whoever claims to be lawfag here:

>>4155435

>lawfag her

>on this PB notable anon posted a question dont know if answered yet but pretty simple

>lawyers often quote portions of court testimony to ensure exact quotes in current papers they are preparing

>would be statements of counsel or judge in this instance unless manafort testified which is doubtful

>>>4152844 , >>4152854 New Manafort filing. >What does it mean, lawfags?

…is full of shit. This is one side of prosecution asking the defense for a copy of discovery. Simple.

>>4156210

Filters are for pussies.

Wow, eBot (maxres) is going balls out tonight.

>>4156275

++++

hug a nut, I'm human. You get only this reply.

>>4156277

Filters are for pussies.

>>4156294

It isn't notable.

>>4156343

Yep, someone broke eBot….

>>4156369

Filtering makes you miss things like Q BTFO of FreddyBot.

As you please.

Not lawfag reading this still only sees request for discovery of sealed document(s).

Lawfag can walk me thru how it isn't just request for discovery.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5411171-Permit.html

>>4156557

What does that say?

>>4156615

>>4156616

says 8 and 10…ffs.

>>4156644

>>4156705

>>4156713

You must be resident coon raiser. Is that really a thing?

>>4156754

I guess, good to know. Not much racoon problem here, mostly rabbits/squirrels making my property flea infested.

>>4156772

>>4156787

Hey, do you have any 3s?

>>4156819

Autist on duty.

>>4156828

KEK…okay. Nice move.

>>4156848

I think that depends on the judge entirely, if he can yank a deal at the last minute…I would think argument would have to be convincing.

Not a lawfag, but been in court a lot in my life.

>>4156870

….and it is SC…