements even without discovery.