|
3 piece suits are starting to grow on me a bit
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I have one that I can’t possibly discuss that looks to be going to trial in September. Can’t do an anti-SLAPP motion because our statute requires the speech to be about a “public issue” and our Supreme Court has interpreted that extremely narrowly. I tried removing it because the claim was initially hundreds of thousands of dollars but it got remanded based on a $75k stipulation. Then I tried for MSJ but the trial judge has said in open court that she never grants summary judgments (she sure didn’t grant mine). So here we are. And yes it is absolutely lol-worthy. The facts are completely ridiculous. I wish I could get into details. It’s similar to the Hulk Hogan/Gawker poo poo. Brutal. Good luck. I can relate to barreling toward a trial that shouldn't happen, it just hasn't happened to me with defamation yet, prob just jinxed it though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:3 piece suits are starting to grow on me a bit Start lifting and eating more, they'll feel tighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:appeals aside, lol @ having to litigate a defamation case beyond a rule 12 or anti-slapp mtd The question arose in the context of a Slander of Title real estate claim where a "Quitclaim Deed" that wasn't actually a quitclaim deed got filed and killed a sale, and we were discussing trial strategy, and since Slander of Title is just [Slander Elements] + [Lost a Specific Sale of Real Property] it came up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The question arose in the context of a Slander of Title real estate claim where a "Quitclaim Deed" that wasn't actually a quitclaim deed got filed and killed a sale, and we were discussing trial strategy, and since Slander of Title is just [Slander Elements] + [Lost a Specific Sale of Real Property] it came up. Perhaps I misread your earlier posts, but is it not just a burden-shifting standard, where plaintiffs must meet some initial burden, and if they meet that burden, the defendants must bear the burden of establishing the statement was substantially true? And does the lack of pleading the affirmative defense of truth prevent you from introducing the same evidence (on cross-examination, lets say) as a rebuttal to the Plaintiff's evidence at trial? And why can't you just ask to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence during the trial if you need to? Courts in my state have always generously allowed amendments to conform to the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Did any of you use some sort of flash cards or software for helping to memorize rule statements for essays?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:Perhaps I misread your earlier posts, but is it not just a burden-shifting standard, where plaintiffs must meet some initial burden, and if they meet that burden, the defendants must bear the burden of establishing the statement was substantially true? I was jumping between the two threads blarzgh posted:I think I have it figured out: The point is that if you don't plead it as the Defendant you don't get to raise the issue during your case in chief, and may only address the issue during Plaintiff's case in chief, and in a fashion limited only to what the Plaintiff raises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Did any of you use some sort of flash cards or software for helping to memorize rule statements for essays? I literally did nothing but read practice answers and tried to mimic those. It was good enough for me to pass. How does your state structure the test? FL is 3 essays and 100 MC for the state test and then 200 question MBE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Did any of you use some sort of flash cards or software for helping to memorize rule statements for essays? Just read and re-read mini-outlines for the essays, my state had 6 out of like 14 topics or something, didn't bother with flash cards or any of that non-sense since there was just too much to memorize to matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I literally did nothing but read practice answers and tried to mimic those. It was good enough for me to pass. 6 essays, with one being a PA Performance test which is writing a memo/brief/letter in a closed universe. 200 MBE Essays are weighed 55/45 to MBE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Counterpoint, I made flashcards and passed. Basically rule statements with the hope that I could fart them out quickly on an essay and get 50% in the first 5 minutes. For reference, my state had 5-6 essays that were worth 30% of the grade. Another 20% was the document questions, where you get half points by just applying facts to rules, even if you get the rules wrong. In my figuring, I would get AT LEAST 50% on the multiple choice, and it was worth it to maximize points on the essays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Flashcards were fun for me so I did a lot of them. Do whatever is remotely fun or least painful for you. As long as you're consistently engaging with the materials you will be OK, unless you suck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:6 essays, with one being a PA Performance test which is writing a memo/brief/letter in a closed universe. All of our essays were supposed to be in brief/memo format. You literally get points for writing a proper heading and for formatting whether hand written or typed. Florida allows you to pass as long as your average between the FL and MBE parts is above the line. You can fail either test individually and still pass & get admitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:6 essays, with one being a PA Performance test which is writing a memo/brief/letter in a closed universe. The essay topics are likely to overlap with MBE topics. So I focused on getting as close to 100% on the MBE as possible and essentially punted on everything but the very basics of the esoteric, rarely-asked-about-in-essays subjects (e.g. commercial paper and secured transactions).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Am I reading this testimony right in the Gallagher ISIS murder case? The medic suffocated the prisoner AFTER Gallagher stabbed him in the neck? Like no one is disputing he stabbed the prisoner? Cause that doesn't seem like a great thing to hang your innocence on. "I pinched the guy's nose after my buddy shot him in the head, therefore I did the murder, your honor."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
quote:Scott, testifying under immunity, also said that he had not admitted to asphyxiating the prisoner in previous interviews with NCIS or with the prosecution. He said he was only doing so now because he was granted immunity, which means he cannot be prosecuted for his testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
They're guessing, correctly, that they live in a fundamentally lawless, racist shithole that will never hold them accountable for their crimes or dishonesty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Even if Gallagher gets convicted, the flag loving troop lover Big Mac golem will just pardon him, I don't know why the witness is bothering to lie
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Right, but his testimony doesn’t get his bro off the block. My crim law is extremely rusty, but he just drops from murder to at best attempted? Plus the other charges he is facing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Pretty big difference in sentence between stabbing someone but not causing their death and murder
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
quote:After the other medic left the scene, Scott said he saw "Gallagher pull out his knife and stab the ISIS prisoner underneath the collar bone at least once." He said he did not see any blood. Scott froze and was not sure what to do, and said he "stayed with the prisoner until he asphyxiated." Still seems like the dude is lying or trying to derail the case
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:He thought the prisoner was going to die because of the stabbing, so wouldn't Gallagher still be considered the murderer? or at least joint murderer? don't know how the military treats it. The law of parties normally requires one party to perform some action to aid or cause the other party to commit the act. Article 81 of the UCMJ also seems to require an agreement between the parties to commit a crime. In other words, Gallagher would have needed to say or do something to cause or encourage the medic to asphyxiate the prisoner. If Gallagher stabbed the prisoner and didn't encourage/aid/solicit/etc the medic to kill the prisoner then Gallagher shouldn't be convicted of murder. Possible exception: Does the UCMJ give a soldier owe some sort of heightened duty of care to a prisoner under his watch? GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
What is the guys charged with? I assume the UCMJ allows for prosecution of war crimes, and stabbing a prisoner is in fact a war crime?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
My friend failed the CA bar twice despite going to a law school that isn't just CA qualified. Anything I can say to him that'll make him feel better but also acknowledge that he's a dumbo given that he should have passed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
hand draw Dick Butt and mail it to him
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:What is the guys charged with? I assume the UCMJ allows for prosecution of war crimes, and stabbing a prisoner is in fact a war crime? Well, yes, but there are a bunch of other charges. Charge I - UCMJ Article 118 (Premeditated Murder) Charge II.1 - UCMJ Article 128 (Aggravated Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) Charge II.2 - UCMJ Article 128 (Aggravated Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) [UCMJ Article 134 is the catchall for "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital"] Charge III.1 - UCMJ Article 134 (Reckless Discharge of a Firearm) Charge III.2 - UCMJ Article 134 (Obstructing Justice) Charge III.3 - UCMJ Article 134 (Obstructing Justice) Charge III.4 - UCMJ Article 134 (Obstructing Justice) Charge III.5 - UCMJ Article 134 (Posing With a Body) Charge III.6 - UCMJ Article 134 (Reenlisting With a Body) Charge III.7 - UCMJ Article 134 (Wrongful Operation of Drone Over Body) Charge IV.1 - UCMJ Article 112.a (Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance) (Tramadol, Narcotic) Charge IV.2 - UCMJ Article 112.a (Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance) (Sustanon, an anabolic steroid) https://www.scribd.com/document/393220365/Charge-Sheet-For-The-Navy-SEAL-Accused-Of-War-Crimes-In-Mosul#from_embed Carillon posted:My friend failed the CA bar twice despite going to a law school that isn't just CA qualified. Anything I can say to him that'll make him feel better but also acknowledge that he's a dumbo given that he should have passed? "I hear the lawyers are abandoning the law to run taco trucks anyway..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Well, yes, but there are a bunch of other charges. The only charge that pertains to stabbing the kid to death is the murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The only charge that pertains to stabbing the kid to death is the murder. You don't think the steroids played a role?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The only charge that pertains to stabbing the kid to death is the murder. ulmont posted:Well, yes, but there are a bunch of other charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The only charge that pertains to stabbing the kid to death is the murder. That's the only life sentence too unless I'm missing something. Not the craziest thing I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
Carillon posted:My friend failed the CA bar twice despite going to a law school that isn't just CA qualified. Anything I can say to him that'll make him feel better but also acknowledge that he's a dumbo given that he should have passed? Lots of people fail the CA bar. They're called baristas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
nm posted:Lots of people fail the CA bar. They're called baristas. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Did any of you use some sort of flash cards or software for helping to memorize rule statements for essays? Are you going through a test prep company or just trying to do this on your own? If through a company, just follow what they lay out and just keep doing the draft essays (probably in outline form is fine) then compare to the model answer. Try to pick up 2-3 points each time that you missed. If you're just doing prep on your own you should really consider going for a prep program, even at this point. You're shooting for a raise right? So it's easy to justify the cost. If you won't do that, maybe there are similar essay questions and model answers publicly available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Carillon posted:My friend failed the CA bar twice despite going to a law school that isn't just CA qualified. Anything I can say to him that'll make him feel better but also acknowledge that he's a dumbo given that he should have passed? Kathleen Sullivan became a supreme court litigator, dean of Stanford law school and the only female name partner in a vault 100 law firm( or something like that), before she took and failed the California bar. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113374619258513723
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Fuzzie Dunlop posted:Are you going through a test prep company or just trying to do this on your own? If through a company, just follow what they lay out and just keep doing the draft essays (probably in outline form is fine) then compare to the model answer. Try to pick up 2-3 points each time that you missed. Yeah, I'm using Themis and have been doing okay with it. My graded essays have been generally alright, but with our bar scores more weighted towards essays, I figured it couldn't hurt to beef up more on rule statements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
K
Sab0921 fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jul 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
quote:
Is this common enough to justify an article?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
It’s not specifically mentioned in the article-the text includes “...all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital,...”
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Is this common enough to justify an article? In the military, your bosses and their lawyers are allowed to just make up charges. Notice? Nah. Ex Post Facto? Nah. Could it be prejudicial to good order and discipline, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces ? Oh, then you're good to go. The "Posing With a Body" and "Wrongful Operation of Drone Over Body" are similarly made up charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Conduct unbecoming (133) is the catchall for officers, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 17:13
|
|