Here is a kind reply to your kind advice, but I would sincerely like to know why you would take it as an insult to be shown that Dewhurst is conservative and we Texans are being played by Harvard Lawyer Cruz for one of our US Senate seats.
May I remind you that without you knowing any particulars about the Chinese industrial espionage case, when Dewhurst ran truthful ads about the case, (which Dewhurst did only after Cruz distorted Dewhurst’s fine record as a conservative, falsely acccusing Dewhurst of not even being a conservative) YOU were the one who accuseed Dewhurst of playing “dirty tricks”.
So, if you look at the actual posts, it is you who started with the insults, not me.
Let’s get to your questions, which ask mostly for irrelevant information that would be unavailable to anyone but the Lawyers in the case.
I can answer you with the information you need to understand this. Cruz is the lawyer of record in the case, so you can’t slip out of responsibility for what Cruz is doing that way. Cruz works works for the Chinese firm now and is representing them now and is engaging in the delaying tactics to avoid a judgement that has been rendered against an American, now. Crus is part of a big International Law Firm right now. If he loses his Senate run, he still works for the firm, because as far as I know he didn’t resign from it to run for US Senate. Implying Cruz did not take the case “of his own volition” is bull**** and you know it, and nobody but Cruz knows exactly what work did Cruz perform that directly related to the case of intellectual theft, and Cruz isn’t answering any questions about it.
What bothers me is that some people are so willing to believe anything they are told, as long as the words tea party are involved, that some lawyer with no private business experience, no leadership experience, no executive experience, no military experience, and most importantly no legislative experience would be better for Texas and better than a proven conservative with all the above experience and a conservative record on all the issues.
Sometimes when somebody pulls back the curtain, the view is shocking, but Cruz is not the proven conservative a lot of tea-patiers are making him out to be.
Cruz said that he worked on the appellate brief, so he is the Counsel of Record on the brief. He did not argue the case and is not the lead lawyer. The "American Manufacturer" in question actually has his tires manufactured in China and is also appealing the case, so that's 2 more Dewhurst distortions.
Contrast this with the case that Ted successfully ARGUED before the Supreme Court representing a U.S. patent holder against a Chinese company in a case defining the proper standard of intent for inducement to infringe a patent in Global Tech v. SEB, but I suppose filling out those briefs is much more important to you.
You can find other cases at:
http://www.morganlewis.com/bios/tcruz
You are guilty of doing exactly what you have accused others of here in trying to tear down the other candidate. Dewhurst is a decent man if you can look past his current deceptions and will likely be a Party Line vote which is an improvement over KBH.
Ted Cruz just happens to be the better candidate in this race because he will stand against the party when they are wrong in the politics-as-usual expansion of government.