User talk:Law Connoisseur

JohninDC requested that this be discussed on a talk page.

1. The case has not been decided. 2. The plaintiff in this case cannot win on a case where he sues an attorney on a case that has not represented him. 3. The only source on this lawsuit is a tabloid article by the New York Post as a result of the prominence of the subject lawyer. Another publication The Real Deal, did not write its own article but simple cited to the New York Post's article. 4. This attorney is prominent with cases including taking on the President of the United States, the Ground Zero Mosque, The Save Harlem Case and the attorney who brought the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to New York to help save many of its citizens financial lives. 5. I do not understand reading the talk pages how someone who claims that he does not like the subject Adam Leitman Bailey can be allowed to be an unbiased part of the page. Law Connoisseur (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) 6. This lower court lawsuit that has no historical value or precedential meaning does not belong on Wikipedia. Law Connoisseur (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the conversation to the article Talk page, here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:The Law Connoisseur per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Law Connoisseur. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]