|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I did DCLSIC when I was at Georgetown, and man, representing indigent tenants is the weirdest poo poo ever in a city with strong tenants rights. Like yeah, they haven't paid in like a year but it still is going to take three months to get them out, so why don't you offer to pay their moving costs? Most of the indigent tenant cases I took were like that except nobody involved had clean hands. Usually some client wouldn't pay for a month or two and then their slumlord would commit some egregious violation (like taking the doors off the unit to compel them to pay), turning an otherwise boring eviction case into a battle royale of claims and counterclaims.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
I did some brief work on a sovereign citizen case this summer... it's incredibly frustrating because you're not even really sure how to respond to their gibberish and you have to look through all these huge omnibus bills they cite to. It'd be like getting into a boxing ring and as soon as the bell rings the other boxer starts screaming and crabwalking: there's no question you're going to win, but that doesn't make the experience any more familiar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I did some brief work on a sovereign citizen case this summer... it's incredibly frustrating because you're not even really sure how to respond to their gibberish and you have to look through all these huge omnibus bills they cite to. How come you're so worried about responding to what they're saying? Your true audience is the judge. If something isn't applicable to the issue and it'll be obvious to the judge, just say it's not applicable and move on. No point wasting words on trying to get an insane person to see the light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It sucks, because this client was very vulnerable. The scammers prey on those who are facing foreclosure and are desperate for answers. There's an informal network of scammers who sell "mortgage audits" and teach people how to invalidate their mortgage for a few thousand bucks. The scammer is long gone but the damage is done. The client bought in (they flatly reject discussing that they burned their last few grand on a scam), and they're very psychologically vulnerable. I've got a forceable detainer hearing on Thursday. Same situation, this lady has tried everything to save her house. Not much meat on the bones and she filed a sovereign citizen federal lawsuit. It's pro bono so I'm not going near that federal suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I've got a forceable detainer hearing on Thursday. Same situation, this lady has tried everything to save her house. Not much meat on the bones and she filed a sovereign citizen federal lawsuit. Was the notice given correctly? That's usually the first thing I'd look at if given a hopeless eviction case. Most landlords I ran up against couldn't give a conforming notice if their life depended on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Was the notice given correctly? That's usually the first thing I'd look at if given a hopeless eviction case. Most landlords I ran up against couldn't give a conforming notice if their life depended on it. It's post foreclosure eviction. I actually think the county court lacks jurisdiction thanks to the federal suit. She's already won a JP case arguing notice was incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Tanicius posted:How come you're so worried about responding to what they're saying? Your true audience is the judge. If something isn't applicable to the issue and it'll be obvious to the judge, just say it's not applicable and move on. No point wasting words on trying to get an insane person to see the light. Because if you manage to lose one of those...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Tanicius posted:How come you're so worried about responding to what they're saying? Your true audience is the judge. If something isn't applicable to the issue and it'll be obvious to the judge, just say it's not applicable and move on. No point wasting words on trying to get an insane person to see the light. Yeah, it's not like I tried to explain why the name on the complaint is not the World Bank created corporation or why the court's authority is still valid in spite of yellow frills on the flag. But when they list thirty affirmative defenses, including citations to random TILA provisions, omnibus bills, fight jurisdiction, and then list every common law defense, it takes up a chunk of time to look up that stuff and see if it even has a remote kernel of truth. I also think the judge will think more highly of the attorney that spends a sentence or two explaining why certain defenses have no merit, ie, instead of saying "Defendant's affirmative defenses are bare assertions and have no merit" respond by saying "Fraud must be plead with particularity. See rule/case." Even if you think the defenses are totally retarded, the judge and his staff have to look up all that crap just to make sure since pro se people have a little more latitude. Shut down any possibility and save the judge's office some time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Was the notice given correctly? That's usually the first thing I'd look at if given a hopeless eviction case. Most landlords I ran up against couldn't give a conforming notice if their life depended on it. Option #2 is to dig through every possible definition of "handicapped" to get a Fair Housing Act accommodation to buy a few more days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I've got a forceable detainer hearing on Thursday. Same situation, this lady has tried everything to save her house. Not much meat on the bones and she filed a sovereign citizen federal lawsuit. My real problem now is the scammer convinced her that state court is (gasp) hostile to sovereign citizen bullcrap. She thinks her only option is to quiet title in federal court. I've tried to explain how turning her mortgage into an unsecured debt while owning a free and clear home is not a good idea in bankruptcy (cause VA has poo poo for exemptions). It's not sinking in though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Yeah, it's not like I tried to explain why the name on the complaint is not the World Bank created corporation or why the court's authority is still valid in spite of yellow frills on the flag. But when they list thirty affirmative defenses, including citations to random TILA provisions, omnibus bills, fight jurisdiction, and then list every common law defense, it takes up a chunk of time to look up that stuff and see if it even has a remote kernel of truth. That makes sense. All my experience practicing so far is in criminal court where I think things are at least a bit more streamlined. The judges are (or tend to be) more familiar with the law, and the concepts are usually just tangible enough that it's easier to cut through bullshit without needing written briefs on every issue. Hell, I've seen judges rule against perfectly competent attorneys who submit briefs without even asking for a brief from the other side; they'll just ask for a sentence or two in response on the spot and make a ruling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Stuff Billable hours ya'll
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Matter number 12345: researched whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen" of the United States and potential implications for validity of court authority. 6.2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Matter number 12345: researched whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen" of the United States and potential implications for validity of court authority. 6.2 hours. Man that crazy Alaska dude's pro se complaint had the ballsiest foot note I ever did see. See Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857), a case which has never been explicitly overruled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Man that crazy Alaska dude's pro se complaint had the ballsiest foot note I ever did see. I think technically it's still good for some arcane point of law about diversity jurisdiction, or so my civ pro teacher claimed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Matter number 12345: researched whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen" of the United States and potential implications for validity of court authority. 6.2 hours. Maaaan I am so freakin' jealous. I wish I had a case that I could bill seemingly endless hours to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Man that crazy Alaska dude's pro se complaint had the ballsiest foot note I ever did see. The ballsiest footnote I ever saw also came from Alaska, in a district court case. The attorney said that the creativity of his opponent's motion threatened to overwhelm its lack of merit, and then gave the cite: See, generally, Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (1st ed. 2005)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Matter number 12345: researched whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen" of the United States and potential implications for validity of court authority. 6.2 hours. And? Give us the answer! Also I read about how when George Romney was running for president, people talked about whether his Mexican birth made him ineligible for president, and constitutional scholars generally agreed that he was eligible. I'm glad Romney has never even hinted at being a birther the way many surprisingly mainstream Republican leaders do off the cuff at CPAC and things like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:Smith, nice Lord Denning quote. Just a legend, isn't he? dos4gw posted:Nah I'm in the midlands. My girlfriend lives and works in London though so I have thought about trying to move further south at some point, especially because I'm from the south east originally, but I'm also quite happy here with cheap property prices and an easy commute into work. Also I don't know if I'd struggle to move to another chambers because of the 'provincial' stigma. I"m at the commercial bar in London. Definitely agree that London can be a bitch at times, but there are ways of dealing with it (e.g. I live in Covent Garden, about 10 minutes' walk from chambers, which makes things significantly easier).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome I have to assume most places fix that pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome What group did you end up in? Also, you never replied to my question from a month ago, dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Hehe, yeah my goal is also to stay out of the bullcrap. For me it's a motion for relief in bankruptcy, so thankfully it's limited to a narrow question. The lender actually did screw up assigning the mortgage from it's previous incarnation. I don't think it's fatal to them, because they've halfass corrected it and somebody owns the thing. I summered in bankruptcy court in Miami (and turned down a clerkship there to work as a patent examiner). Florida has an unlimited homestead exemption. The greatest bankruptcy story there was some disbarred attorney who had a multimillion dollar house who came to court for his personal bankruptcy in the most expensive suit I've ever seen (and this was at the time that the same judge was overseeing a huuuuuuge corporate chapter 11 case) while him, his lawyer, the creditors' lawyers and the judge all basically went through the hearing laughing about how he was untouchable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
I have wetdreams of the unlimited homestead... In VA it's $5000... which used to be a true homestead like 1204 years ago, and was left untouched as a cruel joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
Coming from Miami, I felt that tort reform was entirely unnecessary because pretty much every Florida doctor is judgment-proof thanks to the homestead exemption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome I wish that every month had the same level of excitement, happiness, and enthusiasm as my first month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
What I learned during my bar course yesterday: It's okay for a civil lawyer to admit he doesn't know anything about criminal law, but it's not okay for a criminal lawyer to admit he doesn't know anything about civil law. And in a scenario where a senior member of the bar made an illegal submission to the court regarding costs (something about an earlier unreported decision where said lawyer was also counsel so he should have known), I got in trouble for saying I would tell my firm what happened and then deal with the matter as a partner saw fit as opposed to approaching the senior member myself immediately afterwards to basically accuse him of lying to the courts (which is what the majority of the other students would apparently do). I suck at this game. I will be deemed incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
C0pernic, I WILL CRUSH YOU LIKE COCKROACH. PREPARE FOR YOUR DEMISE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:gonna save this to a txt file and rub your face in it in one year
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Ani posted:I've been practicing for almost exactly a year (it's a year a week from now), and honestly, my job's pretty great. I like my coworkers, my work is kind of interesting, the hours are occasionally bad but usually okay, and the firm's been great to me. The only downside is that I am very clearly working in the service of evil, i.e., giant megacorps, but besides that my job is fantastic, and those giant megacorps are great clients. Same here, but I actually got placed on a case where we're mostly on the side of good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Ani posted:The only downside is that I am very clearly working in the service of evil, i.e., giant megacorps, but besides that my job is fantastic, and those giant megacorps are great clients. Don't think of them as evil. Think of them as benevolent mega-churches, trying to bring salvation to the prols by way of sweet, sweet products and services. It's like a papal blessing really. Like all things, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and if some 12 year old Chinese kid has to get a snoot full of toxic chemicals so that I can have my third big screen TV, well, that's just progress. I wouldn't want some shareholder suit or class action impacting my ability to catch a commercial filled rerun of Sex and the City 2: Pink and Scabby in full, glorious, 60" 1080p.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Don't think of them as evil. Think of them as benevolent mega-churches, trying to bring salvation to the prols by way of sweet, sweet products and services. It's like a papal blessing really. Like all things, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and if some 12 year old Chinese kid has to get a snoot full of toxic chemicals so that I can have my third big screen TV, well, that's just progress. I wouldn't want some shareholder suit or class action impacting my ability to catch a commercial filled rerun of Sex and the City 2: Pink and Scabby in full, glorious, 60" 1080p. 1080p? What are you, some kind of luddite? 4k is the new hotness for TVs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:1080p? What are you, some kind of luddite? 4k is the new hotness for TVs. I'm old, and don't need your iPads and other geegaws thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Ani posted:I've been practicing for almost exactly a year (it's a year a week from now), and honestly, my job's pretty great. I like my coworkers, my work is kind of interesting, the hours are occasionally bad but usually okay, and the firm's been great to me. The only downside is that I am very clearly working in the service of evil, i.e., giant megacorps, but besides that my job is fantastic, and those giant megacorps are great clients.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Usually we represent corporation v. corporation, or corporation/person v. IRS, so I feel pretty good. Also all the "little guys" I defend my corporate clients against are either total scumbag liars or are people who caused their own misfortunes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Don't think of them as evil. Think of them as benevolent mega-churches, trying to bring salvation to the prols by way of sweet, sweet products and services. It's like a papal blessing really. Like all things, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet... So, the secular version of transferring, hiding and absolving pedophile priests?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
joat mon posted:So, the secular version of transferring, hiding and absolving pedophile priests? Yes. Except priests don't deliver on the big screen TVs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:total scumbag liars or are people who caused their own misfortunes. Mmmm, my client base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Don't think of them as evil. Think of them as benevolent mega-churches, trying to bring salvation to the prols by way of sweet, sweet products and services. It's like a papal blessing really. Like all things, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and if some 12 year old Chinese kid has to get a snoot full of toxic chemicals so that I can have my third big screen TV, well, that's just progress. I wouldn't want some shareholder suit or class action impacting my ability to catch a commercial filled rerun of Sex and the City 2: Pink and Scabby in full, glorious, 60" 1080p. This is...interesting. I've been at it for a little over a year now, and the way I see it is I'm defending the corporate entity and its owners, not the employees/managers that allegedly did something illegal. So, hypothetically, the manager that sexually harassed and ultimately attempted to rape a subordinate, is he evil? I would argue yes (although others in here might disagree). Are the shareholders of the corporation that hired him evil? Certainly not. Also, space law. http://www.lawsofspaceflight.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 19:05
|
|