|
blarzgh posted:The only right answer is that idiots on social media stay out of it, and let us do our loving jobs. Twitter is not a valid substitute for the justice system, and while 'outrage' is the flavor of the week in social currency right now, no social trend survives time and the limit of human tolerance for stagnation. Things will change, and people will eventually tire of everyone looking for 'the latest thing to get outraged about' and re-posting/hosting/commenting/trembling in unison over their proxy for a desperate bid to belong to something. Counterpoint: the internet
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
but...but...the outrage! And writing a blog/reading wikipedia is totally the same as substantive experience in the legal system. (She says after having to explain to someone elsewhere in D&D that people are not found "innocent" at trial.) On a serious note, this editorial, I think, does a good job of questioning the "all victims always tell the truth" social justice crusader mantra while still pointing out the valid concerns that an overly pessimistic posture towards all alleged victims plays on misogynistic tropes and has the potential to have a chilling effect on sexual assault reports. (and btw...if it's a false allegation, they are an accuser, not a victim) There needs to be a middle ground. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/09/false_rape_accusations_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html And if I can make a request, I would really...REALLY like it if, when teaching sexual assault prevention and bystander intervention, college programs could focus on rape as it is...you know...actually defined by the law of the jurisdiction, please. I think a lot of college campus alcohol related incidents involve people who truly believe they were "raped" because they have been given an inaccurate definition of the term. That being said, there does come a point where a person truly is too drunk to consent. False allegations are rare, but it's naive to pretend they never happen. Still, the individual's remarks, IMO went a little beyond acknowledgement of the reality of false accusations and seemed pretty inappropriate, even if they were taken out of context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Omerta posted:and using "the document speaks for itself" in anything. I use that one. Because if a claim is, for example, that the trial court did not canvass the defendant about X, and it's freaking clear from the transcript that the court did, in fact, do a canvass, one sentence followed by a citation to the transcript page is all you need. Anything else is a waste of time. I also use "the record speaks for itself" to reply to personal attacks against myself or trial counsel. We have a few PDs who didn't get the memo that being a douche doesn't get you very far. (However, to do this, the document/record/transcript really does have to speak for itself. "That never happened." Uh...yes it did...right here.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Also, I figured that it wasn't right because I've never seen a court rely on authority other than rule 12(f) or cases interpreting rule 12(f) when deciding a motion to strike. (Sometimes, courts erroneously strike material associated with a summary judgment motion. The proper way to handle it is to disregard the evidence under rule 56(e).) quote:Defendant moves to strike plaintiff's "amended" civil cover sheet and motion to re-file. ECF 31, 32. Rule 12(f), which addresses only pleadings, is inapplicable because a motion and a civil cover sheet are not "pleadings" as defined by Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Zep Inc. v. Midwest Motor Supply Co., 726 F. Supp. 2d 818, 822 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Although federal courts have the inherent power to strike documents other than pleadings, Anthony v. BTR Auto. Sealing Sys., 339 F.3d 506, 516 (6th Cir. 2003), this Court sees no need to strike plaintiff's "amended" civil cover sheet. Similarly, and although plaintiff's allegations of misconduct by defense counsel are wholly unsupported by the record, the Court nevertheless declines to impose the drastic remedy of striking plaintiff's filing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I've got a second trial in three years scheduled for New Year's eve. The first one, a key witness didn't show but the Crown proceeded anyway. Too bad it's all cops (impaired driving) this time around. Of course, I land from Mexico the day before and would have stayed there if my client didn't refuse to reschedule 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but...but...the outrage! And writing a blog/reading wikipedia is totally the same as substantive experience in the legal system. (She says after having to explain to someone elsewhere in D&D that people are not found "innocent" at trial.) Yeah, this is basically on point, and false/true report stats are inevitably hosed by poo poo like NOLA PD systemically ignoring sex crime reports. Also, I'm not 100% sure how broad this applies, but university sexual misconduct policies don't entirely overlap with local law regarding sexual assault and/or rape (and students heuristically interpret them both as applicable rulesets which makes them susceptible to conflation), and college programs definitely focus on misconduct (their poo poo) over the law (not their poo poo) and there's not a whole lot of resources to discuss where university-level misconduct is not criminal misconduct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
For what it's worth before I started the school made me take an online course about sexual misconduct and specifically said, " This is our rule on campus for our conduct system, any differences with local laws are irrelevant." I appreciated they were at least putting some people on notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah, this is basically on point, and false/true report stats are inevitably hosed by poo poo like NOLA PD systemically ignoring sex crime reports. Unfortunately that's been the NOPD's statistical approach to fighting crime for several years now. Anecdotally I know of several criminal complaints that the NOPD has underreported or simply ignored (neither involving sexual assault), taking a clear home invasion/burglary attempt and charging it as trespassing or disturbing the peace. Or taking an armed robbery ("the guy pulled a gun, threatened to kill me, and took my wallet") and reporting it as simple robbery ("it was unclear whether the victim actually saw a gun and not a cell phone"). Or there will simply be no record of any investigation at all. And then they tout the numbers showing that violent crime has decreased. Thanks NOPD!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I use that one. Because if a claim is, for example, that the trial court did not canvass the defendant about X, and it's freaking clear from the transcript that the court did, in fact, do a canvass, one sentence followed by a citation to the transcript page is all you need. Anything else is a waste of time. I also use "the record speaks for itself" to reply to personal attacks against myself or trial counsel. We have a few PDs who didn't get the memo that being a douche doesn't get you very far. I'm guessing he's talking more about in answers, but I still use that poo poo all the time. I guess I could just deny your interpretation of the writing, but you're not really pleading facts in that situation anyway, so I don't feel too badly. I do also hate failure to state a claim as a special defense, and listing twelve general objections (nine of which are that you object "to the extent that" whatever) will make me hate you. If you think something is overbroad, say so. If not, shut up. And I will yell at you for speaking objections during my depos. No coaching, dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
1. Incorporation by reference. Allowed only in pleadings in my state. Doesn't stop anyone from doing it, though! 2. "Neither admit nor deny but leaves Plaintiffs to their strictest proofs." The only acceptable responses are "Admit," "deny because" or "deny for lack of information or belief." Anything not denied is admitted, so "neither admit nor deny" is an admission. 3. Motions for reconsideration that restate the original motion. Yeah, the judge heard you the first time and didn't buy it. 4. People who don't understand that "received by the Court" does not mean the same thing as "in the mail on the way to the Court." If the deadline is Friday and you put it in the mail Friday, no, it's not timely. 5. Judge's copies are required for all motions, not just your favorites. 6. Judge's copies have to be delivered to chambers, not left with the clerk's office, because they don't always pass them along. 7. Pro pers. I... I might have some issues, you guys. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:2. "Neither admit nor deny but leaves Plaintiffs to their strictest proofs." The only acceptable responses are "Admit," "deny because" or "deny for lack of information or belief." Anything not denied is admitted, so "neither admit nor deny" is an admission. It's never come back to bite the particular partner I'm thinking of, but I fervently hope that one day it does
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
hehe... the aftermath if it does: The New York State Bar neither admits nor denies the respondent's ability to practice law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I don't really get why the spectre of false complaints re: sexual assault gets peoples ears back rather than, say, false criminal complaints just generally. Why is sex assault so different / more concerning
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I don't really get why the spectre of false complaints re: sexual assault gets peoples ears back rather than, say, false criminal complaints just generally. Why is sex assault so different / more concerning I think one reason is that evidence for sexual assault tends to be more dependent on victim testimony than evidence for most other crimes. The consequences for a conviction are also considerably greater than most other crimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Not really though. There's lots of very serious offences where the most important / only evidence will be given by just the victim
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Everything related to sex gets more attention than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Not really though. There's lots of very serious offences where the most important / only evidence will be given by just the victim I don't think that's accurate. In a rape case, there are typically only two witnesses, the victim and the alleged perpetrator. Rape cases typically come down to "he said, she said," since most other evidence would just be evidence of sexual contact, if that. For other serious offenses, there is typically some other evidence--for example, in a murder, there's a dead body, a weapon, etc., etc. I'm not sure what other commonly charged serious offenses would typically rely as much or more on victim testimony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:In my short but horrifying tenure doing family law I had the pleasure of handling false rape accusations, false abuse accusations and false child molestation accusations. I'm betting anyone who does family or criminal law has had at least one. It's not a family law case for me unless there are one of the three accusations above. Also the police were never called, there is no hard evidence and no one to testify other than the party alleging. I tell my clients, pretend I don't believe you and am skeptical. Now convince me. Some can, most can't and drop it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The only right answer is that idiots on social media stay out of it, and let us do our loving jobs. Twitter is not a valid substitute for the justice system, and while 'outrage' is the flavor of the week in social currency right now, no social trend survives time and the limit of human tolerance for stagnation. Things will change, and people will eventually tire of everyone looking for 'the latest thing to get outraged about' and re-posting/hosting/commenting/trembling in unison over their proxy for a desperate bid to belong to something. Fantastic post. Social media lynch mobs are cause for taking a hard look at the media right to access criminal trials in my opinion. And just for the heck of it - the idea of defending a rapist was one of the few things that made me queasy before I passed the bar. Since then, every single rape case I've ever had has been a bullshit allegation that ended in either dismissal or acquittal. The media exposure sex cases gets makes real victims underreport and those crying wolf overreport. Media should just stay the hell out and it would settle down a lot. SlothBear fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Most of us patent nerds' use of motions to strike relates to motions to strike expert reports, where striking the report actually matters, as the report limits the scope of trial testimony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Monday myself and my mentor have a mediation. There are 7 parties. It begins at 9 AM. At around 10:30 PM we go a little crazy and the mediator is not present. So we break into his snack closet and start eating his snacks and cackling hysterically because they're so loving stale. He walks in and overhears us cracking up and talking poo poo about his stale rear end snacks. So then we find a tub of Legos and start building. And mentor starts building a wall and looks at me. 'What're you building?" "gently caress your wall, I'm building a dick" "I'll make you some balls" So we build a giant lego cock and balls on the mediator's conference table. And since the mediator is in the crazy party's room for 4 hours, other attorneys wander in because we've been cordial. And they stay. And they help us build lego dicks and tell me stories about being in Atlanta in the 80s and chasing tail. $2,000 an hour to build Lego dicks between 6 attorneys. All of it billable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:$2,000 an hour to build Lego dicks between 6 attorneys. All of it billable. I love this profession. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I don't really get why the spectre of false complaints re: sexual assault gets peoples ears back rather than, say, false criminal complaints just generally. Why is sex assault so different / more concerning Solid Lizzie fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I don't really get why the spectre of false complaints re: sexual assault gets peoples ears back rather than, say, false criminal complaints just generally. Why is sex assault so different / more concerning There are a lot of people who see every interaction between people as a struggle between Oppressors and the Oppressed, and the Oppressed are always right. Because the defendants in these case are almost always men (Oppressors), activists see any acquittal or dropped charge as a victory for Oppression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Takes a special kind of lens to view the quoted content as referring to "activists" getting upset over aqcquittals
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Just a reminder that as attorneys you are only exposed to cases where victims being criminal complaints, a relatively small % of all instances where rape occurs, and likely one biased towards the sorts of people who would raise a false accusation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:Just a reminder that as attorneys you are only exposed to cases where victims being criminal complaints, a relatively small % of all instances where rape occurs, and likely one biased towards the sorts of people who would raise a false accusation. Right, this point was made a few times, already. The issue is not, "does rape/sexual assault actually happen very much?" The issue is that the over-zealous, uninformed masses of twitter activists will label any rational, practical discussion of the issue "an outrage."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Scraps I almost posted my mediation story, but nothing will compare to yours. My job has reassigned all of my work for my final two weeks, but they want me to sit in the office to answer questions from staff or other attorneys. I brought my kindle today. I'm two weeks away from losing my all access Westlaw account. Anything interesting I should research for fun?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Scraps I almost posted my mediation story, but nothing will compare to yours. I swear to God I remember researching something from the Tex. Water Code or Health and Safety Code like 4 years ago, about how a properly Designated Cemetery in Texas cannot be condemned/taken through eminent domain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Scraps I almost posted my mediation story, but nothing will compare to yours. Yes. Bicycling dui laws by jurisdiction. As far as I know it's only legal in Illinois to bike while drunk but I'd think Portland and Minneapolis or wherever else might allow it too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Scraps I almost posted my mediation story, but nothing will compare to yours. 50 state survey on sodomy laws
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yes. Bicycling dui laws by jurisdiction. As far as I know it's only legal in Illinois to bike while drunk but I'd think Portland and Minneapolis or wherever else might allow it too. In Virginia you can get a DUI for riding a horse while intoxicated. Virginia owns* *does not own
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:50 state survey on sodomy laws Texas's remains on the books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Texas's remains on the books. Just hanging on till the godless heathens are kicked off the SCOTUS and lawrence can get rightly overturned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
I've just discovered my Westlaw access does not extend to criminal only secondary sources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I swear to God I remember researching something from the Tex. Water Code or Health and Safety Code like 4 years ago, about how a properly Designated Cemetery in Texas cannot be condemned/taken through eminent domain. Has to be an arbitrage opportunity here
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
My 1L memo was on Texas attractive nuisance law. It doesn't sound entertaining but then you discover tons of cases from the 1950s where a judge justifies the open and obvious nature of a condition with language like, "the danger would be apparent even to a negro child."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:In Virginia you can get a DUI for riding a horse while intoxicated. Virginia owns* Which makes sense, since horses are objectively more dangerous than any machine. Soylent Pudding posted:My 1L memo was on Texas attractive nuisance law. It doesn't sound entertaining but then you discover tons of cases from the 1950s where a judge justifies the open and obvious nature of a condition with language like, "the danger would be apparent even to a negro child." My super old WWII vet professor made the class write a paper titled 'What the Art Institute of Chicago says about Colored People.' I can never run for office due to that (and posting here, of course). mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Which makes sense, since horses are objectively more dangerous than any machine. They're bigger assholes than any machine, too. Some days I wonder if my commute to Tysons would be quicker on horseback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yes. Bicycling dui laws by jurisdiction. As far as I know it's only legal in Illinois to bike while drunk but I'd think Portland and Minneapolis or wherever else might allow it too. This is one of the best posts we did while we still owned Bitter Lawyer: http://www.bitterlawyer.com/ride-a-bicycle-drunk/
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
