Legal Analyst

I'm surprised that prosecutors are moving forward with this case. I don't see how they're going to be able to prove it.

Can they do that? Is that legal?

Can they do that? Is that legal?

Can they do that? Is that legal?

Every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward. but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole.

Every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward. but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole.

Every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward. but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole.

The No Rogues Ruling Act does not eliminate the ability of judges to make decisions. In fact... every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward, but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole determined by one judge, neither elected nor appointed to a position of sufficient power to speak on behalf of the entire nation.

The No Rogues Ruling Act does not eliminate the ability of judges to make decisions. In fact... every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward, but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole determined by one judge, neither elected nor appointed to a position of sufficient power to speak on behalf of the entire nation.

The No Rogues Ruling Act does not eliminate the ability of judges to make decisions. In fact... every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward, but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole determined by one judge, neither elected nor appointed to a position of sufficient power to speak on behalf of the entire nation.

It could just make you bleed clients pretty much right away, almost immediately.

It could just make you bleed clients pretty much right away, almost immediately.

It could just make you bleed clients pretty much right away, almost immediately.

Shock and fear, for sure, within those firms. It was a pretty dramatic move that could really destroy these businesses. So law firms have a lot of reason to be afraid for their business if they are targeted with an order.

Shock and fear, for sure, within those firms. It was a pretty dramatic move that could really destroy these businesses. So law firms have a lot of reason to be afraid for their business if they are targeted with an order.

Shock and fear, for sure, within those firms. It was a pretty dramatic move that could really destroy these businesses. So law firms have a lot of reason to be afraid for their business if they are targeted with an order.

It's pretty fair to say it's a way to come after people that had brought legal challenges against him before or done research and opposition work for people that were his opponents in the past.

It's pretty fair to say it's a way to come after people that had brought legal challenges against him before or done research and opposition work for people that were his opponents in the past.

It's pretty fair to say it's a way to come after people that had brought legal challenges against him before or done research and opposition work for people that were his opponents in the past.

If a lawyer handles a case, say, for a government official, and there are sensitive materials involved in that investigation, in order to represent that client adequately, he or she would need some kind of security clearance and access to that material.