|
Schitzo posted:Mix of planning and litigation at this stage, not sure which way I'll end up going right now, still too new to have much of an opinion either way. Do you get to write covered opinions? I'm sure they're just fantastic to write up... 
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:PTO buds, want to get some beers after work some time next week? Thinking like Wednesday or so, maybe Rock It Grill or some other gay bullshit. Sounds good to me. What time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
I'm back from The Lake. Lawgoons Fantasy Football League will be made this week. If anyone has a preference between Yahoo and ESPN, post now or forever hold your "Submit Reply" button.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
tau posted:I'm back from The Lake. Lawgoons Fantasy Football League will be made this week. I want in on this but I've never done fantasy football before! Can I have Haloti Ngata at every position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
tau posted:I'm back from The Lake. Lawgoons Fantasy Football League will be made this week. I hated ESPN last year, never used yahoo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Yahoo
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Sounds good to me. What time? 6 i guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
tau posted:I'm back from The Lake. Lawgoons Fantasy Football League will be made this week. Yahoo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Now that the bar's over, I can draw again. Except drawing is hard. Remembering things I learned for the bar is also hard. I try to think back to secured transactions and all I can remember is this one problem in law school about repossessing someone's $10,000 myna bird. Whatever. I read the "Oh my God. I know commercial paper." as if it was Neo saying it was implanted in his brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMO3XmNXe4. Nice work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
quote:Defense counsel argues that petitioner’s convictions are void where petitioner was convicted of crimes not charged. (X) In doing so, defense counsel ignores the difference between an indictment and a jury instruction, and pretends that petitioner was found guilty of Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction numbers 14.06 and 14.24. (X) Following from this mistake, defense counsel concludes without any supporting authority that the jury instructions refer to different offenses than those contained in the underlying indictment, and that therefore petitioner’s convictions are void. (X) My god, I cannot believe these sorts of appeals are real. Every defense brief from that office is like a puzzle that you solve by spotting the misrepresentations and then doing their work for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:My god, I cannot believe these sorts of appeals are real. Every defense brief from that office is like a puzzle that you solve by spotting the misrepresentations and then doing their work for them. Hey man, everyone's entitled to an appeal. Even when they don't have a snowball's chance and 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Athenry posted:Hey man, everyone's entitled to an appeal. Even when they don't have a snowball's chance and It's really not the mental gymnastics that's the problem, it's the clear misrepresentations. I handled two appeals these last four days. The first one was premised on (1) silently assigning the prosecutor's belief to the trial judge, and (2) lopping off the trial judge's disagreement each time the record was quoted. The second one is premised on the unstated assumption that the defendant was found guilty of a pattern jury instruction rather than an indictment; I had to go and discover this discrepancy, decipher what defense counsel was trying to say, read all his cases, and realise that it was all entirely invented nonsense. Now I'm busy finishing up writing out defense counsel's argument without the silent assumptions, what the cases actually say (defense counsel's explanation is misleading if we are being extremely polite), and just generally write out a much longer and more detailed explanation of everything because opposing counsel didn't do their job and the whole appeal (and we're not talking about the direct appeal) is nonsense. What makes it even funnier is that the final argument is that if they reject the defense counsel's position, then they should grant this post conviction appeal because defense counsel on direct appeal (the same office) provided ineffective assistance for not arguing it the first time round. fuuuuu Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Defense counsel argues that petitioner’s convictions are void where petitioner was convicted of crimes not charged. (X) In doing so, defense counsel ignores the difference between an indictment and a jury instruction, and pretends that petitioner was found guilty of Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction numbers 14.06 and 14.24. (X) Following from this mistake, defense counsel concludes without any supporting authority that the jury instructions refer to different offenses than those contained in the underlying indictment, and that therefore petitioner’s convictions are void. (X) I can't tell what you're trying to say, either. Was there discrepancy between the elements in the statute and the elements in the jury instruction? Was the defendant found guilty according to the instruction, which is insufficient to establish guilt under the statute? real life example: First degree robbery statute requires threat or actuality of serious bodily injury. However, the jury instruction for Robbery 1 requires only threat or actuality of [any] bodily injury. So, if one is convicted under the jury instruction of Robbery 1, it is a not guilty under the statute because the statutory element of serious bodily harm was not met.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I can't tell what you're trying to say, either. I just c&p'd it from the top of my rough draught, I will clear it up. There was a discrepancy in that the jury instruction read dangerous weapon, and the offense was dangerous weapon that was a firearm. That's not what he's arguing, however. What he argues is, piece by piece, that: 1. Defendant was charged with an offence. 2. A jury instruction belonged to a different offence. 3. Defendant was therefore convicted of the offence that defendant feels the jury instruction belonged to, not the offence contained in the indictment. 4. The conviction is void because the court cannot convict a defendant of a charge that wasn't before the court and isn't a lesser included. Defense counsel doesn't argue that the jury "didn't find him guilty under statute" for the offence charged. Nothing is said about the offence charged beyond that it was contained in the original indictment (obviously nothing is said about it being given to the jury, either, conveniently, or that the instruction refers to the charge). Rather, defence counsel is literally stating that the jury found him guilty of an uncharged offence, the conviction entered on the uncharged offence, and the whole matter is void because the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a conviction on an offence not charged and not a lesser included. If defence counsel wanted to say that he wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offence charged, then let him; that's already res judicata from the direct appeal. If defence counsel wants to argue that the jury instructions were deficient or something, then let him argue that, too. But here he simply says (1) indicted with offence x, (2) jury instruction belonged to offence y, therefore (3) conviction was entered on y and the matter is void. Not that the conviction was improperly entered on x. It's like a really bad brain teaser with a sprinkling of mis-cited caselaw, and nothing is stated explicitly. Almost all their briefs are like that, if they don't just consist of omissions and misquotes. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
I am a holder in due course of knowledge of the law that pertains to negotiable instruments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Is "draught" still used for for things like "a rough draft" in the US? As opposed to a draught in a room, the draught of a ship or its beer related uses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Munin posted:Is "draught" still used for for things like "a rough draft" in the US? As opposed to a draught in a room, the draught of a ship or its beer related uses. Is that what you are asking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Is it possible to refi student loans? Anyone have experience?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
fougera posted:Is it possible to refi student loans? Anyone have experience? That's basically what consolidation is. So, yes. You can also sometimes obtain a non-federal consolidation loan that beats the interest rates on your other loans - I consolidated my bar debt and some credit card debt into a personal loan from my credit union, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
You can consolidate, and I'm sure you can refi them privately somehow. But it's a crapshoot because we have no idea what the federal clusterfuck is gonna do with student loans over the next decade. A giant default bubble is coming, and they're going to have to deal with it. But who knows how/if that will benefit/harm you to keep your loans federal. I'm dragging mine out with the slowest payment possible, rolling the dice on some form of forgiveness/dischargability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:6 i guess Aiite
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Today, I had a client try to convince me as to why his Charter right was violated. It's rude to laugh in a client's face, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:Today, I had a client try to convince me as to why his Charter right was violated. It's rude to laugh in a client's face, isn't it? Yes. Laugh after he leaves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Dude started a thread on another forum that is basically the Canadian equivalent of a sovereign citizen. It was hilarious. I really don't even know how that works, lack of 14th and all, but he kept talking about how police tried to arrest his "legal fiction in a common law jurisdiction" and blah blah. Solid Lizzie fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jul 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Yes, but only in "draft" and not "draught" form. Like: "Here is a draft of that motion you wanted." Yeah, just had a double-take reading Agesilaus' post. Draft is what's used in the UK as well for first drafts etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
Munin posted:Yeah, just had a double-take reading Agesilaus' post. Draft is what's used in the UK as well for first drafts etc. it's just a typo I guess, after thinking about it too much I don't remember which one I usually use. Either way both briefs are finished and I'm going to submit them and hopefully never be given another appeal handled by that terrible office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:Dude started a thread on another forum that is basically the Canadian equivalent of a sovereign citizen. It was hilarious. I once had a guy from Europe do the same thing. Your name in ALL CAPITALS is a straw corporation, dontcha know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:But here he simply says (1) indicted with offence x, (2) jury instruction belonged to offence y, therefore (3) conviction was entered on y and the matter is void. Not that the conviction was improperly entered on x. In my jurisdiction, if its not an LIO, the state needs to show good cause to amend the charged offense after district court (i.e., not initial) arraignment. It's supposed to serve as a check on the State from overcharging somebody, hoping to force a plea, but then downgrading it after the evidence is in to something they can hope to prove. Unless the prosecutor objected to the mis-instruction, sounds to me like the State waived or invited the error... (Don't worry, it'd fail here, too. The appellate court will ignore the statute on amending charges, fall back to a notice/prejudice analysis and affirm.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:6 i guess Just saying I'm in on this and will see you guys tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
joat mon posted:In my jurisdiction, if its not an LIO, the state needs to show good cause to amend the charged offense after district court (i.e., not initial) arraignment. It's supposed to serve as a check on the State from overcharging somebody, hoping to force a plea, but then downgrading it after the evidence is in to something they can hope to prove. No, that's the thing, the state never amended the charged offense. The conviction was entered on the indicted offense. Defense counsel simply pretends that the judge entered a conviction for the offense described in the jury instruction, rather than the offense contained in the indictment. This is done because then he can say that the offense was different than the one charged, and therefore it is a void order that can be challenged at any time. Issues of reasonable doubt are res judicata from the direct appeal, and issues of improper jury instruction are forfeited because they weren't contained in the underlying petition. It's a brain teaser where you just have to go "ohhh wait, he silently assumes that the judge entered a conviction based on jury instruction 14, rather than entered a conviction on the indictment." It's a silent assumption and no case law or record citation was offered (if a citation was given, you'd see the judge just finds him guilty of the offenses charged, not the jury instruction). It's so bad, but it's a little distinct from the sort of bad in the other brief I completed, which involved simply lopping off the last sentence of a quote and going "huh looks like the judge silently agreed" (despite the last sentence being the judge's disageement).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Just saying I'm in on this and will see you guys tomorrow. I dunno how I'll recognize you dudes, but I'll wear an NC State t-shirt or something so I'm easy to spot. Also my name is Chris so you don't have to wander around the bar asking people "are you Mons Hubris"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:I dunno how I'll recognize you dudes, but I'll wear an NC State t-shirt or something so I'm easy to spot. WOLFPACK REPRESENT!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Mailed in my IBR request form and 2011 Tax Return and W2. Bring on the $0.00 monthly payments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Mailed in my IBR request form and 2011 Tax Return and W2. 25 years to go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:I dunno how I'll recognize you dudes, but I'll wear an NC State t-shirt or something so I'm easy to spot. Also my name is Chris so you don't have to wander around the bar asking people "are you Mons Hubris" khaki shorts, pink polo, i'll be there around 6 or so
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
I miiiiight be slightly late, but I'll try not to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I miiiiight be slightly late, but I'll try not to be. This thread is basically home to the worst blind-date service in the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:This thread is basically home to the worst blind-date service in the world. None of us have been murdered yet, so we're at least ahead of Craigslist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:None of us have been murdered yet, so we're at least ahead of Craigslist. Yeah, but here we know we're meeting up with lawyers/law students. On Craigslist at least you know you're meeting up with meth heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:This thread is basically home to the worst blind-date service in the world. It's always my goal to make everyone feel as uncomfortable as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 18:18
|
|