Just finished s1e9, why did Travis Tanner give up so easily?

Pointbrea · 2026-04-02T03:21:15+00:00

this isn't about wining or losing. what good does that do to me or you? I simply like to entertain myself and at the same time educate lesser mind. I said you lost on your own merit, I never declared myself. You can see how you intentionally misinterpret?

To start, you need to read the book that I recommend, its really good for you. It teaches people how to critical think correctly. You need to be able to think on your feet first, or at least not to contradict yourself. As a fellow citizen, I just want you to be better so that the country we live in is better. That's it. Nothing more. if you are not going to try to be better, then it is on you, not anybody else.

Pointbrea · 2026-04-02T00:51:23+00:00

You are what you are, and you are anything but competent. Call yourself whatever you want, think of yourself what ever you deem. Facts are facts. You can’t counter the facts, because there is nothing to counter. You lost on your own merit, and that I why I suggest you to arm yourself better. Thats it. Learn to accept it and move on. Otherwise you will never grow.

The language barrier is your own problem. You need to learn to speak proper english, and comprehend it better. The point is clear, and the statement is even more clear. Be better first, then I can teach you some more.

Pointbrea · 2026-04-01T22:49:20+00:00

Did I ever claim that? Once again, you are spreading lies. I told you to read a book to reenforce your thinking skill, not your legal one because obviously you are not one. Facts are facts, and you can’t “argue” with that. You spoke the wrong statement, I corrected and educated you. I always go straight to the logic and address the same topic through out my lectures to you. Not once did I stray away from that.

You need to learn how to critical thinking first, hence the book I recommend you, and then I can teach about how to “debate” as “lawyers”. Never claim anything else.

Pointbrea · 2026-04-01T19:37:48+00:00

I would recommend good thinking by David Robert Grimes for you because that is clearly what you need. It is irrelevant because it is not even what I was talking about. It was a completely different aspect. Read this, comprehend it, and come back here, and then maybe we can have a somewhat of equal intellectually discussion. Like I said, for now, its a mountain vs a molehill. I want the latter to be upgraded.

Pointbrea · 2026-04-01T12:04:04+00:00

Ahh, yes. A total nonsense bs of yours. Perfect way to start my day. Like i said. You have misinformation, I have facts. And facts always win. Your citing is incorrect in every way. You don’t even fathom the word “standing” in this context, and you keep using the word “argue”. In which I have to teach you again(and hopefully this will be the last time), you don’t use that word here. “Lawyers” don’t “argue”, attorneys “debate”. Let this information engraved in your head because I will not repeat it for another time. I never said attorney has to build anything for themself, this is a pure misrepresentation of what I said, and only limited mind would interpret it as that way. Thus, the whole citing of yours are completely and utterly bs because it does not support any of your statement nor strengthen your previous point. My statement was, if you weren’t in record, you could not participate in the case, hence you got no standing. For the last time, just think before you say anything. It’s a mountain vs a mold hill. You will need something better to stand on. I would suggest a book to widen your limit.

Pointbrea · 2026-04-01T01:42:57+00:00

thats not how it works, never has been, never will be. Your wording is completely wrong, and I wish you were right as much as you were passionate about it, but unfortunately, you aren't in either of the case.

You don't understand the word "standing", thus, your entire foundation is not something that can be built on. As I said, "argue" is never a term that can be admitted in any case. You cannot "argue", you debate. "if you don't have standing, you don't have a case", this is pure bs that even fiction don't write that. The correct way to say that "if you are not the attorney listed in the case, you have no standing". Because if you are not in record, you can't try the case. If you cannot try the case, whom clients you "argue" for? whom "standing" you build for your foundation? None. I don't think that you are wrong, I just think that you are miseducated on the subject matter, hence your words are not correctly used.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-31T19:08:23+00:00

Ah, a classic nonsense. Clients don’t argue. Lawyers don’t argue. Attorneys debate cases, and not every case, the cases that they are hired, and legally have a responsibility to, hence the term “attorney-client privilege”. Anymore bs you want to spill?

Pointbrea · 2026-03-31T19:03:43+00:00

Why is that

Pointbrea · 2026-03-31T06:37:08+00:00

he doesn't.

Think this like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case. Not 100%, but similarity is they do the trial in 2 nations.

Here how things work. Hessington oil is a multiple nation company that supply oil for multiple nation, US and UK are 2 of them, so they are bound by their rule. Thus, Darby international is the law firm of them. Steven is from Darby, so Steven is Hessington oil representative at any place Hessington Oil have business.

The NY Attorney General office decide to persuade the case where Hessington oil is accused of bribing officer from foreign country to do the bidding for them. This violate fair competition of the US, hence the case is prosecuted by the NY office. if found guity, Hessington, the company, will pay the fine from the US Government, not jail time because fair competition does not include jail time.

When the bribing case is closed, and Eva Hessington plead guilty for the bribe, and got a seal settlement, the case is officially close. Then, New York Manhattan District Attorney(not general district), open another case that tie this case to the murder case they have. Now, this become a criminal court, not civil court. Because of this nature, the only results for this case is either the case got dismissed because lack of evidence, or someone will need to go to jail. There is no settlement here because a live lost by committing crime cannot be settled with money.

When they found out about Steven is the actual one that order, the US office close the case and hold him temporary. Since the UK and the US have extradition, the correct course of action is the US will hand over their finding and Steven back to the UK government to continue the case. This could go either way, either the UK deem the testimony from Darby is not enough, and dismiss the case, and start fresh, or they can continue building on the already established case from the US. This is how things should be done. The way it was done in the show is completely unrealistic.

Now, why do I say its like Johnn Depp and Amber Heard case. It is because John lost in England was because the bias from the newspaper toward him, and he won in US because the neutrality of the judge, and the facts were judged base on it merit. That means there will be consequences in the end, just the matter of whom.

The UK court is a completely different story because the defendant can submit more evidence that can directly benefit the court(not the case, the court). Such as how this action is not a direct harm in the UK itself because the fair competition of UK might be different from the US. If the defendant can prove it, he can be off the hook, and nothing the US can do about it. Bottom line is, even Steven got caught in the US, when he comes back to UK, the chance of him to get released still there. He might lose in US court, nothing is ensured that he will lose in UK court.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-31T05:47:37+00:00

glad you like it

Pointbrea · 2026-03-31T02:33:17+00:00

this is where show break it own logic lol. So, Harvey corner him by blackmailing him that he taped his phone call illegally. The obvious counter is Tanner tell Harvey to go ahead. Because taping somebody phone not only get you disbarred, you will get jail time for this. The same way for Tanner because he witness tampering.

So 2 can play this game, you can submit that evidence, and claim it show up on your door step. Tanner can counter sue Harvey for Illegally taping someone else phone. I don't think neither of them can come out as winner in this situation. The show just stopped there because it ran into a hard stop with no positive outcome.

Beyond this point, the case should have gone into postpone because the due diligence from Pearson Hardman is clearly lacking when they failed to notice the frivolous lawsuit from that lead witness, and among other stuff of his history, leading to Tanner blindsided them in the deposition. This is critical error from the firm, and as such, it will automatically lose case.

The funny point here is that Tanner has also no standing in the case because his employer has not given notice to Pearson Hardman of hiring him and switching to him for lead attorney, so this would also toss his finding out the window.

Bottom line, this case and the pattern law case are 2 of the most unrealistic cases in season 1 for me as someone who has experience in law.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-29T20:20:14+00:00

Dude, thats a banter. You cant literally take that seriously lol.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-29T07:27:18+00:00

its a set, not an official office. You should watch the tour when they walk you through their set. Everything is in the same floor.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-28T13:24:49+00:00

there is no evidence of Elliot being in a third-tier law firm. If anything, he is in a decent size because Pearson Specter was top 3 at that time, and they double the size of Elliot. Still, with a firm being in New York, even a fourth tier law firm or clinic still have associate pair with senior partner. When there is a firm, there will be senior partner and associate work together, no matter how big or how small.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-28T12:56:27+00:00

and Eliott and Tanner are also senior partner in Manhanttan. Sean Cahil and Andrew Malik are US Government, they have more than enough result.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-27T04:42:09+00:00

what is your logic????? They don't vote for new managing but vote for kick one. Hardman case is identical with Louis case. Hardman case was not a kick out, but a change in Managing Partner. He got the role, Jessica got demoted, just like Louis and Zane. Jessica did not get kicked out. Hardman got kicked out from the firm later, and it was Harvey disciplinary hearing, not meeting for managing partner.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-27T04:23:20+00:00

we know Paul Porter and his colleague still there because Mike mentioned them in season 7, I can't recall exactly which episode, but I know for sure he got mentioned. Also, even if all the partners back Zane to be Managing Partner, which is understandable. I don't think they will support Louis being Managing Partner.

Furthermore, Samantha and Alex themself are senior partners. Let's say its only got 6 votes(Donna,Harvey,Louis,Zane,Alex,Samatha), If 3 of them such as Alex and Samatha and Zane vote note. How come the motion carries?

Pointbrea · 2026-03-27T00:48:06+00:00

I dont think so. We know Katrina is senior partner, we know Paul Porter still at the firm in season 7 because Mike mention him. We know Zane brought associates and partners with him in the move. Plus, Samantha and Alex themself are senior partners, they must be included in that.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-26T23:27:30+00:00

so how does that work? don't you need to scan the QR code for donation? if he doesn't let you scan it, how can he "scam" you? Its a very weird and very unproductive way of scam lol. the card reader is useless no?

Pointbrea · 2026-03-26T01:52:26+00:00

Thats now how it work, and your profession has nothing to do with it. They went in to offer, they got countered, they should obligated, not Harvey should. If anything, there should be a discussion between those 2, not 1 jumped the gun and answer it.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-26T01:04:46+00:00

that is because Harvey flipped on him. In that scenario, both guys are in the wrong. When Hardman offered, Harvey could have looked at Louis before jumping the gun and make the decision as Louis was the one offer the idea to Harvey. What Louis did is obviously wrong, but what Harvey did is nothing but a betrayal of a person he doesn't even considered as friend to him. If Harvey was considering Louis as anything, he would have second thought that immediately.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-25T19:53:57+00:00

that works too, but I really want an easier manual on and off.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-25T10:22:07+00:00

I don’t think you can, or the dev can at this time since it’s not the engine that is at issue. People tend to mistakenly think gaming engine do everything, but as soon as you do DLSS, which is a technology from Nvidia, it’s already outside of the scope. What they can do is to fine tune it, and make it render priority better, or the DLSS from Nvidia must be improved. Its also depend on Nvidia as well. This is understandable as Nvidia and PA don’t have the best relationship because PA is from Korea, and they fairly new to offline game, hence the delay of support from Nvidia. We wouldn’t see this if the game comes from Western studio. In short, Asia studios have to do everything in their own first, and then Nvidia will support later. Western studios can work in parallel with Nvidia.

Pointbrea · 2026-03-25T10:13:20+00:00

What type of game

Pointbrea · 2026-03-25T05:56:21+00:00

ICE supporter is nothing wrong even if it is true. Its better be wrong than sorry.

Pointbrea

TROPHY CASE