|
Mookie posted:I'm going into cultist fighting law. Cultist defense is where it's at. Those guys are loaded.
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to make a new legal tradition where lawyers settle litigation via no-holds-barred hand-to-hand combat. If: 1. Your state incorporates "the common law" as it existed at the time of statehood statehood, (like mine) and 2. You are in one of the first 20 States in the Union. I.e., in before 1819 and not Louisiana. (not like mine  )You should be able to request trial by combat unless trial by combat is excluded by statute. (which is unlikely) So you east coasters and some of you east-of-the-mississippi-ers, get to it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Actually I think that the judge would just cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton and then you would just look stupid. How do you figure? Thornton won the right to trial by combat. It wasn't until the next year, 1819, that Parliament banned trial by combat. So if your State incorporated the common law as it existed at the time of statehood, and your State was admitted before trial by combat was abolished in 1819, you're good to go.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Actually, no. Trial by battle was only possible in "appeals of death," in which a family member or someone else instituted a private prosecution after the state trial failed. That was the issue in Ashford v. Thornton, in which the scrawny brother charges Thornton again - which is why it's Thornton v. Ashford, not Thornton v. Regina. Since it's not like I can privately prosecute you for doing something (and certainly not for the death penalty), it seems that this element of the common law could not have been imported into the States. It's a procedural problem more than anything else. drat. And given the punishment, the double jeopardy clause would trump as well. Curse you for ruining my fantasy!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
Paisano posted:So I suspect that I already know the answer to this question - but am I still a dumbass for going to law school if I don't actually want to make money and really want to become a prosecutor? Criminal Law was far and away my favorite class in undergrad and it made me really want to pursue a career in the field. Not wanting/expecting/feeling entitled to money simply because you went to law school goes a long way toward staying sane and realistic. Having a reason for going to law school other than "all the lawyers on TV have sex with beautiful people and make tons of money" helps too. Just realize that the public sector job market sucks as much as the private sector, and even if you get a job, it won't pay much. At all. Go down to the courthouse and watch some trials first. Go to a slower-paced (e.g., not Chicago area) jurisdiction and ask to talk to the DA for a while; ask if they could give you a 'day in the life' tour of the operation. Do the same for the PDs office if there is one. If you have a plan to deal with the money angle, I'll be a heretic and say go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I'm gonna take a moment here to do my monthly pitch for JAG. Seconding this, especially if you're single. Plus, if you sign up for JAG before you start or while you're in law school, you don't have to worry about job hunting - so long as you pass the bar in two tries, you're employed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
The Wise Teen posted:Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought it was still pretty hard to get a job in JAG? Are you saying everyone who applies and passes the bar is accepted? No, the two are separate. First, you apply to, and get accepted into the JAG program. After you finish law school, you take the bar. If you pass it in two tries, you go into the military as a JAG. I don't know how the Army, Navy or Air Force handles it if you fail twice; since you signed up to be a lawywer that happens to wear a uniform, I expect they'd let you drop the program. In the Marines, you sign up to be a Marine who happens to do (mostly) law; if you fail twice, you start off like every other officer (except for JAs and pilots) and pick/get assigned your occupational specialty during TBS. (Or you could ask to be let out) 5'11", 150# is not an impediment at all (136# is the Marines' minimum weight for 5'11") RAdm. "Jay" R. Stark posted:Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I want to set the person who drew this comic on fire. I thought it was one of these for a second:  http://www.theonion.com/features/editorial-cartoon/ e: ACTIVIST JUDGES joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
"The Associates" (pt.1) "The Associates" (pt. 2) "Look, I need this job! I owe $27,000 in student loans!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:I have a question for Mookie, or anyone who actually has a lawyer job (So probably only him) Caveat: I am a bibliophile, so if I can justify using books, I will. However, Westlaw/Lexis has been better than books since the mid 90s when modem speeds and interfaces/browsers made electronic research faster than using books. I would expect that it costs more to maintain a useful paper law library than it costs to have a lexis/westlaw account. Plus the time spent checking a digest, pulling a case and then shepardizing it (or whatever they did in the old days) will cost several times the time spent on Lexis/Westlaw. Big firms will have Lexis/Westlaw. Depending on your state, most of the stuff you will need day-to-day is available free online anyway. Knowing book research will earn you Rainman points that one time in your career when there's no internet connectivity for some weird reason. Learn boolean searches. You're in law school. You've got the time and the resources to learn both book and electronic research. What can it hurt? Bibliophile rejoinder: Doing electronic research will never give you a boner. Doing book research here will: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Linguica posted:This blog is amazing: http://chris-armstrong-watch.blogspot.com/ If it is, he just trolled the hell out of Anderson Cooper: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/28/michigan.justice.blog/index.html?hpt=C1 also, he already has his own thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3352548
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Those sons of bitches. Mine was better though, it was about a public defender who has to represent his targets. The "thug-hugger takes to the streets for some wall-to-wall counseling" angle makes more sense than "rule bender takes to the streets to bend the rules even more" - where's the juxtaposition and conflict in the latter?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
nm posted:Needs to be PDs. No, you ain't! (pilot) MMMM! Tastes like ju-ju-bees! Oh, that's good. No, that's bad Small world, big karma Man, do I know you? gently caress! you was my lawyer! To defend (season finale) should probably be on cable...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
Mookie posted:1. I want to make NY level pay, Hey, I've got 1 out of 5!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:It's the same poo poo that makes people think that 75% of students will rank in the top 15% of the class, 85% will make salaries in the 90th percentile after graduating, and that 100% of people can be in the top 2% of earners with enough hard work. And when this special snowflake realizes it isn't true, he concludes that nobody else has a chance, either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:To be fair, some of us are trying to dissuade people from making a life choice that is probably going to go very badly, despite having been lucky ourselves. No, I'm with you - there's a need to counteract some of the cultural myths about law school and the crap that law schools put out to sell seats. But putting out information like, If there ever was a time that a JD was a license to print your own money, it isn't now. If there ever was a time when everyone got awesome jobs right out of law school, it isn't now. Your JD is going to cost a ton of money, and you're not going to see that much difference in salary from a professional who didn't pay out those outrageous sums. Given that the law job market is no different that any other professional job market, and you're not going to pay your loans off in 5 years, a JD isn't the 'sure thing' you thought it was. Is different from 'you might as well slit your wrists and burn your money' (Alone.) (In the rain.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
Gadamer posted:Question. If she's that risk averse, she shouldn't be out drinking. or breathing (Oh my GOD! What if I exhale an infectious microbe that is inhaled by an egg-shell lung plaintiff who then gets a terrible infection and DIES!?!?!) or practicing law (what if I catch IAC? and DIE!?!?!?)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:(opinion is 2010 WL 3928608 and contains much mirth) Non Westlaw version: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1540686.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:We found out about the first two changes from Above the Law/the HL Record ((1) and ... Welcome to 31% of students get an A 59% to 64% of students get B+ or B 5% to 10% of students get B- "or below" The cynicism is starting to make more sense... e: It's USNWR's fault. joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Oct 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:Federal gov. employee goons: Does FOIA actually require the federal government retain documents, or are the only documents that can be requested ones that the agency randomly decided to keep? FOIA does not impose any retention requirements. Each agency will have its own retention policies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:How do you guys feel about putting summaries of your points at the beginning of a motion? I think they're great, and judges appreciate them, too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:(not a lawyer) Should probably be in the Legal Questions Megathread. What state? What kind of arbitration?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Yojimbo Sancho posted:It truly is horrible out there. I'm actually excited to be an applicant for Marine Corps OCS and *hopefully* eventual commission as a JAG. Doesn't hurt that the vast majority of law students can't come close to meeting the PFT requirements. I'll use whatever advantage I have for a job. Would you be going PLC-LAW, or straight OCS without a law guarantee and thinking you'll pick JAG up later? BTW, you'll be commissioned as a Marine Corps officer, not as a JAG. JAG is merely an MOS. (military occupational specialty)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Plus discovery in crim defense is, like, a 20 minute tape of the traffic stop and a picture of / access to the knife, and is not 17,000 emails about Tonka Truck label contracts. Except when it's 68 hours of your client's phone calls from the jail, dumped on you 10 days before trial. In Spanish.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Haha it's so funny how much different Army JAG is than Marine JAG. I was an enlisted Marine and I'll take chillaxing behind my desk as an Army JAG over that oorah semper fidelis motivator bullshit anytime, I care not if there are fatbodies sitting next to me. I went the opposite way. Army brat my entire life, then Marines as a JA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Grammar Fascist posted:Any suggestions for an admin supplement? ginko biloba.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Draile posted:How do you get graded in a clinic if the clinic ends before the cases you work on are resolved? I mean maybe you wrote a brilliant and poetic brief but does it really matter if you lose? Winning or losing has more to do with which end of the power stick you're holding than whether you're right or brilliant or poetic or have justice on your side. Slow the eviction down for a week so the family can move their stuff out? win. Get rentacenter to take their broken crap back and call it even so the family doesn't have to pay the remaining usurious balance? win. Get 12 years on Man1 from a jury rather than the State's offer of 40 on Murder2, even though it should have been an acquittal? Still a win. billion dollar bitch posted:I mean when you think about grading, in the absence of case work to do. My professor feels like she has to take up the class time, and then also (pointless) meetings with her, and mock interviews with stupid people who just say "I don't know" to every single loving question. I rue the day I signed up, thinking it would be seven easy credits. How do you grade on this? A clinic with an absence of casework? When legal aid organizations are turning people away? What do clinics do these days?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Ok, well, if anyone is interested in helping educate a friendly face, Id like to try and get a better grasp of how the US SC works when it comes to receiving / considering applications/cases/motions and such. It's a motion pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 22. The Chief Justice has assigned each federal circuit to a particular justice. (28 USC 42) Kennedy is the designated justice to hear such motions from the 9th circuit. UPDATE: Kennedy has asked the Government to respond (!) (Pursuant to Rule 21)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:They arguably had enough for a Terry stop when they saw a man they had previously detained on a drug dealing arrest standing around a drug neighborhood. That's nowhere near enough for a Terry stop. Before they got out of the car, the cops had dropped all pretence of a consensual encounter or a Terry stop and went straight to seizure, custodial interrogation without Miranda and a search of the guy’s privates, in public, in mixed company. The stop was illegal at its inception, and the cops' later actions only make it worse. Unfortunately, many stops are just like this, but not on videotape. aside: About 10 years ago, one of the cops in town got shot and killed during a traffic stop, the killer was very hard to find because there was no video of the stop. The people of the city raised enough money to get the cops cameras in their cars. The cops then trashed the cameras so they wouldn't be on tape. The cameras lasted maybe a year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Let's assume that the officer did not fabricate what she says she saw him do as they pulled up. What was illegal about the inception of the stop? The fact that they decided to pull up on the guy at all? That's a generous assumption. In any event, if the oficers thought it was a weapon he stuffed in his pants, they could do a Terry pat-down, (not a search) but they didn't. They thought it was drugs - not basis for a Terry stop, not a basis for the full search they did. Pulling up on a person isn't a problem. Pulling up, jumping out and immediately detaining and searching a person is a problem. This was an arrest, not a consentuial encounter, not a Terry stop. There was not enough PC to support the arrest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:I'm also waiting on a call back from a buddy who summered at the firm but ended up taking a position elsewhere. As long as I don't hear "Holy poo poo, it was a nightmare, run away as fast as you can," I'll submit my resume for consideration (I might even if I do hear that, it's a LOT of money, and a well-known enough name that it'd probably help with finding a future position if I hate it there). If you are able to eat and live indoors, stick with a lower-paying job you like vs. a higher-paying one you hate. The extra money isn't worth it. This is the next unheeded lesson after "don't go no jobs die alone" T14 full scholarship caveat: if the new job will (not might, not could) get you where you want to be in your career (positionally, not financially) before your soul shrivels up and you start praying that some family law defendant guns you down at the courthouse, maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Sworn in as a 1st Lieutenant in the Army Reserve JAG today, Veteran's Day! Congratulations! I hope you can wait 'till the spring to go to Charlottesville.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
Mookie posted:"I want to [1]make NY level pay, [2]bill 1900 hours a year, work only with [3]nice people on [4]interesting tasks, and [5]have tons of prestige?" So how does each one score on the Mookie law student dreamin' (M-LSD) scale?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 12:07
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:gently caress mediation. gently caress crazy clients on the other side who refuse to call their insurance adjuster. gently caress getting hometowned. Why am I even doing this poo poo again? Because oral argument or a reversal or a closing or a good cross is better than a date with Aria Giovanni. OK, a really good cross. Besides, welders don't date Aria Giovanni and they're dead from cancer by the time they're 45.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:You can always do ghost writing for pro se litigants who can't handle all the work for themselves, but can't afford a full service attorney, either. If you're considering taking this seriously, it is a terrible, terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Sometimes in Boston the cops will have a bag-searching table in front of the subway and they'll randomly stop people and ask to search their bags. I've never been asked, and I've never stuck around long enough to watch someone who has, but I'm wondering what they do if you say "no thanks" and keep walking, like they were a beggar who asked you for change? Presumably nothing because outside of consent there's no way the 4th amendment lets them search your bag, right? I may be a lovely lawyer but I'm pretty confident on that one. Michigan v. Sitz Why its OK: -OMG! War on Terror! (and The War on Drugs card is getting played out) WOT trumps balancing tests and acceptable level of intrusion tests. -a subway is kind of like an airport or port -Boston is within 100 miles of a border Why its not: -this is a search, not a DUI check.However, the cops will say it was a request for consent + suspicious behavior by [make something up] (i.e. refusing the search) -no regulatory purpose (but Rehnquist pretty much did away with that angle in Sitz)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Criminal Procedure: Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "unusual nervousness." So don't do it ok! + Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "uncharacteristic calmness." __________________________________ Police can justify anything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
^^^^^^Judge Posner posted:Gilding the lily, the officer testified that he was additionally suspicious because when he drove by Broomfield in his squad car before turning around and getting out and accosting him he noticed that Broomfield was “star[ing] straight ahead.” Had Broomfield instead glanced around him, the officer would doubtless have testified that Broomfield seemed nervous or, the preferred term because of its vagueness, “furtive.” Whether you stand still or move, drive above, below, or at the speed limit, you will be described by the police as acting suspiciously should they wish to stop or arrest you. Such subjective, promiscuous appeals to an ineffable intuition should not be credited."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:When I was into it as a teenager entris posted:Wait a minute, I thought Warhammer was first invented in the 80s? Believe it or not, there are people who aged out of RPGs before Warhammer came out and are still alive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
GamingHyena posted:I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional. Excellent and true advice. All I can add is that (particularly as a law student) your issue-spotting abilities are not perfect; the facts that a case may turn upon may not be the same facts that you thought were important enough to remember. Keeping detailed notes and detailed file minutes sucks, but is absolutely necessary. Better a B- than a lost job or reprimand from the Bar or a ding on your malpractice insurance. I learned via a couple of truly inspired rear end chewings. At the time I'd been in practice about eight years. Suck it up and develop the habit now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 04:28
|
|