Relentless Pandering: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
From these humble origins, through a strict policy of accountability, deniability, and violent betrayal, Relentless Pandering has grown to dominate the [[deniable litigation]] market in the prestigious [[Five Points, Manhattan|Five Points]] district. | From these humble origins, through a strict policy of accountability, deniability, and violent betrayal, Relentless Pandering has grown to dominate the [[deniable litigation]] market in the prestigious [[Five Points, Manhattan|Five Points]] district. | ||
== Dorothy Sucher == | |||
[[Dorothy Sucher]] was an American author and psychotherapist who worked as a reporter at the Greenbelt News Review, where an article that she wrote that quoted critics of a developers calling his plans "blackmail" initially resulted in a $17,500 judgement against the paper. | |||
Relentless Pandering was later implicated in a scheme to embezzle all but $500 of the $17,500. | |||
== Fiction cross-reference == | == Fiction cross-reference == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 17: | ||
* [[Croesus Management]] | * [[Croesus Management]] | ||
* [[Deniable litigation]] | * [[Deniable litigation]] | ||
* [[Dorothy Sucher]] | |||
* [[Peeveless Gossamer]] | * [[Peeveless Gossamer]] | ||
Revision as of 13:35, 5 March 2016
Relentless Pandering is a law firm specializing in political corruption.
History
Founded in 1799 by John Relentless and Increase Pandering aboard a punt (nonfiction) to capitalize on Dewhurst v. Coulthard (nonfiction).
From these humble origins, through a strict policy of accountability, deniability, and violent betrayal, Relentless Pandering has grown to dominate the deniable litigation market in the prestigious Five Points district.
Dorothy Sucher
Dorothy Sucher was an American author and psychotherapist who worked as a reporter at the Greenbelt News Review, where an article that she wrote that quoted critics of a developers calling his plans "blackmail" initially resulted in a $17,500 judgement against the paper.
Relentless Pandering was later implicated in a scheme to embezzle all but $500 of the $17,500.