|
Never actually got to be a lawsuit, but: There was once a co-worker at my old workplace called Craig. Everyone loathed Craig because he was arrogant, belligerent and lazy. Craig had a apparently mentally defective girlfriend, whose name I no longer recall. Craig's girlfriend one day decided that, no doubt due to Craig's interpretation of events about work, that we were all terrible people who deliberately kept Craig late at work, as opposed to him being lazy, and decided to post the following on Facebook. "I can't wait until Craig gets home, from those arseholes at *WORKPLACE*." Now, a relatively normal human being would have just ignored it, what with being a mild insult on the internet. My old manager "Sniveler" was not such a man. He was both as arrogant as it is possible to be, and had an extremely fragile and tender ego. Like most petty people around here, he threatened to use the legal system for everything that irritated him (read: everything in general). Apparently, in the 12 hours between the woman posting the comment, and I turning up to work the following day (8PM to 8AM), he *apparently* contacted a lawyer, who *apparently* told him that this was clearly a case of libel. Now, on the assumption that he somehow got a hold of a lawyer in the middle of the night, there were several holes in his case: * Libel is making false claims, not insults. * This was unbelievably petty and wasting the court's time. * The rest of us were more than happy to roll our eyes and move on. * Even if this went to court and inexplicably won, said girlfriend was an art student on the centrelink, and had nothing to pay damages. Sadly, the phantom lawyer didn't actually start a lawsuit, as that would have been entertaining.
|
# ? Apr 1, 2016 00:43 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:27 |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. I kind of wish he won a Harrier. Either way it's an idiot lawsuit.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2016 05:24 |
|
It's been linked to already for specific examples, but Lowering the Bar is a worthwhile browse and could go in the OP.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2016 10:06 |
|
NinetySevenA posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. People with that much money to just throw away on frivilous bullshit are the reason america is electing Donald Trump as the republican candidates. I did like some of the courts comments from that though: "The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps." Rip that actors career, I guess.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2016 10:26 |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000002847155/verbatim-what-is-a-photocopier.html What, really, is a photocopier?
|
# ? Apr 3, 2016 00:04 |
|
Drone_Fragger posted:People with that much money to just throw away on frivilous bullshit are the reason america is electing Donald Trump as the republican candidates. Are case decisions always like that? I'd probably read more of I knew that judges were having fun with it. "The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area."
|
# ? Apr 3, 2016 19:21 |
|
Noooo this thread can't die
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:20 |
|
Geniasis posted:Are case decisions always like that? I'd probably read more of I knew that judges were having fun with it. Some judges have fun with their decisions and try to make the law accessible. Selya, on the First Circuit, writes like a pompous rear end. An Actual Selya Decision that Just Came Out posted:"Finding the plaintiff's antitrust claims wanting and The man takes great pride in making poo poo opaque and making it difficult for the layman to understand what's happening. It's elitist garbage and it's counterproductive to democracy.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:58 |
|
in the words of my 12th grade english teacher: eschew obfuscation
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:04 |
|
quote:On this note. We had a local business owner buy 600 dollars in shoes. The check passed the screening system, but bounced. However you can put a check through twice before not being allowed to deposit it again. The guy refused to return the shoes, so my boss held that check and called the bank every day for 2 weeks. Eventually the lady at the bank was used to talking to him and called him to say there were enough funds for the check to clear. Apparently the guy was an rear end to the cashier and she recognized his name from checking his balance daily. He drove down and cashed the check, and deposited it in his register. The guy calls him and is loving livid. I can hear him screaming obscenities at him at the top of his lungs. Apparently the guy put just enough in the bank to clear a check for a ticket, and the department issued a warrant for his arrest for writing a hot check.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2016 14:31 |
|
tentative8e8op posted:Oh my god, the list really keeps going for 57 pages Hahaha the loving Warsaw Pact
|
# ? Apr 9, 2016 16:14 |
|
hey my dnd character is a level 11 Shite Cleric
|
# ? Apr 9, 2016 17:10 |
|
Alex Kozinski is my hero and I was sad when he didn't get the Supreme Court nod. quote:MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the Mattel representative's use of the words “bank robber,” “heist,” “crime” and “theft.” But all of these are variants of the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely “piracy.” No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable “rhetorical hyperbole,” Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir.1999). The parties are advised to chill.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2016 19:25 |
|
Abovethelaw seems to think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker is BS, so I'm not sure how much I'm willing to trust them.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2016 20:41 |
|
I mean, gawker did do everything within their power to make the jury detest them, so I guess there is that.
|
# ? Apr 11, 2016 07:42 |
|
He also bribed his (ex-)friend to change his position, so I mean obviously it's bullshit.
|
# ? Apr 11, 2016 13:53 |
|
Beekeeping and You posted:Any insane documents that the government is forced to look at is fine for the sake of this thread, because I don't want to limit the schadenfreude [edit: going to blur out some personal information and put the links back up] Sadly, Odell Shannon Jr. is actually a homeless man from IL who floats back and forth between homeless shelters and jail and (I am not a psychologist, but,) probably suffers from untreated schizophrenia. GWBBQ has a new favorite as of 22:59 on Apr 20, 2016 |
# ? Apr 13, 2016 03:17 |
|
GWBBQ posted:Sadly, Odell Shannon Jr. is actually a homeless man from IL who floats back and forth between homeless shelters and jail and (I am not a psychologist, but,) probably suffers from untreated schizophrenia. I always want to give these people the benefit of the doubt but then they break into "are you sick fag" or racism and it's like well, no, not cute anymore.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2016 04:08 |
|
SheriffCreepy on Reddit posted:Ah the ghost.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 09:07 |
|
The Prompt posted:Lawyers of Reddit, what is the most outrageous case someone has asked you to take? SheriffCreepy posted:There's a lot of them: SheriffCreepy posted:Well....he was guilty.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 09:12 |
|
Platystemon posted:Snip Ethereal Roommate would be a pretty good goon name.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 09:27 |
|
RogerDeanVenture on Reddit posted:I worked legal aid for a while. Every day was "outrageous" and goes something like this - But I have a restraining order on my first ever "client":
|
# ? May 13, 2016 10:15 |
|
I thought the Ghost Eviction was a cute way to handle the guys delusion. Didn't mind that story
|
# ? May 13, 2016 10:22 |
|
What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 10:40 |
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states. I guess it depends on how isolated delusions are. if it's a once-off thing (which I guess it isn't) it'd be fine. On the other hand, dissenting voices may work as a way for delusional people to pull themselves back to reality.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 11:23 |
|
canyoneer posted:kin kinda like that psychopath judge with missing pants
|
# ? May 13, 2016 11:40 |
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states. Reddit had an exchange over that. It’s long so I’ll just link it.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 15:16 |
|
Cumslut1895 posted:I guess it depends on how isolated delusions are. if it's a once-off thing (which I guess it isn't) it'd be fine. On the other hand, dissenting voices may work as a way for delusional people to pull themselves back to reality. From what my brother has told me from working in mental health for fifteen years: If the delusions are harmless, you play along and agree noncommittally. Some guy wants to tell you he's Jesus? You say, "OK Jesus, you want toast with your eggs?" If the delusions are harmful to someone you try to steer them away from the behavior. Research shows that people with mental illnesses manifesting as delusions actually cannot be reasoned with if it would go against their delusions, so if you can deflect you deflect and if you can't you get ready to never hear the end of how the guy slept for five thousand years last night.
|
# ? May 13, 2016 16:48 |
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Basically Dale Gribble. Funny you mention that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfSkBONbDwA
|
# ? May 14, 2016 05:12 |
|
As Nero Danced posted:Funny you mention that. holy poo poo
|
# ? May 14, 2016 09:44 |
|
Platystemon posted:[Go on…] I'm glad he turned down representation because he's a lovely loving lawyer "Yeah, I know you didn't do what she said you did but if they ask about any other crimes unrelated to what you're charged with, you have to tell them ok"
|
# ? May 16, 2016 21:47 |
|
GOTTA STAY FAI posted:I'm glad he turned down representation because he's a lovely loving lawyer How does advising the guy not to open himself up to questioning that could lead to a more serious conviction (and a second statutory rape charge on top of that) make him a lovely lawyer? The guy already managed to avoid both the original rape allegation as well as a statutory rape charge, so it seems like that was good advice.
|
# ? May 22, 2016 02:08 |
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:They distinguish between their federal entity (a name with a bunch of documentation attached to it) and their physical self (their person), and claim that by acting as their physical self they are immune to most procedures and laws as those laws are enforced on their entity. They are, however, entitled to federal benefits (such as legal protection, bill of rights, so forth) that are provided to their entity. As a friend of a Sovereign Citizen, I can tell you that it's more like a religion than an interpretation of law. Capital letters make a difference somehow. Fringes on flags. Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in). A lot of yelling about guns and gun control. Belief that you can make a magic mark on any invoice that will automatically cause the feds to pay for your bill. Belief that you are not a person somehow but you are a man. You don't need to have a drivers license because you aren't driving, you are traveling. The last time I was talking to this friend, he was insisting that Democrats were trying to take all the guns away. I mentioned to him that I'm a bleeding heart liberal DFL'r who believes in single payer health care, free abortions for trans-gendered lesbian men (figure that one out), and paying criminals to not commit crimes. Yet I have a half a dozen guns that I purchased legally with my FFL3. It turns out, that even with his gun obsession, he doesn't own a single one. He never even hunts, yet he obsesses over guns. Sovereigns are poo poo-house crazy. He's a nice guy, just crazy.
|
# ? May 22, 2016 03:17 |
|
FFT posted:anyone tempted to bring up McDonald's Coffee Lady should learn better in the process of picking a link. Glad someone beat me to this. My wife has a bunch, just off the top of my head: Lady rides a bumper car, lady sticks her arm out of car, arm gets smashed. Lady sues. My wife's firm is like, "lady, it has `bumper cars' in the drat name, you knew there was risk." Lady loses My wife had security cam footage of a case she had to defend where this lady Overloads her cart at <popular national department store> and shoves it into the cart escalator. Of coursse it jams up the whole thing. Lady climbs up into the cart escalator and starts wrestling with it. Employee doesn't see this and reverses the cart escalator, causng the cart to bump nto her head repeatedly. What's super-sad is that my wife was just like "okay, here I'll cut you a check for a few grand, there weren't any long term damages. " But the lady wanted a big payout so she racked up tons of attorneys fees and doctor visits and ended up just negotiating for like a few hundred more and ended up in debt over the whole thing. That's a whole industry here in SoCal: Shady lawyer finds dumb person who injured themselves doing something dumb Shady lawyer promises big payout, sends dumb person to infinite doctor scans. The shady doctor is in on it too. Case never materializes dumb person is on the hook for all these legal and doctor bills. Drunk Nerds has a new favorite as of 04:04 on May 22, 2016 |
# ? May 22, 2016 03:45 |
|
Guy buys property in west hollywood. Guy claims ten parking spot passes, in perpetuity, were promised. loving common sense states that nobody has ten passes that let you park in a garage forever in goddamn West Hollywood. Not only that, there is no mention of this in the contract he signed. poo poo is going to trial
|
# ? May 22, 2016 03:53 |
|
mostlygray posted:As a friend of a Sovereign Citizen, I can tell you that it's more like a religion than an interpretation of law. Capital letters make a difference somehow. Fringes on flags. Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in). A lot of yelling about guns and gun control. Belief that you can make a magic mark on any invoice that will automatically cause the feds to pay for your bill. Belief that you are not a person somehow but you are a man. You don't need to have a drivers license because you aren't driving, you are traveling. Drunk Nerds posted:Guy buys property in west hollywood. Guy claims ten parking spot passes, in perpetuity, were promised.
|
# ? May 22, 2016 03:55 |
|
GWBBQ posted:The best description I've ever seen of sovereign citizens is that they think laws have cheat codes. I'm also with you on being far-left and having guns, but that's probably a matter for another thread. NYC is a good comparison, yeah. Not quite as expensive, but 10 lifetime parking spots aren't something you'd just throw in as a bonus for a small building sale. Lady sues <major department store>, claiming she slipped and now has back problems. My wife inverstigates and finds: - There is no footage of her falling - She was actually clocked in at work at the time across town - She has a decades-long, documented history of back problems . The sad thing is, my wife usually ends up cutting a check for these weirdos for like a few hundred, because taking it to court would cost the insurance company she's defending like $10,000 in legal fees.
|
# ? May 22, 2016 04:07 |
|
I just remembered a case from when I briefly worked as a law clerk. Man is driving on a back road in crappy weather. Loses control, smashes into a few mature trees that are along the property line of Lady. Man's insurance company agrees to pay to have the damaged trees replaced. They explain this to Lady. She agrees, but says "I'm away for the weekend, come on Monday". Monday morning the guys from the tree company/greenhouse bring in the new trees (they are the same size and species as the ruined ones) and get them planted, taking away the smashed dead ones. Lady gets home and freaks out. Apparently she misinterpreted "we will replace the trees" as "we can and will repair the existing trees". She demands the old trees be returned and put back. (I think at this point they'd been cut up or pulped; either way, they were already broken irreparably in the crash.) Her son, a lawyer, helps her launch a lawsuit. By the time I was working at the firm (we represented, of all people, the tree company) the accident had happened about 9 years prior. We were getting close to trial. At this point, Lady had died several years earlier, leaving lawyer son the property (he didn't even live there; his firm was in another city). He still maintained the suit. So, how did this get resolved? My boss, for some reason, thought to check the surveys of the property. It turned out that the trees were never on her property, they were on county land. Was the county upset about the replaced trees? Nope, they were perfectly satisfied with the new ones. Lawyer son ended up finally dropping the suit.
|
# ? May 22, 2016 04:55 |
|
mostlygray posted:Admiralty Law vs British Common Law (not sure how that fits in). If memory serves British Common Law is the basis of pretty much all legal systems in the western world. Because...I guess that matters? Maritime law was separate and different for a variety of reasons; the biggest of which was that ships at sea could be gone for months and months and months. They might leave home and not come back for years at a time and visit many nations. There was (still is, I think?) a weird amalgamation of law sets that is international that covers the law of the sea. The ocean is a big place and pretty hard to police so nations kind of got together and said "OK we all agree to these laws for the ocean, right?" It is, of course, spotty and bizarre at times but it does, in fact, exist. Which is where the distinction between an admiralty court and a common law court comes from and why that cheat code supposedly exists. The theory is that if the court is actually an admiralty court then only international sea laws exist there so you can't charge the sovcit with local laws. Check and mate, I'm leaving, bye. Of course anybody that isn't a complete imbecile knows why that's absolutely idiotic. Still doesn't stop people. This is also where "well my legal person is a boat so your laws don't mean anything to me, nyah" comes from. If there's a gold fringe you're being tried in admiralty court which means that you're a boat. Because...apparently...maritime law doesn't have anything to do with sailors? (hint: it actually does)
|
# ? May 22, 2016 05:52 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:27 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves British Common Law is the basis of pretty much all legal systems in the western world. Because...I guess that matters? Someone should do an A/T thread on this, I think it's pretty interesting. A weird level of delusion where people think they've seen through the Matrix and everyone else will now do what they want because of language!
|
# ? May 22, 2016 09:27 |