|
Alaemon posted:Well, *I* didn't. And neither did the locals, actually -- he wasn't arrested until months later. He was merely handcuffed during the execution of the search warrant and not free to leave ("for officer safety"). I'm rusty on crim pro, but won't that count as a de facto arrest? I don't see any exceptions to the warrant requirement in play here, making any statements the fruit of an illegal seizure, regardless of Miranda.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
SWATJester posted:I'm rusty on crim pro, but won't that count as a de facto arrest? I don't see any exceptions to the warrant requirement in play here, making any statements the fruit of an illegal seizure, regardless of Miranda. He was "investigatorially detained" And he struck up the conversation with the cops; since he "voluntarily initiated" the conversation, they didn't need to Mirandize him. Abugadu posted:it may be a sign that you aren't reviewing your own work carefully when you hand a judge a set of jury instructions for Official Misconduct as a misdemeanor that include provisions for the death penalty. 1. Humorous mistakes like this are good for morale and give you an opportunity to show how well you can take being given a full ration of well deserved poo poo for your error. If it happened once and wasn't repeated, the overall effect toward future employment would be positive. 2. Throwing someone else under the bus + lying = You're done. Getthefuckout. joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Aug 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 13:12
|
|
|
joat mon posted:He was "investigatorially detained" No he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
http://consumerist.com/2010/08/for-profit-colleges-caught-on-video-encouraging-financial-aid-fraud.html Somebody please start sending these investigators to law schools.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Got an interview with a state SC justice in September...if you disagree vehemently with every opinion you've ever read from a judge, should you: (A) just swallow that poo poo and pretend you love every word he's ever written and be the biggest bootlicking toady you can be; (B) give an honest and well-reasoned statement about why you disagree if he asks; (C) just tell the unvarnished truth and hope he respects your "moxie"; OR (D) skip the interview and sit at home with a bottle of Scotch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Got an interview with a state SC justice in September...if you disagree vehemently with every opinion you've ever read from a judge, should you: Research what he's like by asking people who would know, as different judges may prefer different things - he may want a 'devils advocate' clerk, or may be utterly uninterested in anyone who doesn't agree with him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
Closing in on my first day on the job as a real employee...  J Miracle posted:Got an interview with a state SC justice in September...if you disagree vehemently with every opinion you've ever read from a judge, should you: (B); (C) sounds crass and aggressive, which is inappropriate. Just pretend he is a monarch of a small kingdom, and moderate your language accordingly. Definitey don't be the deceptive toady in (A) though, and (D) is not going to help anybody. evilweasel posted:Research what he's like by asking people who would know, as different judges may prefer different things - he may want a 'devils advocate' clerk, or may be utterly uninterested in anyone who doesn't agree with him. Even if he's not interested in people who disgree with him, remember that he asked. If you're going to be a good subject/clerk, you should be honest with him. Just moderate your language so that it does not offend, and act polite about the whole matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Erstwhile Police Officer... joat mon posted:And Defendant struck up the conversation with the cops; since he "voluntarily initiated" the conversation, they didn't need to Mirandize him. Alaemon posted:No he didn't. I'll take dumb and honest over smart and crooked any day. Buy the cop a beer and give him a hint. joat mon fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Aug 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
If all y'all aren't following the Prop 8 thread in D&D WhiskeyJuvenile is basically drooling over the coming Kozinski decision for the appeals court on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
Isn't constitutional review De Novo? If so this decision has about as much precedential value as if I wrote it. (I'm also terrified of what is going to happen in the 9th circuit).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
Kozinski is more form than substance  But regardless, this is too important a case for Kozinski to employ any of his trademark wit or flourishes - if he writes the opinion (instead of another of the twenty-odd judges on the Ninth), I'm betting that he keeps it staid.
billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Aug 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Isn't constitutional review De Novo? If so this decision has about as much precedential value as if I wrote it. (I'm also terrified of what is going to happen in the 9th circuit). Not for facts, which is why the district court decided to find basically 100 pages of facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Also why would anyone be terrified of what happens in the Ninth Circuit? It's not like it's not going to be appealed to SCOTUS; you should be terrified of what happens there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Got an interview with a state SC justice in September...if you disagree vehemently with every opinion you've ever read from a judge, should you: Two of my friends, who are both very liberal, were MN Supreme Court clerks for a rather conservative justice. It'll obviously depend on the judge, but I don't think they need or necessarily want people who agree with them on every point; I'd guess B is your best bet. I can check with one of my friends in the next couple days and see what his input is. And I know it's a job when many have no jobs and are dying alone (myself included), but do you want to work closely with a judge who would only hire a bootlicking toady?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Kozinski is more form than substance It's not wit or flourishes alone; he happens to also be a really good jurist in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
This is a very good article by him. http://notabug.com/kozinski/mootcourt
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
A few months ago, I started a small firm with an LL.M. colleague. One of our target client groups is the same-sex community. Basically, if same-sex marriage is legalized, we will be well positioned to provide excellent estate and tax planning services. If same-sex marriage is found not to violate the federal constitution, we will continue to provide specialized estate and tax planning services which make use of the tax code in ways that only same-sex couples can use. Either way, we win! (It's a pretty happy office today, given yesterday's ruling. My favorite version of the headline: "Federal court rules homophobia irrational." )
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
And here is a more controversial book review that he's done: http://notabug.com/kozinski/gorewars Here, he praises a statistician who says that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Lomborg's position has never been contra AGW, he just thinks that the potential effects have been exaggerated and the costs of prevention are so high that we're better off spending our money on things like drinking water, education, disease prevention, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/ward-cleaver-makes-playdate?page=0 FTFA posted:Emily Bazelon, a senior editor at Slate who knew Friedan (their grandmothers were cousins), had an idea. "Men could wake up and retrain themselves-they could become teachers and nurses," she said tartly. That's a "let them eat cake!" statement if I've ever heard one. It's not like the teacher market is doing all that well what with all the local government budgetary issues. And if all the unemployed men switch to nursing right now, by the time they graduate and get certified the market for that would be tight also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Got an interview with a state SC justice in September...if you disagree vehemently with every opinion you've ever read from a judge, should you: Why would you consider anything except (B) or (C)? Faking it in an interview rarely works, first of all, and even if it does work you will get "caught" when you start the job. Out of curiosity, why did you apply for a position with a judge with opinions so contrary to your own? Although as somebody else said, there are judges who specifically hire clerks with opposite opinions of their own, which I think is cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
gvibes posted:So looks like I'm doing OCI for my firm this year. How do you suggest terrorizing the poor saps we aren't offering jobs to? Oh, I thought of something else for you gvibes: work in the "stairs" question in every interview somehow. This would have the dual benefit of 1) presenting a challenge to not come across as a weirdo and yet still ask the question and 2) identifying goon applicants. I am serious, you should do this. I would do it if I were conducting OCI interviews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:Out of curiosity, why did you apply for a position with a judge with opinions so contrary to your own? Is it a job? If yes, goto Apply();
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:Why would you consider anything except (B) or (C)? Faking it in an interview rarely works, first of all, and even if it does work you will get "caught" when you start the job. I applied to every Justice of our Supreme Court, since they don't tell you which ones are hiring they just have a little blurb on the site about how to send packets. tbh I don't really care too much if a judge has opinions contrary to my own as long as I can do honest work for him. Now if he were to come up to me and say "find me a way to make this plaintiff lose because I hate tort plaintiffs and love insurance companies" or "find me a way to deny this guy his disability" or something I might have a problem. But I doubt that'll happen. Plus I figure, looking at my resume, that he must want someone with different opinions since I (1) used to work for an agency that assisted people in obtaining welfare, food stamps, disability, and subsidized housing; (2) did an appellate defense clinic for the public defender's office; (3) am president of an animal law group; and (4) currently work as a clerk for a plaintiff personal injury attorney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:(3) am president of an animal law group Please tell me that 100% of your efforts are dedicated to the argument "Hey man birds are people too." Or that the framers intended animals to have rights because bears have the right to arms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Please tell me that 100% of your efforts are dedicated to the argument "Hey man birds are people too." well I try but bird law in this country is very complex and not based on logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:well I try but bird law in this country is very complex and not based on logic. And I'll take that advice into cooperation, alright? Now what say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird-law and see how comes out the victor?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Yojimbo Sancho posted:And I'll take that advice into cooperation, alright? Now what say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird-law and see how comes out the victor? It seems like you have a tenuous grasp of the English language in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:If you give me a job I will come to guam. Are you interested in doing Child Support enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Are you interested in doing Child Support enforcement? Can I wear a gun?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
entris posted:Oh, I thought of something else for you gvibes: work in the "stairs" question in every interview somehow. This would have the dual benefit of 1) presenting a challenge to not come across as a weirdo and yet still ask the question and 2) identifying goon applicants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Elotana posted:If someone asks me the stairs question I generally put on a poker face, that masonic poo poo is lame as hell Hey, you did the stairs motion from across the room before we met. In response, I flipped you off then blew you a kiss. Success!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure we already knew who the other was from facebook
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I'm pretty sure we already knew who the other was from facebook Doesn't count until the
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Can I wear a gun? Don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Hey, you did the stairs motion from across the room before we met.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:There's a motion? Comedy answer: There's always a motion. Serious answer: Hold your hand vertically. Raise it a bit. Then turn it horizontal. Move it to the side a bit. Repeat. Stairs! Honestly though when I meet goons if I get the stairs question it gets interrupted with "Don't do that."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Don't see why not. Send me an application. I will share it with Yojimbo, Thoras and Absentia
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
The first amendment can burn in the eighth loving circle of hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Daico posted:The first amendment can burn in the eighth loving circle of hell. What it's easy just figure out if a reg is content-based or content-neutral, if its a viewpoint reg; time place and manner restriction, protected or unprotected speech, level of scrutiny and you're done! Possibly apply specific tests for commercial speech, fighting words, obscenity, incitement, and probably some other poo poo I'm forgetting. Remember that nonverbal poo poo can be speech unless its conduct. Also some poo poo about strip clubs. For religion just apply one of 8 or so different Supreme Court tests for Establishment Clause and for Exercise just follow that peyote case unless you're dealing with the Amish then they can do whatever the gently caress they want. Oh yeah and for free speech apply a whole different set of poo poo if it takes place in a school. What could be simpler? EDIT: Also poo poo about forums being traditional public or non-public or limited-purpose or whatever the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:41
|
|