|
Putting on a play where your actors are cats and the audience is also made up of cats.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Like explaining marriage equality to your grandpa.CaptainScraps posted:Putting on a play where your actors are cats and the audience is also made up of cats. Nice post/AV combo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Putting on a play where your actors are cats and the audience is also made up of cats. Hahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What is a jury like? Like advocating hygiene to hippies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Edit: this is how I imagine all juries. Edit 2: posted with my phone and didn't realize that they blocked embedding of this clip. It's the jury clip from Let's Go to Prison if anyone doesn't care to click to youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uztpW5xjU Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:This sounds nuts! I'm actually about a year away from finish my Ph.D in computational biology and am actually considering law school (yet again). Aschlafly posted:I've basically been doing nothing but reading Supreme Court cases in my free time for the last few months. I imagine these are the cream of the crop, though, and the less lofty, theoretical aspects of law are likely to put me in a mental institution. You, thus far, lack the maladjustment and self loathing for law practice. Luckily, you seem to realize this by inferring that the "less lofty" bits will institutionalize you. Too be clear, SC decisions are not cream of the crop. Maritime law is. Regardless, reading the SC decisions is kinda like fast forwarding to the money shot. What you really want to do is delve into the case history and read those district court and appeals court filings. In other words, get a PACER account, use it, love it. I know that I personally felt the hole where my soul belongs on the day that I thought to myself "Amazing! They couldn't get jurisdiction over Apple in Deleware!" Well adjusted people obviously don't give a poo poo about such things and only the truly barren seek it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:I've basically been doing nothing but reading Supreme Court cases in my free time for the last few months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Edit: this is how I imagine all juries. During voir dire 2 years ago we had an attorney-juror tell the judge that he couldn't be fair and impartial because he works with cops sometimes and he's biased against defendants. On the record, in front of a goddamn Article III judge. The judge was incredulous and subtly threatened to report him to the discipline board for being a dumb shitheel, but he stuck to his guns and got dismissed. People like that refusing to do jury service are why jury boxes are filled with the dregs scraped out of a Walmart parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
CHICAGOLAND JOB OPENING My company is looking to hire a JD. We do healthcare consulting nationally (occasionally internationally). Entry level consultant position. If you have healthcare or health law experience, great, if you don't, that's not an immediate ding. Hours are generally 8:30-5:15 and no weekends. Compensation is negotiable, but at entry level you will probably fall somewhere between 60-80, not counting bonus. You will also get a year-end bonus, but considering you'll have been here a month, it will probably be like 1k. PM me if you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:If you have healthcare or health law experience, great, if you don't, that's not an immediate ding. I read the obamacare decision while giggling, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:CHICAGOLAND JOB OPENING What are your benefits packages vis a vis brojobs
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What is a jury like? Like trying to give a lecture on Faulkner in the town square. In the Deep South.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:CHICAGOLAND JOB OPENING Have a friend who might be interested. Don't have PMs, but could you email the company name to c1d5rb84rylnu39@jetable.org?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What is a jury like? http://www.theonion.com/articles/juror-way-too-far-into-trial-to-ask-what-contusion,37102/
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Called up the AG and negotiated after talking to my boss and was able to get the max of the range. I start Nov 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
William Munny posted:Called up the AG and negotiated after talking to my boss and was able to get the max of the range. I start Nov 3rd. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:During voir dire 2 years ago we had an attorney-juror tell the judge that he couldn't be fair and impartial because he works with cops sometimes and he's biased against defendants. On the record, in front of a goddamn Article III judge. The judge was incredulous and subtly threatened to report him to the discipline board for being a dumb shitheel, but he stuck to his guns and got dismissed. I watched a jury selection a few weeks ago which had a challenge for cause. They selected the two triers (fixed not rotating) to evaluate the answer to "are you a racists?" (and unable to judge w/o bias). They had 4 or 5 people selected already when the next woman came from the jury pool. They asked her, are you a racist? She replied "Yes". The two triers talked for a few seconds and then said she was acceptable for the jury. The Judge had this crazy/angry/surprised look on his face and then the defence used a peremptory challenge. Then it happened again... I left after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I don't try cases, but I used to work for a couple judges and I've done jury duty twice, and I've seen many prospective jurors volunteer how terrible they are as people to try and get out of being put on the jury. The judges in New York are so tired of this that volunteering that you are a racist will only get you mocked by the bench followed by an extra helping of voir dire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
William Munny posted:Called up the AG and negotiated after talking to my boss and was able to get the max of the range. I start Nov 3rd. Hey munny, can you email me about the oag? I have an interview with them this month and I'd like to ask you some questions. Woozlewuzzlecantconfirmchapter11s@gmail.com. Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Hey munny, can you email me about the oag? I have an interview with them this month and I'd like to ask you some questions. Emailed you. Go ahead and remove your address.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
William Munny posted:Emailed you. Go ahead and remove your address. Too late, horseporn subscription activated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Law question thread attracts some loving lunatics. Speaking of, anyone got an izzy stratton update?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I watched a jury selection a few weeks ago which had a challenge for cause. They selected the two triers (fixed not rotating) to evaluate the answer to "are you a racists?" (and unable to judge w/o bias). They had 4 or 5 people selected already when the next woman came from the jury pool. They asked her, are you a racist? She replied "Yes". The two triers talked for a few seconds and then said she was acceptable for the jury. The Judge had this crazy/angry/surprised look on his face and then the defence used a peremptory challenge. Uh, See People v Ave Q, for principle in American jurisprudence that a de minimus level of racism is insufficient sustain a Batson challenge. Sorry, been drinking. I did see a prospectove juror give a defendant a thumbs up once; that was cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:You, thus far, lack the maladjustment and self loathing for law practice. Luckily, you seem to realize this by inferring that the "less lofty" bits will institutionalize you. Too be clear, SC decisions are not cream of the crop. Maritime law is. To be fair, reading the peer-reviewed literature in my field (population genetics) is pretty similar––a lot of fiddling and noodling and computing integrals that have nothing to do with biology, until finally someone figures out a way to tie it to data, blah blah. I know it's pretty stupid. This too shall pass. I will probably simply fantasize for a few weeks about getting into Yale and clerking for the Supreme Court, then get over it and forget law school forever
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
I just want to point out this guy got waitlisted at Harvard with a 3.75/180 and is now getting a phd. loving apply while your 180 is live man. The worst case scenario is you don't get into hys and don't go. Apply this year and ask them to defer admission for a year so you can complete your phd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I'm going to bill about 10 hours this week. I already needed 260+ this month to hit my annual target (fiscal year ends Oct. 31) and now it looks like I'll be about 200 hours off. How awkward is this annual review going to get?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
so I have a case going before the board and now I have to argue with my appeal panel about the concept of "arguing in the alternative." Like we think the art should be read one way, the Appellant is arguing that the art should be read another way, but the invention is obvious even under their reading and I want to argue that in the alternative should the Board agree with Appellant's interpretation of the art over ours and the panel doesn't understand why I'd want to do that??? Don't send an engineer to do a lawyer's job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
RFX posted:I'm going to bill about 10 hours this week. I already needed 260+ this month to hit my annual target (fiscal year ends Oct. 31) and now it looks like I'll be about 200 hours off. How awkward is this annual review going to get? You could ghost-client yourself and pay your own fees. Like create a fictional client named Randall Stevens that you bill while you sleep, and you pay the invoices. With tie loosened and collar unbuttoned, complain loudly to the staff about this rear end in a top hat new client. Maybe he's really eccentric and only accepts legal service in person, and he will only deal with you. Sure it'd cost more than your bonus, but you'd look good to the boss. Prepare yourself for some 80's movie style hijinks if the partner insists on accompanying you on a visit to thank him for the business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I hit my annual target 7.5 months into the year. Kill me now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:so I have a case going before the board and now I have to argue with my appeal panel about the concept of "arguing in the alternative." Like we think the art should be read one way, the Appellant is arguing that the art should be read another way, but the invention is obvious even under their reading and I want to argue that in the alternative should the Board agree with Appellant's interpretation of the art over ours and the panel doesn't understand why I'd want to do that??? Powerpoints are your friend. A nice, 2X2 box that says If the Court buys Result [Our Argument: A / Then we win because:X] [Their Argument: B / Then we win because:Y] Works on judges, juries, and sometimes, even engineers!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:To be fair, reading the peer-reviewed literature in my field (population genetics) is pretty similar––a lot of fiddling and noodling and computing integrals that have nothing to do with biology, until finally someone figures out a way to tie it to data, blah blah. Just apply and see if you get in if you already have an lsat and then defer!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Just noticed that opposing counsel signed the verification page on their application for temporary injunction. Who votes I call her to the witness stand this afternoon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just noticed that opposing counsel signed the verification page on their application for temporary injunction. Who votes I call her to the witness stand this afternoon? I do! I bet you receive the judge's deepest scowl. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:so I have a case going before the board and ... IPR before the PTAB? It's the patent death panel. All they really want is to cover the various grounds your opposition will appeal under.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just noticed that opposing counsel signed the verification page on their application for temporary injunction. Who votes I call her to the witness stand this afternoon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:IPR before the PTAB? It's the patent death panel. All they really want is to cover the various grounds your opposition will appeal under. I'm an examiner. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:IPR before the PTAB? It's the patent death panel. All they really want is to cover the various grounds your opposition will appeal under. Yeah, IPRs are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'm an examiner. Ugh. Well, that's a bit different then. Arguing both interpretations lets the PTAB support the rejection on the basis of both interpretations. That makes it much harder to appeal to the CAFC because appellant has to argue against both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Well, that's a bit different then. Arguing both interpretations lets the PTAB support the rejection on the basis of both interpretations. That makes it much harder to appeal to the CAFC because appellant has to argue against both. No kidding. My SPE and the other primary on the appeal panel were like "no you can only argue your strongest argument". 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I watched a jury selection a few weeks ago which had a challenge for cause. They selected the two triers (fixed not rotating) to evaluate the answer to "are you a racists?" (and unable to judge w/o bias). They had 4 or 5 people selected already when the next woman came from the jury pool. They asked her, are you a racist? She replied "Yes". The two triers talked for a few seconds and then said she was acceptable for the jury. The Judge had this crazy/angry/surprised look on his face and then the defence used a peremptory challenge. I love it. The last time I selected a jury (PPT  ) one lady was like 'I have strong feelings about marijuana." and the judge booted her out.  WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Like we think the art should be read one way, the Appellant is arguing that the art should be read another way, but the invention is obvious even under their reading and I want to argue that in the alternative should the Board agree with Appellant's interpretation of the art over ours and the panel doesn't understand why I'd want to do that??? I don't like this sentence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
basically "don't put your eggs in one basket" isn't something that the USPTO subscribes to, says my new boss
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:15
|
|