|
poofactory posted:Hey guys, when sending my office your unsolicited resumes, please address it to someone in particular and include a cover letter so we at least know for which job you are begging. But I am begging for all jobs at your office, and if I limit my cover letter to just one person or job, then you may not consider me for the many other jobs you have open. I live in fear that my cover letter applying for Administrative Assistant I will prevent me from getting the coveted Administrative Assistant II position!
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
nudipedalia posted:Are you seriously asking me to define the difference in applicability of internal and external regulations? I've read this twice and I'm still not really sure what your argument is. The judiciary generally has the inherent power as a branch of government, in the absence of legislative rules, to make rules regarding the administration of its own courts. Most state constitutions (I assume) have explicitly given the state courts that power. Example: Texas Constitution, Article 5 Section 31 posted:Sec. 31. COURT ADMINISTRATION; RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY; ACTION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.5.htm#5.31
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:Are you seriously asking me to define the difference in applicability of internal and external regulations? You are making the mistake of confusing what you think the law is with how things really work. It is OK, this happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
builds character posted:You are making the mistake of confusing what you think the law is with how things really work. It is OK, this happens all the time. That's because: nudipedalia posted:Am I taking a too strict positivist approach due to my continental background? ...this person is a philosopher, or at least somewhat familiar with philosophy. As someone who got a bachelor's in philosophy before going to law school, I can justifiably say that the philosopher's mindset doesn't really help you with legal analysis, at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:For additional fun, replace cops with someone from Department of Transportation. Health and safety regulations for employees and customers, dispute resolution through HR or customer relations, "my instruction says we need this" vs "law doesn't require me to provide you with it". No, you don't need to devolve specific powers, you can delegate rule making authority. Therefore the federal or state agency may be delegated authority by the legislature to make appropriate rules to achieve certain purposes. Then you can have formal or informal hearings to ensure that nothing underhanded is going on. Have to say this is not my field at all, though; I got a terrible grade in admin law, although I did study it a bit more a month ago before realising that it wasn't going to be on the bar. quote:Let's start with a cursory look at amendments: comedy response: The constitution is written in English so Really though, those issues youre raising are cured by case law, which has the authority to interpret the constitution; say what you like about the constitution, but your opinion alone does not carry any weight in court. A lot of what you're asking is resolved by tests that judges apply, ranging from whether a certain way of doing things has a reasonable relation to a legitimate government interest, to perhaps whether it is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. If I'm going to cut off your fingers so you can't post anymore, the latter test might apply, but if I'm just regulating your speech so that you can't post from the white house lawn at 3 am then a much easier hurdle is presented for law makers. quote:I must have been unclear: a third party in my poor understanding is someone who is getting involved in court proceedings. Once a witness has entered the courtroom he is presumed to be in understanding of the rules governing it and provided a translator if he requires one, he is not a third person anymore. What's problematic is summoning him before he is involved, presuming he understands English in summons without first enquiring whether he needs a translator. But isn't he under the jurisdiction before he gets served? The court regulations aren't there to create the fundamental jurisdiction of the court, they're there to ensure that it was fairly and effectively exercised, and nobody is suffering from foul play. The actual authority over the cause of action was always there when you had a substantial contact with the state/country. If your witness is out of the geographic jurisdiction of the particular county court you have the case in, then you go to the foreign state court and get an order from them. Whether the witness has appeared in the confines of the courtroom is meaningless in that instance, because the judiciary has legal authority over your being and/or property. Therefore, that your man can't read english is not a problem at all. He is already within the jurisdiction of whichever state court issues the order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
I have a question for the lawyers in this thread. I am a 2L at Wake Forest and I'm trying to look for an internship for next summer in NY (grew up 20 minutes from Manhattan). The problem is, I didn't have an internship this last summer. Long story short, I'm in the Army Reserves and my training schedule this last summer changed three times, so I couldn't commit to anything. My grades from the first semester were not that impressive, but I did improve my GPA considerably last semester. Is there anything I can do to make me look better on paper?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
All the lawyers in this thread are being way too literal. The simple answer as to why court proceedings are all in English, and you can't somehow avoid them by claiming to only be fluent in Shyriiwook, is because the court will ignore you if you try and argue that, and there is no way for you to impose your will on the court and the executives that will enforce the court's decisions. I doubt you can construct an airtight logical argument from constitutional first principles regarding why you can be forced to obey a court even if they don't serve you in Klingon. But it doesn't matter because a court will literally ignore you, just like if you claim a court doesn't have proper jurisdiction because the flag has a gold fringe on it, or because your name on the criminal indictment is in all caps. Some people doggedly grasp onto the wrongheaded belief that judicial authority derives from Magic Words of Power or something and all judges must be corrupt and part of The System if they refuse to entertain your notions. On a related note, here's a list of idiot legal arguments and a tax protestor FAQ listing common "arguments" that people often try to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Linguica posted:All the lawyers in this thread are being way too literal. The simple answer as to why court proceedings are all in English, and you can't somehow avoid them by claiming to only be fluent in Shyriiwook, is because the court will ignore you if you try and argue that, and there is no way for you to impose your will on the court and the executives that will enforce the court's decisions. I doubt you can construct an airtight logical argument from constitutional first principles regarding why you can be forced to obey a court even if they don't serve you in Klingon. But it doesn't matter because a court will literally ignore you, just like if you claim a court doesn't have proper jurisdiction because the flag has a gold fringe on it, or because your name on the criminal indictment is in all caps. Some people doggedly grasp onto the wrongheaded belief that judicial authority derives from Magic Words of Power or something and all judges must be corrupt and part of The System if they refuse to entertain your notions. I would like to claim partial credit for telling the intruder that his opinion of the constitution carries no weight, and that the judiciary has the legal authority over people and property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:Why do you presume the primacy of English Because that's how things work around here. "How things work around here" isn't really law, but it's what we use when we fill in gaps in the law. The Constitution doesn't discuss fundamental rights in the context of language. It's not unreasonable to fill that gap by saying that we're going to conduct our business in the predominant language, with some exceptions for those who do not speak that language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
I'm going to throw in with something from the "Talking Out of My rear end" School of Law, but if somebody gets issued some kind of document by a police officer or some official looking organization, that'd probably be considered enough to put him on notice that he should find somebody to translate it into Marain or whatever the gently caress. I would also like to express my basic antipathy to the gentleman that initiated this line of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
entris posted:...this person is a philosopher, or at least somewhat familiar with philosophy. As someone who got a bachelor's in philosophy before going to law school, I can justifiably say that the philosopher's mindset doesn't really help you with legal analysis, at all. I would strongly disagree; a background in classical philosophy greatly assists with legal analysis. You have to keep in mind, though, that you need to do the analysis with the right class of people. Legal analysis should be done side by side with learned friends who have experience with the law. Socrates didn't do the dialectic on farm animals, and similarly you shouldn't engage in legal analysis with an outsider. Daico posted:I would also like to express my basic antipathy to the gentleman that initiated this line of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
I only got 21 interviews in EIP. Some people got 27. But then again, if I can't get a job after 21 interviews, I might as well look seriously into beach bumhood, or seppuku.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:I only got 21 interviews in EIP. Some people got 27. But then again, if I can't get a job after 21 interviews, I might as well look seriously into beach bumhood, or seppuku. Hey now, you have other options. Like beach seppuku.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
Daico posted:I would also like to express my basic antipathy to the gentleman that initiated this line of discussion. Normally, we would just say "gently caress you _________"
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:I only got 21 interviews in EIP. Some people got 27. But then again, if I can't get a job after 21 interviews, I might as well look seriously into beach bumhood, or seppuku. If you want more you can show up early every day and grab an open interview slot. 3L's appear to have gotten one or two interviews total, boy it's going to be rough for anyone who doesn't get an offer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, I fully understand that my argument looks like typical freshman bullshit and would be laughed out of any court. All I wanted to know is why would it be laughed out of court. These answers were the most helpful:Lykourgos posted:Really though, those issues youre raising are cured by case law, which has the authority to interpret the constitution; say what you like about the constitution, but your opinion alone does not carry any weight in court. A lot of what you're asking is resolved by tests that judges apply, ranging from whether a certain way of doing things has a reasonable relation to a legitimate government interest, to perhaps whether it is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Linguica posted:All the lawyers in this thread are being way too literal. The simple answer as to why court proceedings are all in English, and you can't somehow avoid them by claiming to only be fluent in Shyriiwook, is because the court will ignore you if you try and argue that. It's governed by case law and tradition with no formal basis in judicial or constitutional principles. Anglo-Saxon system  .I don't pretend to be a philosopher or even student of philosophy, by continental background I mean civil law of Germanic extraction not continental philosophy. Daico posted:I would also like to express my basic antipathy to the gentleman that initiated this line of discussion. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:I would strongly disagree; a background in classical philosophy greatly assists with legal analysis. You have to keep in mind, though, that you need to do the analysis with the right class of people. Legal analysis should be done side by side with learned friends who have experience with the law. Socrates didn't do the dialectic on farm animals, and similarly you shouldn't engage in legal analysis with an outsider. Actually, now that I reread what the guy wrote, he said he was maybe being too positivist due to his continental background... ...but positivism is analytic philosophy, not continental. And analytic and continental are fundamentally different... drat it, we've been trolled!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:It's governed by case law and tradition with no formal basis in judicial or constitutional principles. Anglo-Saxon system what do you mean by judicial and constitutional principles? I mean, it's a judicial principle that the judiciary owns the constitution, and the constitution is principle because the honoured judiciary likes to cite it in their opinions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:3L's appear to have gotten one or two interviews total, boy it's going to be rough for anyone who doesn't get an offer. 3Ls at UT three potential employers in Texas this year. gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:3Ls at UT three potential employers in Texas this year. drat. At least here, you know slots will open up as people cancel their schedules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Hey guys, when sending my office your unsolicited resumes, please address it to someone in particular and include a cover letter so we at least know for which job you are begging. But make sure you correctly name the job for which you are begging: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
He wasn't applying for a job, he was just sending a message: I'M COMING
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Here's a hypo for you bar exam types. Driver's car catches on fire while he's driving it down the interstate, so he pulls off onto the shoulder and gets out and calls 911. Traffic is very light and cars are passing without any problem. The car burns for ten minutes or so and the police arrive, followed almost immediately by the fire department. The police close down traffic on the interstate completely while the fire is put out and a wrecker shows up to load the burned husk. Plaintiff pulls up to the accident scene and stops in the standstill traffic behind the police barricade. He's stuck in traffic for about 5 minutes at a dead stop when suddenly he's rear-ended by Trucker, and now he claims injuries from the accident. Who's liable for Plaintiff's damages?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
^^ur mum, nice try bar exam is over, legal questions megathread (link)joat mon posted:But make sure you correctly name the job for which you are begging: Maybe he's just playing around, showing you how little he thinks of your office; kind of like a pre-game taunt before he enters the ring as the new ADA please just be playing around, don't be so careless mr prosecutor n... no.. nooo Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Aug 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
You pussy, the day after I took my second bar exam I went into Federal court and argued a motion to remand a $6,000,000 case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
PS I won, bitch
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
lol you low class clown you mentioned the sum involved, like it would matter to a man of quality. Do you pee your pants when a certain number of digits appear on the paper, with no respect for the legal issue or the moral fibre of the creatures involved oh you edited it drat
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:your motion could have been for an extension of time for all i know looks like some little law student failed his Fed Civ Pro section
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:looks like some little law student failed his Fed Civ Pro section either my eyes are playing tricks on me or you edited that quickly
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
Lykurgos posted:what do you mean by judicial and constitutional principles? I mean, it's a judicial principle that the judiciary owns the constitution, and the constitution is principle because the honoured judiciary likes to cite it in their opinions. Judicial principles like rule of law, legitimate expectation, maintaining peace, proportionality, stare decisis, nondescrimination, all the things that might not be explicitly codified in normative acts but are of equal power to (or in some systems above) constitutional law. It's easy to construct the chain of tradition -> overwhelming societal interest (peace and democracy) -> English, I was looking for the specific reasoning and you gave it, I'm shutting up and getting out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Here's a hypo for you bar exam types. Phillip Morris.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Here's a hypo for you bar exam types. too soon
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
Fisher Price: My First Post-bar Bitchslap by a Real Lawyer
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Here's a hypo for you bar exam types. I'm going to hazard a guess for shits and giggles. The police aren't liable because they'll put up a huge fight about intervening cause and proximate cause and likely win. It also depends on if the state statute has made them liable for this sort of action. Theoretically they might be if it was shown that there was a more efficient way to handle the accident. The driver's not liable because it's an unforeseeable consequence and not his drat fault. The trucker's liable for negligence, which is awesome, because he has a fat loving insurance policy. The only loser here is the lawyer, because the Plaintiff isn't crippled or dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
Don't worry grumblefish, at my first court appearance after I got sworn in, opposing counsel referred to me as a pledge and called the partner on the case just to make fun of him for sending a know-nothing to a status conference
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to hazard a guess for shits and giggles. I'll let you know how your well-reasoned argument goes when I present it to Judge Billy Bob out in Cottonfield District Court
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Don't worry grumblefish, at my first court appearance after I got sworn in, opposing counsel referred to me as a pledge and called the partner on the case just to make fun of him for sending a know-nothing to a status conference admit that his barbs stung your very soul did the judge comment on your tears?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I'll let you know how your well-reasoned argument goes when I present it to Judge Billy Bob out in Cottonfield District Court Real answer: the trucker, because everyone else has no duty to safeguard from third party torts. Realer answer: How much did you donate to the campaign for Judge Billy Bob?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
Phil you should mentor me on my Federal Civil Defense Case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Lykourgos posted:admit that his barbs stung your very soul The other guy was on speakerphone with me and the partner when he said it, and then he told me to take a shot of wild turkey and kept yelling "do it pussy" until I did it Stunt Rock posted:Phil you should mentor me on my Federal Civil Defense Case. What's it about? Northern District or Southern?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:33
|
|