|
OC claimed that I was asking for punitive damages to delay trial and that I asked for leave to amend too close to trial. Case law in his opposition memo clearly states that motions for leave to amend to add punitive damages could be heard at the start of a trial. JA today emails saying that hearing has to be moved from tomorrow morning to tomorrow afternoon because a trial is running long. OC isn't available, so now the next hearing date is a month away, and we won't have calendar call until then at the earliest. Trial is being moved back at least two months by the judge. 
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
The next time I try to post in the main DnD threads, someone punch me ok, which one of you
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Can anyone loan me $46,700?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Guy made more in his law career than i have in mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The next time I try to post in the main DnD threads, someone punch me Too skinny and clothed to be Remedial
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Haha just my lil weekly reminder how glad I am I didn’t take that job with ICE’s head counsel in 2015 😳
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Haha just my lil weekly reminder how glad I am I didn’t take that job with ICE’s head counsel in 2015 I was at a national civil rights attorney conference a couple months ago -- something like 600+ attendees from every state and territory in the US. One of the big all-attendees sessions was about all the good work all these various organizations were doing fighting against ICE detention; they had the current lead attorney in the Flores settlement speak and everything, very gung ho and inspiring. Next session I went to was a small lunch group on compliance with federal funding requirements. Like twenty people, relatively small. We do a round-the-room name / organization introductions thing. SURPRISE SURPRISE there were three ICE staff attorneys attending the session. Literally no reason at all for them to be there other than to spy on the competition, and no reason to attend that particular session unless they were trying to figure out ways to attack civil right's orgs' funding. Bizarre thing is all three of them were non-white, under 40, and female. Really hard to imagine how they ended up as ICE attorneys of all things. I guess it can happen to anyone if you make the wrong choices and never course-correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
yeah haha 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
One of the guys in my office left to work for ice. Mostly bc of the 25k pay bump. Wonder if he regrets it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Bet they joined up under the Obama Admin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Makes sense. Back in the day after I was a SLIP intern at DoJ, I got an offer to come back at OIL (immigration litigation) through AG Honors - didn't take it of course - and the office was diverse, young, all the proper buzzwords. And then once you're in that line of work in the gov't, it's real hard on a personal level to get out - like 60-80k pay drop if you move to immigrant defense and the worry about never being accepted back if you do leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:One of the guys in my office left to work for ice. Mostly bc of the 25k pay bump. I mean at worst, if he hates it he can just do a transfer to somewhere else in DHS really easily, OPM won't even bat an eye. It's a massive agency. wrt the diversity thing though, I haven't noticed a demographic difference in hiring under President Obama or President Trump. Every office I've been at has been a decent cross section of the country, and at least from the agencies I've worked with personally. The makeup of your political appointees might change, but everyone in government I've worked with is just about the business of doing government. Politics really don't factor into things that much usually. As I see it, most people stay in their lane and just do what has to be done. If someone wants to influence policy, there are plenty of those positions for lawyers to slot into if they want. If someone ended up at ICE, it means they wanted to be there, and if you're trying cases and acting as an ethics guardrail, then what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
The primary difference is the rate of hiring and firing, and the functions that result. See: USDA
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:
I would think it’s a problem to argue to the Ninth Circuit that children in concentration camps shouldn’t get soap, toothbrushes, or beds. Just as an example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I would think it’s a problem to argue to the Ninth Circuit that children in concentration camps shouldn’t get soap, toothbrushes, or beds. Just as an example. Yeah, that's the crystal clear example. That particular attorney joined under the Obama admin and apparently donated to Democratic candidates. Corruption happens incrementally and often people don't realize they've crossed a line until it's in their rear-view mirror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
I don’t think that attorney is corrupt, in particular. Telling someone quitting is an option has a line to it. Like you don’t tell a sexual harass victim they can just quit, but “I was just following orders” is the absolute best example of quitting being the right option. It’s professional cowardice to stay on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
I feel bad for her and many other career public servants in that I know they didn’t sign up thinking they would ever have to defend such an horrible, lovely administration. Bush admin lovely, maybe, but this stuff is unprecedented. And that it’s hard to resign and give up such a good job, with security and benefits and what may be a large part of your identity. The private sector isn’t always much better. But when “staying in your lane and doing what has to be done” means developing the instrumentalities of implementing and defending “policy” like putting kids in camps, obliterating protections for consumers and the environment, and all the other garbage Trump’s people are pushing... That’s the risk of being a functionary I guess. You have to be prepared to quit if poo poo gets really immoral, otherwise you’re “just following orders” and get to live with the consequences of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
Also isn’t a huge problem that so many people who could be “ethics guardrails,” like SES or other senior people, immediately found themselves ignored or fired by political appointees, so there’s basically nobody insulating the rank and file from their insane shithead bosses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Also isn’t a huge problem that so many people who could be “ethics guardrails,” like SES or other senior people, immediately found themselves ignored or fired by political appointees, so there’s basically nobody insulating the rank and file from their insane shithead bosses? yeah in practice the most effective guardrail has been that the trump admin appointees are stunningly incompetent and can't figure out how to properly do poo poo, so they get overturned repeatedly by lower courts. scotus rescues them every time it goes up to the supreme court but the supreme court just can't take every case where a trump admin appointee had no idea the administrative procedures act existed
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah I was going to answer your question Phil but evil actually hit on most of what I was going to say. A LOT (not all) of the time they're afflicted with a kind of just meandering incompetence and often you can safely ignore them. Sometimes that doesn't work, sometimes they do dumb poo poo like go before the court and lose. Nothing you can really do but caution them constantly on whatever course of action it is they are taking and at least in my case, document document document everything. The silver lining is that eventually they'll be gone, and perhaps the next admin will be brighter days. Obama appointments weren't shining stars either though. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, that's the crystal clear example. That particular attorney joined under the Obama admin and apparently donated to Democratic candidates. Corruption happens incrementally and often people don't realize they've crossed a line until it's in their rear-view mirror. Poor pittance or excuse, but just giving my personal view from where I'm standing -- I don't agree with every policy or even how things are run. I don't really impute bad faith on some of the agencies involved with these practices either. No comfort for the victims, but I mostly see poorly lead, poorly equipped, and poorly trained (for the situation) but well meaning people trying to figure things out. I don't see lawyers that agree with everything that is happening either, but in the face of resigning and being blacklisted, the justification is that they defend the government as zealously as they would defend someone they knew was guilty of a crime. "Doesn't have to be you," you might say. Maybe. But when you're paying your mortgage, putting your kids through school, paying off your debt, working towards retirement, getting expensive medication for your chronically ill family member for pennies, I don't know. It's powerful incentive to stick around. I've seen a lot of things stem from a lack of competence and a lack of funding and a lack of planning, but not outright evil. That might be corruption, and yes, I see the irony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:I was going to answer your question Phil but evil actually hit on most of what I was going to say. A LOT (not all) of the time they're afflicted with a kind of just meandering incompetence and often you can safely ignore them. Sometimes that doesn't work, sometimes they do dumb poo poo like go before the court and lose. Nothing you can really do but caution them constantly on whatever course of action it is they are taking and at least in my case, document document document everything. The silver lining is that eventually they'll be gone, and perhaps the next admin will be brighter days. Obama appointments weren't shining stars either though. i draw the opposite conclusion: the political appointees are terrible people who will do bad things no matter what and cannot be reasoned out of it, so the most effective form of resistance is to leave and let them fail because nobody left knows how to do their evil things correctly. don't caution them, unless it's in writing in a way that will be helpful to the other side in demonstrating a failure to follow the proper rules. i am sympathetic to the argument that quitting can be a tremendous burden on people but at the end of the day if you're going into court and trying to keep children in cages without basic necessities then perhaps your burden is outweighed by theirs. but yeah, doing the right thing isn't always easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:the justification is that they defend the government as zealously as they would defend someone they knew was guilty of a crime. There's a pretty massive difference between "you can't prove my client was in the place at the time the murder happened" and "innocent kids locked in cages don't need beds or toothbrushes". Yeah it might be hard to give up a well-paying job especially in the American hellscape but I don't think it's unfair to judge people for not drawing the line somewhere before where it seems to be being drawn at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:I don’t think that attorney is corrupt, in particular. Telling someone quitting is an option has a line to it. Like you don’t tell a sexual harass victim they can just quit, but “I was just following orders” is the absolute best example of quitting being the right option. It’s professional cowardice to stay on. It's this. Every competent authoritarian regime has had a bureaucracy to make it function. If you have to go to court to argue that the conditions in the concentration camps are fine and dandy, loving quit and do it publicly. gently caress zealous advocacy when history is going to judge you. Force Stephen Miller to go into court himself, don't let him hide behind people "just doing their jobs."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:I was going to answer your question Phil but evil actually hit on most of what I was going to say. A LOT (not all) of the time they're afflicted with a kind of just meandering incompetence and often you can safely ignore them. Sometimes that doesn't work, sometimes they do dumb poo poo like go before the court and lose. Nothing you can really do but caution them constantly on whatever course of action it is they are taking and at least in my case, document document document everything. The silver lining is that eventually they'll be gone, and perhaps the next admin will be brighter days. Obama appointments weren't shining stars either though. I get where you're coming from here. Thing is though, public defenders have a different ethical standard to follow than government attorneys. The public defender is allowed to make spurious arguments if that's all they have, because their sole duty is to their client. Government agency attorneys though, two clients. The government is one client but the public is another, and if there is a conflict between two of your clients, you gotta back out. Even then I'm not meaning to come down harshly on people. We're all capable of being corrupted if we are set in the wrong circumstances. But that's part of why it's so important to choose and change your circumstances as carefully as you can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I would think it’s a problem to argue to the Ninth Circuit that children in concentration camps shouldn’t get soap, toothbrushes, or beds. Just as an example. Dude. It's called zealous advocacy, dude. And furthermore, the Wehrmacht's attorneys were just doing their jobm
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I get where you're coming from here. Thing is though, public defenders have a different ethical standard to follow than government attorneys. The public defender is allowed to make spurious arguments if that's all they have, because their sole duty is to their client. I think that's completely true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
I met some attorneys who work for DOJ civil rights who go around to prisons making sure they aren't doing terrible things. Working under the Trump administration is interesting, but they're not going to leave. I mean this isn't ICE, but still. Edit: do not get arrested on any islands, particularly if they aren't states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
nm posted:Edit: do not get arrested on any islands, particularly if they aren't states. Or Sweden! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:the justification is that they defend the government as zealously as they would defend someone they knew was guilty of a crime. Kimsemus posted:"Doesn't have to be you," you might say. Maybe. But when you're paying your mortgage, putting your kids through school, paying off your debt, working towards retirement, getting expensive medication for your chronically ill family member for pennies, I don't know. It's powerful incentive to stick around. I've seen a lot of things stem from a lack of competence and a lack of funding and a lack of planning, but not outright evil. That might be corruption, and yes, I see the irony. You can always find a way to do the right thing. Your house may be smaller, you car may be older, your clothes may be a little more worn, your kids might not go to that 22k private high school, you may not be able to retire at 50, but you won't have to drink or drug yourself half to death to quell the existential horror that would be facing yourself in the mirror each morning. Your kids can recover from not having spring, summer and winter vacations. They may not recover from having you, passing through the days of your Skinner box life, doing your Milgram experiment job, as a model for their life and worldview. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, that's [concentration camps for kids] the crystal clear example. That particular attorney joined under the Obama admin and apparently donated to Democratic candidates. Corruption happens incrementally and often people don't realize they've crossed a line until it's in their rear-view mirror. Then again, I'm the guy who cross examines nine year old sexual assault victims. In a sense I'm just following orders too, though I'd argue that those orders (presumption of innocence, burden of proof, right to counsel, etc.) have nearly unimpeachable social, moral, religious and political provenance. I can carry the guilt for what I sometimes must do because I do it in the service of something I believe in that's greater than me and greater than any individual case I'm a part of. I doubt any DoJ attorney arguing for kid concentration camps, suppressing minority voting, racial jerrymandering, LGBT inequality and the like can say the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:That’s the risk of being a functionary I guess. You have to be prepared to quit if poo poo gets really immoral, otherwise you’re “just following orders” and get to live with the consequences of that. I really want to post the relevant Sir Humphrey clip from Yes, Minister. However, current events makes Yes, Minister feel as optimistic as the West Wing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
quote:"Let me teach you a lesson instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...l?noredirect=on More of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Doing it publicly like this guarantees alternative job offers too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It seems like you're speaking of a hypothetical somebody else's justification, so there's no need to curb stomp the gently caress out of that bullshit. God drat! Old man coming in here dropping some wisdom on us. For what it's worth from a person who's doesn't have any dog in your particular race, nor any money, I agree completely on principle. That said, I find it harder to judge someone who does what they feel they have to do to retain a career in the US. Loss of a job is bad in my country, but in your country it still is crippling to be out of a job. Your stakes are simply higher, and while that doesn't excuse ignoring your conscience, there are a lot of pressures keeping you in that job. In fact, I would bet that's a large part of the point for the policymakers, billionaires and 1%-ers that shaped your current society. I just want to acknowledge that what you're saying isn't an easy course of action to take, even if it's the right one. I guess that makes it all the more impressive for the people who do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Anyway, back to bookchat.blarzgh posted:THE UPDATED LIST (sorry if I missed any) addendum posted:- Just to update my personal list. Working my way through the The Ultimate Dresden Omnibus (15 book collection) now, we'll see when I finish. Portugal was absolutely great apart from all the british people, they had all my favourite foods (cod and potato) and the beaches were lovely and not really very crowded at all. Portugal gets a strong recommendation from me, particularly all the historical sites of which I could only visit a few, sadly. Friendly people, not expensive, gorgeous coastline. What more could you want? Booze. I also managed to pick up an Aberlour A'bunadh for less than half of what it goes for back home, sweet! As for book chat: - Murderbot series: The bomb. This was a absolute treat to read, a very interesting twist done very well. Tip top. - Discworld: Now having finished, Pratchett was a genius. I wish he could have made more. - Ball Lightning: Eh, it's very Cixin Liu and it's solid through 90% of it, but at the end it tapers off dramatically as the story runs out of steam and Liu runs out of... brains? I don't know what the gently caress he was thinking. - Fahrenheit 451: The classic. It's... alright. More novelty value for how Bradbury supposed the future might look like. The truth is far worse. - Elantris: Pretty decent Sanderson and I can completely see why it helped launch his career. Solid, solid craftsmanship but nothing too spicy. Like a good bolognese. - Hull Zero Three/Forge of God: Hull Zero Three was... good. Great, in fact. I found it very interesting and would probably have made a decent movie (edit: and it kind of did, only they called it Pandorum). Forge of God is mostly just apocalypse masturbation, I kept waiting for the twist or the turnaround and nope, it's all downhill all the way with an uninteresting footnote about the future of mankind in the stars. Props for the von Neumann mention. - Forever War: Biggest disappointment. Rapey. Implicitly homophobic. Weird and not in a good way? I dunno, I didn't like it and other authors have done similar themes better, I'm sure. Did find myself a great source for e-books so I'm gonna try and keep my steam up and go through more books, I enjoyed reading a little again. Also, really need to get in the book barn and maybe follow on the book of the month, seems to be my kind of thing. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alloy_dr/status/1157082112618573825 Sadly that's a typo and it's the Madness of Crowds but still good
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Epstein died last night if you haven't seen the news yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
“Epstein died” lol Mistakes were made
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Epstein died last night if you haven't seen the news yet. You're loving with me. fake edit: you were not loving with me
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You're loving with me. it was a "suicide" nothing to see here, move along citizen
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 17:36
|
|