|
Nice piece of fish posted:We could all probably benefit. Also, getting drunk in Trondheim is more about who you know than what you can pay. I'm looking out over the city right now, in fact. Compared to Bodo (where one of my friends lived) Trondhiem was very nice. Getting drunk was expensive despite the fact that every 4th local wanted to buy the american a beer. Edit: bodo did have a sweet airplane museum though.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
nm posted:Tourism and visiting people I knew at points north. It does, it was opened in 1994 by King Harald. The only other thing to do there is fish. Don't be afraid of giving a yell if you ever find yourself on an arctic tour again. I'd be happy to introduce you to the local stuff, which is a lot cheaper. Lot less tax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
nm posted:Dude should go into weed law. If he hates everything about practicing law, he'll probably hate weed law too. It'll probably be even worse, interacting with clients who are presumably doing the very thing he wishes he could do. Maybe he should consider applying for dispensary or cultivation jobs, then supplementing that with a second job. Though I will say that, as someone who is financially dependent on it, weed law is pretty great and only rarely brings out the rage. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
I imagine the benefit of doing weed law is you can require all your clients to pay cash up front.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:If he hates everything about practicing law, he'll probably hate weed law too. It'll probably be even worse, interacting with clients who are presumably doing the very thing he wishes he could do. Maybe he should consider applying for dispensary or cultivation jobs, then supplementing that with a second job. Or better yet, just do the thing he wants to be doing and ignore that he has a law degree he wants nothing to do with. If the cause of his problem is not being able to say no to his mom, the solution isn't to try to please his mom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
nm posted:Dude should go into weed law. As best as I can tell, "weed law" is an exciting mix of business law (contracts, intellectual property, business formation, code compliance, etc.) with the possibility joining your clients in prison or having the feds seize your retainer if you're too involved. Or to put it another way, you don't have to work for a ranch to enjoy a hamburger. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
If you're truly serious about weed law, you should know that all of the big players refer to it as Cannabis Law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
I'm a sativa lawyer. Well I'm an indica lawyer 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
I practice cheeseburger law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
I practice Facebook law
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I practice cheeseburger law. Shut up randy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Apparently now I practice GBS law, too. I've been retained in the /r/relationships thread by the Government to try and prove that Universities aren't District Attorneys, and that a Title IX investigation is not the same process as a criminal investigation. OC keeps telling the jury, "But so many sexual assaults go unreported, therefore you are wrong." I think my client is going to get convicted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Apparently now I practice GBS law, too. I've been retained in the /r/relationships thread by the Government to try and prove that Universities aren't District Attorneys, and that a Title IX investigation is not the same process as a criminal investigation. What is the general argument? Link?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Apparently now I practice GBS law, too. I've been retained in the /r/relationships thread by the Government to try and prove that Universities aren't District Attorneys, and that a Title IX investigation is not the same process as a criminal investigation. Why. Why do this to yourself. Gibbis is the retarded shithole good opinions and factual statements go to die in. It's not about that. You're trying to explain criminal justice to a toddler who is busy eating poop. It's going to be a frustrating and lovely time for everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:What is the general argument? Link? As far as I can tell they were saying that the reason there were so many unreported sexual assaults on campuses was because if you reported it to campus police, then the school administration would tell PD not to investigate. blarzgh posted:Schools in America don't have some magic criminal jurisdiction. If someone commits a crime against you, and you tell both the school, and the police, the police are going to investigate no matter what the school thinks it wants to do. So they started telling me that Campus PD was really just an arm of the School, so I did a little effort-posting, and then it all went to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
What is that old saying about arguing on the internet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Look, my last potential trial of 2017 settled on Thursday and I ain't got poo poo to do this week so I'm creating meaningless conflict to fill the void in my black heart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:What is that old saying about arguing on the internet? Just do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:As far as I can tell they were saying that the reason there were so many unreported sexual assaults on campuses was because if you reported it to campus police, then the school administration would tell PD not to investigate. Speaking generally, I wish people would start going directly to the police instead of the school, though I understand the argument for why reporting to the school should be an option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
I think you can and people do do both, it's not a choice. I saw that movie about Title 9 at a women's law student organization meeting so I feel I can speak authoritatively on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Look, my last potential trial of 2017 settled on Thursday and I ain't got poo poo to do this week so I'm creating meaningless conflict to fill the void in my black heart. Same actually. I left my drivers license in the Denton County Courthouse, probate court witness prep room. Be a dear and fetch it for me. Or Roger or Scrapps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:What is that old saying about arguing on the internet? that theres no better training for being a litigator than arguing with people who will never change their position and will come up with any argument to support their pre-existing conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that theres no better training for being a litigator than arguing with people who will never change their position and will come up with any argument to support their pre-existing conclusion? It just lacks one key point: litigators know better than to do it for free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Same actually. The AJ there is a dick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Same actually. I have to head there Thursday morning. I can mail it to you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I have to head there Thursday morning. I can mail it to you? Sure. I mean I don't know if I lost it there for sure, but it's likely. If you look in the witness room and find it let me know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
for fellow readers of patentlyo, i wrote a simple userscript to hide all MM posts (and any replies to his posts), use with greasemonkey, tampermonker etc: bit.ly/2xO208q it's gotten really bad lately with him spamming non stop until he's like more than half the comments
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
For fellow readers of Patently O just don’t read the comments, there’s never anything good there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
love too respond to 101 rejections
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:For fellow readers of Patently O just don’t read the comments, there’s never anything good there anyway. tried that, eventually I get tempted when I see 100 comments or whatever then blam, eye cancer
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
non-attorney examiners have no hope of responding to 101 arguments imho
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:non-attorney examiners have no hope of responding to 101 arguments imho lol if you think examiners even read attorney arguments for 101
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Zo posted:lol if you think examiners even read attorney arguments for 101 I'm my company's main software patent attorney. We do a share of work in house and I refuse to even look at OA's with substantive 101 rejections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Zo posted:lol if you think examiners even read attorney arguments for 101 Isn't WJ an examiner?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Isn't WJ an examiner? yes, but he's an attorney, so he probably can't shut up about 101 normal examiners in my experience are only ever receptive to arguments based on the uspto 101 guidance documents
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
So I got kinda disturbed by the idea of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a civil suit from the legal questions thread, and looked around a little. Seems federal rules on this are pretty sensible, are those not used as a model by pretty much every sensible state? If not, why not? We have a similar rule, limited to cases of consent, lack of answer and defendant motions for dismissal, but beyond that...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:So I got kinda disturbed by the idea of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a civil suit from the legal questions thread, and looked around a little. Seems federal rules on this are pretty sensible, are those not used as a model by pretty much every sensible state? If not, why not? According to quick and dirty research, about 35 states have fully adopted the Federal Rules, while others have taken parts they like and kept their own. Then there are a handful of states (Illinois, New York (I think?)) who still use an older fact-pleading system, I'd imagine those are the least likely to resemble the Fed Rules. Why they do/don't change probably is due to many things. Inertia is probably the biggest, hard to get a lot of enthusiasm for changing a system that every lawyer (especially old stubborn ones) are used to. Also, depending on how drastically different a state's system is, changing to reflect the Federal Rules might completely negate decades of state appellate decisions and bring on years of appeals where the high court has to decide if the rule will be interpreted per the federal rules or in some unique local way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Zo posted:yes, but he's an attorney, so he probably can't shut up about 101 responding to 101 arguments makes me tumescent
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Voluntary dismissals without prejudice are super common in Illinois, I didn't even realize that was an issue. I've had a bunch of contested hearing about voluntary dismissals though, that's always fun. Also my friend is all worked up about some sort of Indian reservation patent transfer workaround to avoid "inter party review due to sovereign immunity". is this a big deal and should I be interested in it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
In Texas, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice can be accomplished at any time prior to closing your evidence at trial by merely moving for a "nonsuit" in writing or in open court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 15:54
|
|