Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›13 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

reposting from old thread:

There's an extra list tag just after the "getting that clerkship".

The last paragraph of the "work for the feds?" quoted post is semi-duplicated.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Mar 18, 2019

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 02:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 05:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I saw a post about "auto admit" and horrible incel racism at the very end of the last thread, and now I'm intrigued.

Sab0921 posted:

If you make a new thread - just have one link to Auto Admit and let people see the racist incel underbelly that makes up the majority of the legal profession, pin it and close it - no one will ever become a lawyer after that and we will have done our duty to protect the children from attorneys.

What's up with that?

Vox Nihili posted:

in two (2) years i will reveal my practice area. prepare your disgust.

That's pretty opimistic, Mr. Manafort.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Aug 8, 2018

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 14:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

this interface can't be real. These posts...

Oh,

I get it,

I died in that car crash, didn't I

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 15:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

blarzgh posted:

Also, reposting this here because I loving nailed it.

I was just about to post my congratulations.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2018 06:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I know that Advance and Next were an attempt to get out in front of increasing digitization, quality and accessibility of public case records. How many years will it be before the public systems catch up?

# ¿ Aug 12, 2018 22:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

For your collective bemusement. "Pace" is a drug being marketed as a dietary supplement that increases the enjoyment of, and reduces the harmful effects of, alcohol (its active ingredient is theorized to work by triggering a satiety receptor, but just lol if you think it's passed even the most basic of safety testing). Check out the insane liability waiver language on its website as well as the parts where the manufacturer is actively seeking investors- and where the labeling is conveniently blurred in all the photos. All courtesy of the "Diet Alcohol Corporation of the Americas."

I need to find a way to fast-track report this to FDA.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2018 01:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I shoulda realized I needed to quote it.

quote:

This product has not been evaluated by the FDA. Breaking the seal indicates that you waive any/all right to bring claim against manufacturer and that you become solely liable for its use once opened. Consumption or possession of this product indicates you agree to the terms described herein. These claims have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to treat, cure or prevent any disease or medical condition.

Recommended Use: Take one half bottle prior to drinking alcohol or in conjunction with. Slowly drink more as you continue to consume alcohol. Continue to drink more until the desire to drink alcohol diminishes. As a stand alone drink, take 1 entire bottle to start. Consume more as needed. Onset time of effect may vary depending on individual and food consumed prior to use. Do not exceed the recommended dosage. Use or discard contents within 12 hours of breaking seal. Refrigerate after opening.

Terms of use: In testing this product has been shown to reduce excessive behavior, including but not limited to alcohol consumption and binge behavior.

Please learn more about our commitment to you and ongoing customer relationship development, we call: 'Evidence Based Drinking'.

Caution: Keep out of reach of children. This product is not intended for use by minors or those under the required age for the consumption of alcohol in any jurisdiction. This product contains an aminoindane class of supplement that
has an inebriating quality similar to alcohol. Do not drive or operate machinery during use. Effects may be stronger or last longer than alcohol. Until effects of product are well known to you, use extreme caution during use. Product will affect your judgment and motor skills. Do not take this product if you are pregnant or nursing. If you are taking other medication or drugs, or have any medical condition consult your physician before using this or any inebriant.

THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NO ALCOHOL
This product is not designed for weight loss however may help you lose weight by helping you eat and drink less.

PACE, Pace Yourself, evidence based drinking are trade/service marks of DACOA. Use of these marks without prior written authorization from DACOA is strictly prohibited.

this is, to be clear, all a single body of text in the "About pace" part of the website.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2018 05:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I just don't understand how these Trump fuckwits can be poor. It's almost as infuriating as the ones who will never be poor.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2018 03:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I heard a sick rumor that there were Yankees fans in this here thread.

Hey, are you {{{Yankish}}}?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 16, 2018

# ¿ Aug 16, 2018 20:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Look Sir Droids posted:

Are pain and suffering damages allowed in CA small claims?

Usually I just wait for them in the courthouse parking area to get that.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2018 23:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Anyone know how the administration, stats, hires, placements, that sort of thing are looking at Wake Forest? Any colossal scandals?

# ¿ Aug 19, 2018 05:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WWJP?

What Would Jesus Practice?
Where Would Jesus Practice?

WSAPWJD?

What Substance Abuse Problem Would Jesus Develop?

# ¿ Aug 19, 2018 17:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

disjoe posted:

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1031586191626461185

drat, they're on to us.

I came here to post that, drat it.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

I'd rather first chair it anyway. Dude is a magic bullet lawyer.

What do you mean by "magic bullet lawyer"? It sounds complimentary when nothing else you've said was. Does it mean a sort of all-eggs-in-one-basket argument approach?

# ¿ Aug 20, 2018 19:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ActusRhesus posted:

Take that back, you jackass.

Frankly, it fits your profile. Who would you actually root for, the Nats?

# ¿ Aug 22, 2018 06:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

HDD, ask him to sign his fan for you

# ¿ Aug 23, 2018 02:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

yronic heroism posted:

Get him to sign it “your number one fan.”

Kicking myself for missing this one.

Nice piece of fish posted:

This poo poo is loving ridiculous, I have to make a mile wide paper trail of information security compliance even though I by criminal law and attourney ethics am obligated to never give out any loving information at all as a basic function of my work. Oh I have to pinkie swear I won't sell my client's tax return to google on this here 45 page disclaimer? Well good, that certainly stops me from doing something that I'd be in prison for a year over.

The absolute idiocy and draconic loving bullshit way this is implemented is mind-boggling. Particularly since at the same time, money laundering laws just tightened up and I'm not only now legally required to retain incredible amounts of personal and financial information for ages and give them up to the government at the drop of a hat but also at the same time I'm completely disallowed to do those things and obligated to delete this information upon request.

It's just all around.

fwiw my read on GDPR is it's mostly a problem of being absurdly vague, as a necessary function of EU passage. Like with HIPAA (more so than HIPAA), internal compliance/rear end-covering policies are bonkers, but are erroneously attributed directly to the law.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2018 16:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nice piece of fish posted:

You're not wrong. Lacking any kind of case law or other means of narrowing the understanding down, it turns into an excercise of trying to hedge against EVERYTHING in the loving world, because the language is quite vague and the punishments draconian.

I love this because it puts the onus of negotiating the ontological space onto individual adherents, and, indirectly, makes the ethical question the basis of their internal deliberations.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2018 18:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

This patent law stuff is always so incomprehensible

Soothing Vapors posted:

same, same

Sorry, what I mean is: the law is vague, and the governments that are constructing the precedential systems involved have really free reign about what counts or not. They're going to do so based heavily on what their different publics perceive, and on what scandals and abuses reach the public sphere. This produces a really weird, rare situation where entities that are trying to create internal policies around GDPR compliance are suddenly asking themselves not only "what will make people sue us" or "what will make us compliant", but "what will be viewed as acceptable in the eyes of society?" The absence of a clear law makes them indirectly almost have to grapple with the morality of the situation, as a proxy for the law.

Do as thou wilt, etc etc

# ¿ Aug 24, 2018 06:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Yeah but if you get a job in forensic pathology or as a medical examiner it's because you have a broken brain and enjoy it I think

Nah, it's way easier because it means some of the time you don't have to ask.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2018 19:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Is this a necrophilia joke?

No, jeez. Give me some credit. It's a circumcision joke.

That's a hell of a pagesnype though...ugh.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2018 20:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Alexeythegreat posted:

I have no idea how one would make a connection to circumcision from these posts

Thread title.

My apologies, it was a heavy misfire. I should've gone with the narrative model I'd originally scripted, but I was uncomfortable going too graphic after the recent discussion.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2018 20:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Get Money, your list is missing Admiralty and Book Depository law, two notable magic bullet practice areas.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2018 06:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

algebra testes posted:

gently caress I missed lawyer thread lmao

I hope that starts to make up for my failure of an autopsy joke.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Aug 25, 2018

# ¿ Aug 25, 2018 13:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Can anyone inform me about the practice of being a legal investigator? A family friend is attempting to forward me for such a position at an NY firm.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2018 06:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

It probably depends on the state. You may need to have a PI card, and a background as a cop really helps.

nm posted:

If you work for a DA's office in CA you get a badge, a gun, and a cop pension.

Jesus, why does he think my graduate degree qualifies me in any way for that? Why does my network keep sending me face-first into brick walls? Why didn't I accept that offer from Tufts?

edit: correction, the position he wants to put me forward for is "chief knowledge officer". He somehow got the titles confused. Everything's coming up Vox!

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Mar 18, 2019

# ¿ Aug 26, 2018 16:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Soothing Vapors posted:

in this context is warhammer a euphemism for butt stuff

There is no other context, that's the plain meaning of the text

# ¿ Aug 27, 2018 16:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Vox Nihili posted:

Lowtax dies in 2021. Somethingawful LLC is sold to pay for his cremation. The buyer? Our own Adar, who hires a couple goons to slap some upgrades on and tricks Bezos into purchasing the site for $5.5 million as some sort of curiosity.

Too real

# ¿ Aug 28, 2018 06:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I knew going into law school that I could never practice because I don't drink.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2018 19:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

OK, another question related to my earlier one. Do any of you deal with case or document management systems at work, what do you use, and what should people looking into that software area know?

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 01:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Toona the Cat posted:

I�ve used CLIO and LegalEdge. CLIO is dope but LegalEdge made me want to slit my wrists. Same for OnBase.

Tell me more, please. What context, and what made things dope or miserable?

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 03:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I really appreciate all of this. In the (admittedly unlikely) possibility that this recommendation pulls through and I wind up in some sort of senior information/knowledge management position (despite having last done a sharepoint prep integration like a decade ago), I'll do my best to put it to good use.

As partial repayment, please have a recently posted submission to the Comic Strips thread, from "Pros and Cons"

The joke is supposed to be that he's a bad/dishonest lawyer.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 05:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

We also use sharepoint and it makes me suicidal.

I�ll keep it in mind as an overhead and hours reduction strategy (how well sharepoint works depends heavily on its implementation, and it can be great in many settings, but it�s not designed for legal documentation)

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 06:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mr. Nice! posted:

That's not the joke. He's a lovely person, but he's a good criminal defense attorney. The joke is that 27% would otherwise be a really bad conviction rate but since almost all of his clients are guilty, the fact that he gets more than 1 in 4 off is remarkable.

That would be a reasonable interpretation, but the running joke of the comic strip is both that a) his clients are scum b) he is scum c) he is really incompetent. That�s why I wound up including the explanatory line at the end of the post, it�s opposite of reality.jpg. All the negative traits flow backwards from him being a defense attorney.

The comic�s got a trumpy throughline that�s most visible with the detective.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Aug 30, 2018

# ¿ Aug 30, 2018 16:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

echopapa posted:

I just filed suit against both a lawyer and his client for a Fair Housing violation because the client was in a position where they could make a plausible claim that the lawyer committed the violation (chewing out the chief of medicine at the VA for recommending a support dog) without the client�s authorization.

The only way that could be better is if the dog was deposed.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2018 02:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

blarzgh posted:

A twist of fate, ships passing in the night, the year is 2003 and Toona looks across an empty glass of sake to the other corner of a ramen booth. Looking back is a bright-eyed six foot juvenile spider, going over the a blueprint of the Diet building.

ActusRhesus posted:

Dude: (dejectedly) you�re spiders aren�t you?
Me: yup.
Dude: you outleg me by like six legs don�t you?
Friend: well... we�re LTs.
Dude: (wailing) Eight legs....

Poor kid.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Aug 31, 2018

# ¿ Aug 31, 2018 20:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Continued legal funnies!~ (I promise, last ones, just wanted to show how other goons are reckoning with it)

Selachian posted:

Pros and Cons

sigh. Look, there's a good reason the people Rhodes defends are always guilty -- because it's just not funny if he's incompetently defending innocents (unless you're going for really black comedy). But if you start treating it as a genuine moral quandary the whole thing falls apart.

SuperKlaus posted:

Yeah this is the last straw. I'm moving P&C to my scroll-past list. I evidently gave the author far too much credit when I said I felt he had a real understanding of the court system. I was getting all spun up to deliver a lecture to no one in particular about how and why it works the way it does but you know what this deepening quagmire of a right-wing rant of a strip isn't worth it. It takes too much energy to correct even people with decent politics who get their information from fuckin' Law and Order or some poo poo, and it isn't like Meehan is reading this thread. Probably.

In Debate and Discussion imbeciles were, no joke, screaming about the death of democracy when they thought Manafort would get acquitted because his defense used a reasonable doubt chart

NRVNQSR posted:

Obviously there's a false dichotomy in the strip; a defense attorney prioritizing his client isn't in opposition to justice, it's an important part of it. But if we give the author some completely unearned benefit of the doubt, isn't it reasonable that a lawyer might have conscience issues from successfully defending someone they know to be both guilty and dangerous?

Of course I get all my knowledge of legal ethics from Phoenix Wright, so hey.

(truthfully I really dislike the reasonable doubt chart that I saw getting bandied around in DnD, it's one of those floating spectrum bound trick ones)

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 03:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Oh I just got a raise and promotion. Maybe I should stop caring about the child slaves who made my phone and just live my life.

Hot Dog Day, I think the answer to your moral dilemma lies...

...on the blockchain

# ¿ Sep 6, 2018 02:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeah I can't match the reporting with the content of the bill. It's very weird, there's a whole causal slice I'm missing, unless I"m misinterpreting the criminal cost limit sections and those acts are now functionally legal.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2018 02:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'd advise maybe boning up on the clean energy tech and infrastructure going on in TX? It has sufficient overlap with the areas of your work that you might be able to identify areas where you can do good.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2018 17:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 05:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

The two voxs are my favorite posters.

thankee, thankee.

Any consideration of death penalty policy should bear in mind that current death penalty methods are inhumane in part because of efforts by anti-death penalty advocates to make other methods impossible. This is a direct parallel (I mean really direct, down to threatening airlines) to animal rights groups poo poo.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2018 04:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›13 »