|
The discord is an anarcho-syndicalist commune
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
within a monarchy
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:I emailed docs to the judge's clerk and OC. During the hearing the clerk used the software to display the document by presenting. Worked out well. You guys get to e-mail documents and not immediately get ball-slapped? My word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
I’m trying to sue a municipality and city officials in a 1983 action. I feel good about my chances of catching somebody liable for what went down, but it’s a first amendment violation that I can’t find a comparable example for in case law. Any treatises to recommend on immunity? E: to be clear, I’m trying to sue a municipality on behalf of my client. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Popero posted:Who made this norwegian king of the discord anyway I think it was this rear end in a top hat posting about it at midnight PST when only Norwegians were awake. nm posted:So, yeah, anyone less lazy than me want to set up a law thread discord or something in case the recent lowtax thing is the end? Mods, name change to "watery tart" please?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:State agency attorney here, trying to find ways to allow people to participate in a public hearing without attending in person. i mean, first and foremost: just ask the clerk. these are odd times, and you won't look dumb for not knowing the special COVID rules. but generally speaking courts seem to be pressing people not to use surprise exhibits unless absolutely necessary - everyone exchanges all copies of exhibits ahead of time and the bar to add something is even higher than usual. if you needed to do a surprise exhibit, I would email it to the clerk and opposing counsel, then get presenter role on the videoconference software, and use that to show the exhibit to the witness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:within a monarchy That makes it sound as if we might be Denmark... Free-Discord Christiana!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Munin posted:That makes it sound as if we might be Denmark... Free-Discord Christiana! Now that's a drat good point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:I emailed docs to the judge's clerk and OC. During the hearing the clerk used the software to display the document by presenting. Worked out well. Our rule is that attorneys are responsible for sharing their own exhibits on Zoom. I work for the judge, not the attorneys. I have other stuff to do during hearings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Okay, dumb legal question: In the US, after my death, how could I legally get my head removed, skull defleshed, and have the skull given to my descendants for painting/decoration/enshrinement? I have a feeling the answer is LOL NO, but why not ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
a mysterious cloak posted:Okay, dumb legal question: In the US, after my death, how could I legally get my head removed, skull defleshed, and have the skull given to my descendants for painting/decoration/enshrinement? I think you should take this to the legal questions thread. Speaking for myself only, I plan to donate my body parts to the "Irrevocable Perpetual TheWordOfTheDayIs Trust dated November 3, 2020" with clear instructions to the Trustee for the various enshrinements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 06:45
|
|
|
TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:I think you should take this to the legal questions thread. Speaking for myself only, I plan to donate my body parts to the "Irrevocable Perpetual TheWordOfTheDayIs Trust dated November 3, 2020" with clear instructions to the Trustee for the various enshrinements. edit: NM, found the thread. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
a mysterious cloak posted:I've been looking for the questions thread and haven't been able to find it - anybody got a link? I'll keep looking, though. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Hey Nice can I ask you to proof read a writing sample? This job is asking for a five pager and I'm dusting off something that I normally wouldn't use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Sure, no problem. Which norwegian language did you write it in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I’m trying to sue a municipality and city officials in a 1983 action. I feel good about my chances of catching somebody liable for what went down, but it’s a first amendment violation that I can’t find a comparable example for in case law. Any treatises to recommend on immunity? Well, the good news for you is that municipalities don't get qualified immunity. The bad news is that municipal liability is incredibly hard to establish. The treatise I've found the most helpful with 1983 is Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation. That should give you a pretty good lay of the land. But, you're probably just going to figure out that your client is poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Sure, no problem. Which norwegian language did you write it in? No, i meant Mr. Nice. Not you. You're a fish. Edit: thank you though. I think you're a nice whole fish. BigHead fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Sure, no problem. Which norwegian language did you write it in? Svenska
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
BigHead posted:No, i meant Mr. Nice. Not you. You're a fish. If you could do a Norwegian translation, you'd be a shoe-in for any job in MN. Unless the firm/agency is run by a swede of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
BigHead posted:No, i meant Mr. Nice. Not you. You're a fish. Oh it was literally nothing, don't mention it. Phil Moscowitz posted:Svenska You motherfucker nm posted:If you could do a Norwegian translation, you'd be a shoe-in for any job in MN. Unless the firm/agency is run by a swede of course. I'll keep that in mind also I routinely do translations of american legal documents, there are so many familial ties between our countries it comes up surprisingly often. Last time I translated a verdict from some Nevada probate court and a will and some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Trump is trying to Bush v. Gore his way to victory. https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/2020-11-09-complaint-as-filed.pdf Nice that they finally figured out the claim that will give SCOTUS cover if they really want to get ballsy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
There's no way that flies right? That argument would essentially require invalidating all but a single form of voting per state, including all forms of absentee voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Not an election lawyer but my read is: 1) Can't really rule the way Republicans want without invalidating all mail voting. Mail in voting will never have the same procedures as in-person in any state. I guess they could always pull a Bush v. Gore and say, "But only for Penn guys, for serious" but I doubt the argument will get to them crafted that way. 2) There is a strong argument that their claim is barred through laches. The procedures have been in place for months and votes were coming in for months, they only filed when they lost. 3) The unsolicited mail ballots thing would be them asking for a new doctrine whole cloth 4) The observers argument will already be ruled on in another case before SCOTUS but I don't really see the Court getting in the way of states and putting in some sort of "accepted distance" doctrine for observers. Even if they do craft a ruling, it won't be enough to throw out the results. 5) More generally, there is only one circumstance I know of where an election was completely invalidated after the fact and that's the North Carolina ballot harvesting scandal. In that case, a member of the board of elections was personally involved and the results were invalidated. In this case, the relief requested goes far beyond the parties sued in their official capacity and introduces a dangerous precedent. Even if the Court agrees with parts of their argument, I don't see them having the guts to wade into this. 6) All that above said, Alito and Kavanaugh have zero principles whatsoever and may just go for it out of spite and sheer partisan hackery. Hard to see the liberals going for it, nor Roberts or Gorsuch (who could easily dump it on federalist/state's rights grounds. Who knows what ACB thinks. 7) Frankly, another easy dump is to say, "Pennsylvania election, Pennsylvania Constitution, all good." A lot of legal commentators who do know election law are also saying its a nonsense suit, they're probably more granular than I am. EDIT: As I read into more and more of this nonsense, I'm realizing that by the time that this case gets heard, a lot of the state claims are going to be thrown out on res judicata grounds. That poll watcher/distance thing will have already been litigated. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Nov 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Please don’t say “ACB.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Please don’t say “ACB.” My understanding from this thread is that the correct sentence would be "Who knows what ACAB thinks."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
I read the recent Pennsylvania suit filing and coming in swinging with multiple permutations of “some unidentifiable guy saw another unidentified guy do something with a ballot that he couldn’t see clearly, therefore the entire election could have been fraudulent” and “some guy told another guy that some voter got double ballots” is definitely an interesting strategy
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
I mean if they ultimately have/want to conservative SCOTUS can just squawk something about the supremacy clause and constitutional crisis and assert original jurisdiction to end run around all these pesky lower court judges and their "pleading standards." Then Alito or whoever can pen the 5/6-3 decision that Trump wins because <insert fig leaf of constitution words ignoring actual evidence here>
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:I mean if they ultimately have/want to conservative SCOTUS can just squawk something about the supremacy clause and constitutional crisis and assert original jurisdiction to end run around all these pesky lower court judges and their "pleading standards." Then Alito or whoever can pen the 5/6-3 decision that Trump wins because <insert fig leaf of constitution words ignoring actual evidence here> There's no need for SCOTUS to undermine their own perceived legitimacy when they probably prefer Trump gone anyway. He's an embarrassment to the tiny handful of "conservative intellectuals" who remain, and Biden with a GOP Senate is not even remotely a threat. Our new conservative supermajority SCOTUS now has the next 10-20 years to entirely reinvent American legal jurisprudence from the ground up without any sort of checks or oversight, they don't need to gently caress around in the muck for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Exactly. These people are smart enough to know that ruling against Trump will legitimize the Court in the minds of liberals and pave the way for a generation of dogshit jurisprudence. They’ve got nothing to gain by installing Trump. Hard to imagine Barrett NOT becoming a resistance hero if she wrote an opinion upholding Biden’s win. E: Maya Rudolf appearing as the newly coronated “Notorious ACB” while Kate McKinnon as Ginsburg watches on approvingly from heaven. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
MechaX posted:I read the recent Pennsylvania suit filing and coming in swinging with multiple permutations of “some unidentifiable guy saw another unidentified guy do something with a ballot that he couldn’t see clearly, therefore the entire election could have been fraudulent” and “some guy told another guy that some voter got double ballots” is definitely an interesting strategy I wonder how much they think they're getting paid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
If it's one of the Big Law guys, I hope they had enough sense to get a retainer up front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:https://twitter.com/jvagle/status/1326583250819686401 https://www.ownerscounsel.com/district-of-columbia-eminent-domain-lawyer/
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
As a guy who's found himself at the bottom of an 8-attorney signature block more than a few times, I too have been required to step into a buzz saw and try to support a terrible argument that wasn't mine before the judge. I'm embarrassed to admit that my initial inclination is to sympathize with this guy, but this is pretty bad. Also, he doesn't exactly appear to be some lowly associate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Seems like pretty bad lawyering. You can always find some exception to try to apply. he should have been prepared to apply it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Just claim it's a party opponent because they were acting in a conspiracy and were all agents against you. It's just as much of a lie as the rest of the lawsuit, might as well double down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Just claim it's a party opponent because they were acting in a conspiracy and were all agents against you. It's just as much of a lie as the rest of the lawsuit, might as well double down. If you aren't with my client, you're against him! Bing bong so simple!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
I can honestly say I’ve never made an argument as asinine and legally defective as the utter poo poo I am seeing in these suits
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
For the Michigan case, the media sure seems more excited about the Court of Appeals defect letter than I am. It is such a routine form letter; the COA clerk's office sends the exact same one for every incomplete filing. I mean, they can still be incompetent lawyers, but a defective filing alone doesn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Alaemon posted:For the Michigan case, the media sure seems more excited about the Court of Appeals defect letter than I am. It is such a routine form letter; the COA clerk's office sends the exact same one for every incomplete filing. Perception is reality with this kind of thing and it's something easy to fill 60 seconds with. In a more "lawyerly" sense, it's pretty indicative just how slapdash this whole effort is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 05:36
|
|