|
Tetrix posted:*checks rules book* You know I bet you could squeeze that under Rule 11 as a very colorable accusation. No one goes to federal court, silly.
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Is there a motion I can file where I can get a judicial order proclaiming opposing counsel is a fuckface? There's the tried and true: "Motion to Kiss My rear end” in which you move “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] drat rear end sorry mother fucker you."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Caligula Caesar posted:4.0, and presumably no one ... That's awesome about Harvard man congrats.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Is there a motion I can file where I can get a judicial order proclaiming opposing counsel is a fuckface?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Where is all the June '10 LSAT chat? Is the OP actually starting to get to people?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:That's awesome about Harvard man congrats. I'm a chick, but thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Trash Can Man posted:Where is all the June '10 LSAT chat? times and threads change, like how suitchat evolved into tacochat
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
nm posted:Civil or criminal? Civil. Opposing counsel filed a brief to exclude our expert testimony, examining the cited cases on wholly fraudulent grounds- as in outright lying as to what's in them and hoping the judge won't actually read the cases.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Civil. Opposing counsel filed a brief to exclude our expert testimony, examining the cited cases on wholly fraudulent grounds- as in outright lying as to what's in them and hoping the judge won't actually read the cases. Just make sure your reply brief contains several cites to this book.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Civil. Opposing counsel filed a brief to exclude our expert testimony, examining the cited cases on wholly fraudulent grounds- as in outright lying as to what's in them and hoping the judge won't actually read the cases. Motion for sanctions for a groundless motion (CPRC chapter 9) and ask for attorney fees.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
Any thoughts on a Property book? I got Sprankling's "Understanding..." for reference. Condolences and thanks and such and did you hear about that broad from Harvard wit da email...hell yeah...and such and such.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Best website I have ever seen posted:[Cormack] Holy poo poo I don't have to study for the bar exam again. yeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Cormack posted:Holy poo poo I don't have to study for the bar exam again. Hahaha who wants to work in a state that's going to devolve into anarchic city-states within the decade? Just kidding, congrats man! That's a hard loving bar!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Does anyone know the proper format for a prayer to Tzeentch/Nyalothotep for an A on a law exam? Hello, I'm from New Orleans, and I'd like to inform you that the voodoo spirit of Baron Samedi presides over both matters of death and law. It's an interesting pairing, I know. You can purchase a voodoo poppet in the Baron's image at any New Orleans voodoo shop or online from any reputable source. Make sure you poppet is ceremonially cursed by at least a High Priestess with an incantation of two weeks or more. This cursed poppet has many uses; for example, I built it an altar of spiced rum and Hershey's kisses last year in the hopes of success in law school, but now I use it to pray for merciful death! I hope this information has helped you decide which spirits/deities would best suit you through law school!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
atlas of bugs posted:Hello, I'm from New Orleans, and I'd like to inform you that the voodoo spirit of Baron Samedi presides over both matters of death and law. It's an interesting pairing, I know. You can purchase a voodoo poppet in the Baron's image at any New Orleans voodoo shop or online from any reputable source. Make sure you poppet is ceremonially cursed by at least a High Priestess with an incantation of two weeks or more. This cursed poppet has many uses; for example, I built it an altar of spiced rum and Hershey's kisses last year in the hopes of success in law school, but now I use it to pray for merciful death! Hershey is ten minutes away from where I live, so if those need to be fresh I can hook a brother up in exchange for mandrake and nightshade.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
JohnnyTreachery posted:times and threads change, like how suitchat evolved into tacochat
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
atlas of bugs posted:Hello, I'm from New Orleans, and I'd like to inform you that the voodoo spirit of Baron Samedi presides over both matters of death and law. It's an interesting pairing, I know. You can purchase a voodoo poppet in the Baron's image at any New Orleans voodoo shop or online from any reputable source. Make sure you poppet is ceremonially cursed by at least a High Priestess with an incantation of two weeks or more. This cursed poppet has many uses; for example, I built it an altar of spiced rum and Hershey's kisses last year in the hopes of success in law school, but now I use it to pray for merciful death! 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:There's the tried and true: "Motion to Kiss My rear end” in which you move “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] drat rear end sorry mother fucker you." Here I was thinking I was gonna be all clever or whatever and you gotta up and preempt me you got drat rear end sorry mother fucker you
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
Cormack posted:Holy poo poo I don't have to study for the bar exam again. Congrats. My husband didn't pass. Currently half deep into a fifth of gin right now.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 08:15
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:Congrats. My husband didn't pass. Currently half deep into a fifth of gin right now. No amount of alcohol can erase the pain of having a law degree, I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 08:32
|
|
|
Torpor posted:No amount of alcohol can erase the pain of having a law degree, I'm afraid. I've found over the past few months that no amount of alcohol will erase the pain of one semester of 1L. I have been living with my BFF and I still yell at Judge Judy about implied warranty of habitability. This is after many nights alone with a lot of gin (I have a growler from a local beer place filled with martinis and I expect I've been through it about a dozen times in the last few weeks. FML.) I can't imagine what this must be like for the Dude, who did an evening program, got hosed by the Calbar last summer and didn't sit the exam, took it this Feb, and still must take it again in July. I am ready to go all Virginia Woolf in this bitch. On the plus side I got promoted by the Census and I'll be in grad school in fall of 2011 if I don't commit harikiri by then. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 08:46
|
|
|
its somebodys special day...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
Secret Asian Man posted:its somebodys special day... It's my birthday tomorrow. You guys can just send cash.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
Secret Asian Man posted:its somebodys special day... 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
I'm advertising for a legal assistant to highlight stuff for me today on facebook. Paid internship. But you gotta be top 20% or on law review. With this kind of market I can get that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Finished first year of law school. 1st semester I was at median, its likely I will be at the same, though hopefully I can crack top 40/33%. This is at T1 Wisconsin. I really didn't try this year and wanted to "enjoy my life" instead of sitting in the library all day. Still no regrets. Started drinking after last final at noon yesterday, didn't stop until 3am. I believe I ate 5000 calories worth of burgers, fries, brats, burritos, and gyros, not to mention the alcohol. No regrets. Yojimbo Sancho fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:If you're waitlisted at this point you're probably not going Don't listen to this. I got accepted off the waitlist 10 days before classes started. Oh wait, he said probably. I don't know many people who got off waitlists that late...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Don't listen to this. I got accepted off the waitlist 10 days before classes started. Everybody has at least heard of some person who got off the waitlist that late, but it's pretty rare. You have to start making arrangements to live in a given city, etc., and eventually, even if you do get in, you have to break a lease or find a sublettor, move (again?) - the whole process just sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Everybody has at least heard of some person who got off the waitlist that late, but it's pretty rare. You have to start making arrangements to live in a given city, etc., and eventually, even if you do get in, you have to break a lease or find a sublettor, move (again?) - the whole process just sucks. It does, but NYU is my dream school and is close to home so changing the real life aspects, even last minute, wouldn't be that hard. It's rare and hard and considering the economic climate I figure not many people will be dropping out and opening up spots but I am willing to hope 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
So I'm thinking of working on a new, but much shorter article (or note) about Facebook. The general idea would be whether or not we should think of Facebook as a monopoly, or more specifically as possessing the anticompetitive characteristics that make monopolies dangerous (see this for a rundown of the argument). I discussed this briefly in my old paper, but was thinking about actually doing an article, probably working with my thesis advisor, both a) to make it more likely to get published and b) have his guidance in working with more formal stuff. The question I have for people here is: what is your recommended reading for monopoly / antitrust law? By which I mean not only cases and statutes, but also histories of how it came to be, the forces the drove its creation, the underlying principles animating its application, that sort of thing. From my basic understanding of law on the books, I don't think Facebook would be considered monopolistic. The argument I'm interested in exploring is whether or not social network sites, which (like early telephone systems) rely on network effects to maintain marketshare more than the technology per se, should be monitored as such. Seems to me that since network effects aren't subject to competition, at least in the same way other goods and services are, there could be an interesting argument made that the bar for regulating them should be lower. But again, I haven't explored this at all, so anyone who has any books / articles / materials generally that might be helpful in my research, please send them along! edit Perhaps more specifically, I'm interested in legal arguments about vendor lock-in and natural monopoly regulation. Petey fucked around with this message at 05:14 on May 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
nm posted:So I have another 148 (resisting arrest/order of police officer) I had one with a guy who is physically disabled. When talking to cops, he was not aggressive, but sounding a bit crazy. Cops decide to 5150 and ask him to get on his knees so they can cuff him. As he's explaining that he is physically unable to lower himself onto his knees they shoot him with a Taser. Two Sheriff's deputies, no allegations of threatening or aggressive movements or speech, and the first physical contact is a Taser shot to the chest. Conferencing the case with a judge, I started with "If anybody acted criminally here, it was the cops." That conversation didn't last too long. Keep in mind that the above description isn't how my client explained what happened to me. No, it's precisely how the police report reads. PC 148 is the most bullshit charge I have to deal with.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Petey posted:So I'm thinking of working on a new, but much shorter article (or note) about Facebook. I completed a note this semester defending mandated network neutrality against potential First Amendment claims (counterintuitively, ISPs can be expected, once their administrative law arguments run out, to claim that the FCC's rules interfere with constitutionally protected editorial control). The note hinges on convincing the reader that the concentration of broadband market power is such that intervention is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the marketplace of ideas. Luckily, communications jurisprudence is relatively sophisticated in the way that it deals with natural monopoly and network effects, so there's a lot out there to work with. There's probably a lot of overlap in the direction of our arguments and I imagine that many of my sources would be useful to you. Feel free to send me an email and I can provide more, but Itheil de Sola Pool's Technologies of Freedom, Nuechterlien and Weiser's Digital Crossroads: American Telecommunications Policy in the Internet Age, Lessig's The Future of Ideas, and Zuckman's hornbook, Modern Communications Law, were all very helpful in producing the note. In terms of case law, I'd closely read Turner I & Turner II to understand the pro-regulatory communications law arguments that the Supreme Court has recently found persuasive. They generally revolve around the threat posed by market power over physical infrastructure. I haven't taken antitrust, so I can't help you there, but your argument sounds like a logical extension of the pro-regulatory arguments made in the communications law context. edit: Also, Lotus v. Borland (holding that a menu command hierarchy is a "method of operation" and therefore cannot be copyrighted) involves an interesting discussion of the impact of network effects on software development and the end user. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 05:33 on May 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
HooKars posted:It's my birthday tomorrow. You guys can just send cash. /Birthday buddy! mrtoodles posted:I had one with a guy who is physically disabled. When talking to cops, he was not aggressive, but sounding a bit crazy. Cops decide to 5150 and ask him to get on his knees so they can cuff him. As he's explaining that he is physically unable to lower himself onto his knees they shoot him with a Taser. I have another 148. PC was an empty plastic bag. Completely empty. No drugs, no residue. Empty, per the drat cops. A colleague of mine had this 148: Guy (client) and his buddy are at a bar. Walk out of a bar and buddy bumps into someone else. Buddy gets pissed and tries to fight the guy. Guy (the client) is holding the buddy back. Cops roll by. Taze the buddy. His head gets cracked open as he falls. 148, 647f (speaking of bullshit), 242 Not guilty. There is some justice in the world. We;ve been doing pretty good, last few weeks: NG Attempt murder, that case, and a 11550. I wish i could claim one of those. CaptainScraps posted:I'm advertising for a legal assistant to highlight stuff for me today on facebook. Paid internship. But you gotta be top 20% or on law review. nm fucked around with this message at 06:48 on May 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
nm posted:You're about to discover that grades and LR have nothing to do with the quality of a candidate. Oh, I know. That statement was firmly tongue-in-cheek considering I'm a 3L (now).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Oh, I know. That statement was firmly tongue-in-cheek considering I'm a 3L (now).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 07:20
|
|
|
nm posted:Are you me? Yes, I am you. People, please send double cash. (Happy Birthday!)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Yes, I am you. People, please send double cash. May is just a lawgoon month apparently. Happy birthday to all! Jobs for everyone!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/man_seeks_shoplifting_felony_to_avoid_law_school_but_is_charged_with_misdem/
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
I read the whole set of the OPs, and god drat, I wish my wife would have seen this years ago. I met her during her last year of law school, and even 2 years after her graduation, we are sitting on a massive pile of her school debt. On top of that, she realized that jobs in the legal field paid so low that she ended up getting work as a business consultant (no law degree required) and is making 2x as much as she would have as a lawyer. If she would have just kept working rather than going to law school, we'd probably be around $300,000 above where we are right now. That's not an exaggeration. Even before seeing this thread, I knew law school was a very bad idea for most people. My wife now actively talks people out of going to law school, and resents her mother for talking her into going to law school, just so she could brag that her daughter is a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Civil posted:I read the whole set of the OPs, and god drat, I wish my wife would have seen this years ago. I met her during her last year of law school, and even 2 years after her graduation, we are sitting on a massive pile of her school debt. On top of that, she realized that jobs in the legal field paid so low that she ended up getting work as a business consultant (no law degree required) and is making 2x as much as she would have as a lawyer. On the plus side, now your wife can think like a lawyer - who can put a price on a valuable skill like that?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 21:29
|
|
