|
Solid Lizzie posted:Do you know what the significance of the lobster costume was? It matches the ugliness of the thinkpad, the ugliest laptop on earth. edit: joat mon posted:The see no error, hear no error, speak of no error monkey that is an appellate court is not capable of understanding anything beyond 'Spot the Dog.' If you've got anything more complex, you will lose. I have no idea who or what Umberto Eco is, but the fundamental fact in my experience is that appellate defence attorneys have some magical inability to comprehend what they read. This disability ranges from misquoting the record (in which case a simple citation suffices), to citing cases almost at random for propositions they simply don't hold. Then you have the wonderful defence attorneys who create "novel" legal arguments that leave you banging your head on the wall (defendant committed the offence in year X, therefore the case law from year X must apply and you must ignore more recent case law as you would more recent statutes!), or just bugger the case in some other manner (like filing stupid poo poo and causing the court to lose jurisdiction). A prosecutor's role in this whole affair isn't limited to following a checklist like some unthinking robot. There are some paths to follow, but there's a great deal of legal research and thinking that you have to do because the defence attorney certainly never will. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Apr 27, 2012 |
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Agesilaus posted:It matches the ugliness of the thinkpad, the ugliest laptop on earth. Maybe that guy is from P-town? So lobster costumes is a normal way of dress? Also, Eco is an Italian author in the post-modern school of literature. He's best known for "The name of the rose," a murder-mystery set in a ~15th century monastery. He's one of those post-modern authors who writes as if they were in a different time; hence the ancient murder-mystery. I only read a bit of it before my mother stole it, but it wasn't terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:If you have a financial windfall within 180 days of filing, it's part of the bankruptcy. If grandma dies or you win megamillions on day 181, it's all free and clear. But if that happens on day 179, the creditors get the first shot at it. Work bonuses, raises, and that sort of thing don't count. It's typically winning prizes, inheritance, or divorce settlements that counts as a financial windfall. That's how it works now, it may have been different before 2005.  Edit: Or I could just be dumb and it's a Chapter 13 that the dude still has to fund 
Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:Do you know what the significance of the lobster costume was? "Please marry me! Don't be shellfish; I'm in hot water without you!"  Or maybe she gave him crabs. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Zenostein posted:Also, Eco is an Italian author in the post-modern school of literature. He's best known for "The name of the rose," a murder-mystery set in a ~15th century monastery. He's one of those post-modern authors who writes as if they were in a different time; hence the ancient murder-mystery. I only read a bit of it before my mother stole it, but it wasn't terrible. Foucault's Pendulum is way better than Dan Brown's stupid bullshit Da Vinci Code.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Gambling winnings/lottery payments should be post-petition earnings if you bought the ticket/gambled away post-petition earnings unless there's something I'm totally lost on. god drat unreadable federal code posted:(6)Proceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of the estate, except such as are earnings from services performed by an individual debtor after the commencement of the case. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Apparently a lot of the major trial lawyers in town get together once a month to play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 in a giant lan party. Depends on your job prospects/security. I made a rather substantial mistake in going all out during a dodgeball game, striking a highly competitive potential employer who had been intimating that he was considering me for a particular position. I did not get that position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I know that gambling/lottery winnings are taken by 7 trustees, but it actually took me a while to pin down why. You're right that only inheritance and divorce are listed specifically. After much sifting through the code, the answer was right there all along: Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I made a rather substantial mistake in going all out during a dodgeball game, striking a highly competitive potential employer who had been intimating that he was considering me for a particular position. Be honest, now. Did you really want to practice schoolyard law? The only decent money is in defending bullies and doing the occasional transactional work on agreements between cliques about who gets to sit on the benches and who gets to use the swings. Sure, you could be one of the .001% who gets to practice sports law, but you have to know someone who is a celebrity athlete in dodgeball, tag, hide-and-seek, or (sometimes) Red Rover. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Apparently a lot of the major trial lawyers in town get together once a month to play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 in a giant lan party. Are you still in Austin? Because the major trial lawyers here are all like 60 and 70 years old. Pretty funny to imagine a geriatric LAN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Are you still in Austin? Because the major trial lawyers here are all like 60 and 70 years old. Pretty funny to imagine a geriatric LAN. Dallas  I want to move back. I've got a plan but it's going to take a while.They're all in their 50s here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:But if the debtor spends his post petition earnings on it, then the estate didn't pay anything I would think - the debtor did. I'm saying this on the assumption it should be relatively easy to separate out pre and post petition assets; I mean doesn't the trustee immediately seize all of the pre-petition assets (i.e. bank accounts) as estate assets? It seems like the gambling winnings would spring out of his post-petition earnings unless there was some way to make it clear the gambling winnings came from pre-petition assets. My understanding is, in a chapter 7, the estate is created by the petition and is not ended until the discharge. Income post petition is not expressly property of the estate but various sections of the code give the trustee avoidance powers over post petition transfers (which my client unfortunately did). Additionally if the trustee feels that my client is abusing the bankruptcy process, he/she can deny the discharge under 707(b)(3). My client has a number of other issues (pre-petition transfers to insiders, etc.) so I don't think this is the case to make a stand on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Dallas
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Mainly just lurk on this thread, but I wanted to share this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...gn=weekly_email Better article: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2012/04/new-york-attorney-suspended-for-writing-bad-briefs.html ABA Article posted:The state court opinion summarized the federal grievance committee’s conclusions. Sobolevsky had submitted briefs of “shockingly poor quality,” the committee found. Defects included incorrect clients' names, inclusion of irrelevant boilerplate, and reference to evidence that had not been submitted. excerpt from decision posted:The Second Circuit proceeding concerned charges that respondent: (1) submitted deficient briefs in seven immigration matters; (2) failed to comply with numerous scheduling orders, including failing to submit briefs in support of immigration petitions; and (3) filed with the Second Circuit petitions that involved immigration proceedings completed in other circuits. The second article contains some of the court decision. I am currently not practicing (no jobs and all that) but when I was I received at least one brief a month that I would classify as "shockingly poor quality". I smiled a bit when I read this article. He got 2 years suspension which seemed a bit harsh. May have been more for the unauthorized practice than anything. e: better article stephelopholus fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
2d Circuit's Order NY's Order e:a copy where the report of the greivance committee is readable. VVVV Because he claimed, "but look at all the good briefs I did!" (out of 64 petitions filed) "In any event, Sobolevsky’s ability to competently discharge his obligations in six cases is not a significant mitigating factor when weighed against the misconduct described in the Committee’s report." Sobolevsky’s ability to competently discharge his obligations in six cases talk about damning with faint praise... joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
joat mon posted:2d Circuit's Order Thanks. quote:1 For purposes of this order, we liberally construe Sobolevsky's June 2009 response in his favor and assume that the three unnamed cases do not include Sulaymanov, Razzakova, or Chion Yin Kong - i.e., that he obtained favorable results and/or wrote good briefs in six different cases. The fact that they have an exact number of his good briefs is very amusing to me. I just scanned through it, and the guy seems like a complete mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
entris posted:Be honest, now. Did you really want to practice schoolyard law? The only decent money is in defending bullies and doing the occasional transactional work on agreements between cliques about who gets to sit on the benches and who gets to use the swings. Sure, you could be one of the .001% who gets to practice sports law, but you have to know someone who is a celebrity athlete in dodgeball, tag, hide-and-seek, or (sometimes) Red Rover. Good luck with that. I hear there's some good money in schoolyard mass torts. Boogie litigation is blowing up, and my buddy just won this class-action settlement of 5 juice boxes and a whoopie cushion
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
entris posted:Be honest, now. Did you really want to practice schoolyard law? The only decent money is in defending bullies and doing the occasional transactional work on agreements between cliques about who gets to sit on the benches and who gets to use the swings. Sure, you could be one of the .001% who gets to practice sports law, but you have to know someone who is a celebrity athlete in dodgeball, tag, hide-and-seek, or (sometimes) Red Rover. Good luck with that. The only time it doesn't pay is when there is only one schoolyard law practicioner. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:But if the debtor spends his post petition earnings on it, then the estate didn't pay anything I would think - the debtor did. I'm saying this on the assumption it should be relatively easy to separate out pre and post petition assets; I mean doesn't the trustee immediately seize all of the pre-petition assets (i.e. bank accounts) as estate assets? It seems like the gambling winnings would spring out of his post-petition earnings unless there was some way to make it clear the gambling winnings came from pre-petition assets. A secondary effect is a loss of discharge. Like let's say the money that bought the ticket is clearly provable as post-petition income. The trustee might not be able to get those funds, but they may object to discharge if the winnings push the debtor's income to disqualify them from a 7.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:In practice none of the assets are "seized" for normal people. So they continue to operate out of the same bank accounts like nothing happened. Unless the debtor makes a clear break, like opening a new bank account, you can't split out the post-petition income. Once the money is co-mingled, you can't unravel it. Instead of having people change accounts, I just tell them to stop playing the lottery for 6 months (and some call me 6 months after their bankruptcy to make sure they can resume playing...). Well Texas doesn't have any cash exemptions and and the state exemptions are way better than the federal exemptions so my clients have $0 balances in their accounts when we file. That said, the trustee still instructs the debtor at every 341 meeting that any post petition gambling or lottery winnings have to be reported and will probably be taken. Edit: Tax or bankruptcy folks, is an individual personally liable for his business's 940 and 941 deficiencies? Are those obligations discharged in bankruptcy? Roger_Mudd fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Yes and no (in that order, in other words bad news) They are hardcore personally liable for 940 & 941 and its not dischargeable. They can pay it through a 13 plan, but it has to be 100%. With the typical amounts I've seen of those taxes, that means they're screwed. I don't know the exact tax end of things, but they roll over as "civil penalties" attached to the owners personally. There's no sunset on it or anything like income tax in bankruptcy. There's no way to kill them off. I've only dealt with small corporations (1-2 owners), which I imagine is what you've got. It seems like the first thing any dying business does is stop paying the payroll tax. So what could have been a clean break from a failed business turns into a giant nightmare of personal liability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
So I'm going to be working the entire Memorial Day long weekend. Yes, I will literally be in Court and in my office working on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. My great reward will be a day and a half of comp time. No money, just comp time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Speaking of bankruptcy, Dewey is going to go into BK pretty drat soon. They canceled their SA class and have lost over 70 partners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:So I'm going to be working the entire Memorial Day long weekend. Yes, I will literally be in Court and in my office working on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. My great reward will be a day and a half of comp time. No money, just comp time. gently caress that poo poo, time to go private.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Dewey Ballantine has been teetering for ages. I used to work with some Dewey defectors who had left for stabler pastures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:Dewey Ballantine has been teetering for ages. I used to work with some Dewey defectors who had left for stabler pastures. Yeah, classmate of mine used to work there, she says they were the worst-run organization she's ever seen. Really sucks for their SA class, though I guess they knew about the firm's troubles going in. Any idea how many summers were in their class?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Edit: Tax or bankruptcy folks, is an individual personally liable for his business's 940 and 941 deficiencies? Are those obligations discharged in bankruptcy? The IRS takes trust fund taxes seriously and will actively pursue collection on a TFRP. I've gone into bankruptcy court before to object to discharges on TFRP assessments that were for tax periods 12 years earlier. 10-8 fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Apr 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
edit: Yeah, what 10-8 said. Roger_Mudd posted:Edit: Tax or bankruptcy folks, is an individual personally liable for his business's 940 and 941 deficiencies? Are those obligations discharged in bankruptcy? My BK professor went over it briefly. Said it was basically the worst thing the debtor could do because the IRS takes it extremely seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:Yeah, classmate of mine used to work there, she says they were the worst-run organization she's ever seen. For what it's worth, I knew a few Howrey summers who got their class canceled and I think they all wound up landing summer slots at other firms, so Dewey summers may not get completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
nm posted:gently caress that poo poo, time to go private. The moment I find a law job that will maintain my salary/broaden my legal background, I am out the door. I am working this saturday too, I got up at five for the great compensation of half a day comp time. I may well be doing the same thing next week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Maintain your salary? Inhale the warm vapors of solo practice, for half the salary at half the hours. The "broadening legal background" is taken care of by watching Judge Judy in all your new free time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
nm posted:gently caress that poo poo, time to go private. But nobility! And the soul! And Plato's people in the cave!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
I would rather have comp time than more money, but I think my circumstances are special.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:But nobility! And the soul! And Plato's people in the cave! It is a question of nobility and souls and plato. I find the situation to be offensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
I'm sure its been brought up before but can anyone help me or point to a good explanation of the Rule Against Perpetuities? The way I understand it, it seems you can't assign any interests beyond the death of the latest life in being just because it is possible (even if unlikely) that the interest will vest beyond 21 years. I have no idea what I'm talking about, help!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
fougera posted:I'm sure its been brought up before but can anyone help me or point to a good explanation of the Rule Against Perpetuities? If this is for the MBE, just skip the two questions over RAP. If this is for a test, may God have mercy on your soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Having trouble giving fucks about finals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
fougera posted:I'm sure its been brought up before but can anyone help me or point to a good explanation of the Rule Against Perpetuities? There is a pretty decent explanation of the RAP in an old law review article - 51 HLR 638 - if you can't get it yourself, PM me and I'll email you a copy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Ani posted:Yes - if it is possible for an interest to vest more than 21 years after a life in being at the time of the bequest, that interest is invalid because of RAP. Yep. If it is possible for an interest to still be contingent after everybody alive at the granting has died, then it violates the rule and is invalid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
All I remember about RAP are the fertile octogenarian and the precocious toddler because both terms are hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 03:44
|
|