Leperflesh posted:

Do clients really insist on, like, "no see, he owed a duty of care while negotiating his own employment contract, because he was acting as an employee, even though he wasn't officially hired yet, even though the logical conclusion of this argument is that nobody can ever actually negotiate favorable terms for their own employment because paying money to employees is contrary to the shareholders' interests"? Purely hanging on "well he participated in decisions about how to decorate his new office, and also they sent him some papers to look at, that's work!" I sorta thought that sort of patently stupid argument was a contrivance invented by lawyers, not clients, but maybe sophisticated clients really do come up with poo poo like that.

Referring to this:
(page 30).
The clients may have told their lawyers "OK but how about he was negligently ripping off his own employer because he was technically an employee before he signed his employment documents" and their lawyers say "no see we didn't present that argument to the Chancery court, so we can't now argue it on appeal" and the clients say "do it anyway?"

Leperflesh posted:

Yeah I guess I'm still stuck on the gap between clearly or arguably frivolity, and what a given judge would consider to be just pointlessly stupid

Leperflesh posted:

So there's no "annoy the judge" factor here? Aren't you risking affecting the judge's overall view of your suit/appeal/whatever, if you pack it full of nonsense that you know perfectly well has no chance, that you're an idiot and your case is probably stupid and so are your clients and gently caress you?

I mean I know judges are supposed to be impartial arbiters of justice, but LOL no they aren't.


My spellcheck accepts both, and so does Marriam Webster; and if you're gonna spell check people's posts, you had no problem with "alot"? Also, you're using a ’ instead of a ' as an apostrophe, and some browsers are going to have trouble with that, depending on character rendition. I assume your stupid apple device is doing it for you, but maybe throw that in the trash and get a device that respects ANSII standards for text-based internet communications.

You know. Since we're rules-lawyering our shitposts now.

blarzgh posted:

In ten years I've never once seen another lawyer sanctioned for making a frivolous argument or claim.

euphronius posted:

It’s a thing ley people thing is real but it is not

VanSandman posted:

What sort of punishment can a judge lay on someone not currently on trial but at a trial, like a rowdy audience member?

euphronius posted:

It’s a thing ley people thing is real but it is not

blarzgh posted:

VanSandman posted:

What sort of punishment can a judge lay on someone not currently on trial but at a trial, like a rowdy audience member?

euphronius posted:

Exactly

blarzgh posted:

contempt sanctions, toss em in a holding cell for a few hours, fine them or both.

euphronius posted:

Btw you can’t cite the dictionary for the definition of legal words

Lmao

Leperflesh posted:

Yeah I guess I'm still stuck on the gap between clearly or arguably frivolity, and what a given judge would consider to be just pointlessly stupid but not rising to the level of something a lawyer should be disciplined for. Like just general sloppiness.

I'd probably make a bad lawyer because I'd be trying to curry favor from the judge by being especially tidy and respectful of their time and telling my clients straight up "no we can't argue this because it won't work because the law doesn't work that way, period" and thereby passing up all the fat idiot client lawyer bux you guys scrape in hand over fist.

Leperflesh posted:

So there's no "annoy the judge" factor here? Aren't you risking affecting the judge's overall view of your suit/appeal/whatever, if you pack it full of nonsense that you know perfectly well has no chance, that you're an idiot and your case is probably stupid and so are your clients and gently caress you?

Leperflesh posted:

Guys I was explicitly arguing about making arguments that bias the judge against you because you're being stupid or generally time-wasting, but fall short of anything that could get you officially sanctioned. I don't know how that was missed.

Leperflesh posted:

I'd probably make a bad lawyer because I'd be trying to curry favor from the judge by being especially tidy and respectful of their time and telling my clients straight up "no we can't argue this because it won't work because the law doesn't work that way, period" and thereby passing up all the fat idiot client lawyer bux you guys scrape in hand over fist.

pentyne posted:

Have you ever heard or seen anyone try to fight/appeal those contempt sanctions or is it like a 100% foolhardy attempt?

blarzgh posted:

contempt sanctions, toss em in a holding cell for a few hours, fine them or both.

VanSandman posted:

What is the legal precedent that allows this? Don't people have a right to a trial and representation?

evilweasel posted:

reading your posts gives the strong suggestion to everyone that we're not getting the full picture here (because each post changes details and/or adds significant new ones); perhaps there are a few things that give the impression that maybe this is a two-way spat between nutjobs, such as you contacting his office to get him fired, rather than complete one-way nutjobbery to a pure an innocent victim

you got your answer already: talk to the police re: harassment. anything else is hugely fact-dependent, which is problematic to tell you anything on because your retelling of the facts is, well, unreliable and leaves key bits out. for example, it is useful to know that the police are the ones talking to the postal inspectors, not you. if you want more, pay a local lawyer to help you who can sit you down and pull out all the relevant facts that they're gonna need to know and then, when you get to "and so that's why i called up his work to get him fired" you have given him money for the pounding headache he now has.

pentyne posted:

The thread has commented and explained, in specific terms what your options are and even if you don't like it the only alternative is to schedule a legal consultation.

euphronius posted:

Judges are motivated by millions of unknowable factors

In my experience the lawyer making some “dumb” arguments is not that important as everyone understands lawyers have a hard job to do and may be performing for their client or just billing hours or whatever

PHIZ KALIFA posted:

the thread has furnished no useful advice i haven't already undertaken myself, because they continue to not address my questions.

AreYouIn posted:

This thread is for your questions that involve legal advice of some sort. This thread is very helpful for explaining general legal concepts that might apply to your circumstances. For example, if you are confused about how to file a lawsuit, and you want to know the general steps, we can explain how that process works in our jurisdiction. If you want to know how to get divorced, we can explain the general process.

This thread is not very helpful for evaluating whether you have a legal claim or not, although the law goons have done some of this in the past. This thread is also not useful for telling you what papers to file in court, or how to respond to a lawsuit, or anything like that. For example, if you want to sue someone, we can point you in the right direction but we can’t tell you what to write on your complaint. If you want to get divorced, we aren’t going to help you figure out all of the paperwork that you will need to file. This information is too specific. This thread should not take the place of an attorney in your decision-making process! You should take everything with a handful of salt, and you should still contact a lawyer!

AreYouIn posted:

If you must post your question here, please follow these guidelines:

1. Tell us what jurisdiction you are in! Generally, this means that you should tell us what state you are in. Most of the questions that are asked in this thread involve areas of law such as landlord/tenant, personal injury, criminal law, family law, employment law, and contracts. These areas of law are very state-specific, so please please please tell us your jurisdiction! A Florida attorney isn’t going to know the answer to a question involving Minnesota law. Make sure your post includes your state at least. You don’t need to include your city or county, in general, and you probably shouldn’t reveal that much information on the internet anyway.
...
6. And lastly, if you are not a lawyer please don’t argue with those of us who are attorneys. If we tell you that The Law means X, and you don’t like that response, please do not argue that The Law REALLY means Y. We aren’t trying to fight with you or make you feel bad, so don’t act like we are your enemies just because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. It’s a disincentive for law goons to participate in this thread when people argue with us as those they understand the law better than we do.

tinytort posted:

NAL, but I believe the precedent can probably be summed up as "judges have the right and responsibility to maintain order in their courtroom" and they're given leeway to do that in whatever way they see fit.

As far as "trial and representation" goes, you're generally not going to get a trial for having refused to sit down and be quiet when the judge told you to sit down and be quiet, on account of you did that in court, in front of a judge. The court doesn't need to prove you were being an obnoxious rear end in a top hat who deserves to spent a day in Courtroom Time Out beforehand.

There are a small number of judges who abuse this, yes, but you're still not going to get a trial on whether or not you're in contempt and now going to jail for however long. If you can make the case that it was biased or unjustified or excessive, you're going to have to do it after the fact.

PHIZ KALIFA posted:

Clarifying "he has made threats" into "he has made threats of violence against my family" is not changing details.

PHIZ KALIFA posted:

Clarifying "he has made threats" into "he has made threats of violence against my family" is not changing details.

I have already spoken to the police. I am consulting with an attourney. Details seem inconsistent between posts because it's an ongoing situation, and most of you aren't actually reading what I'm writing so much as skimming and making assumptions.


this is incorrect, the thread has furnished no useful advice i haven't already undertaken myself, because they continue to not address my questions.

PHIZ KALIFA posted:

I have already spoken to the police. I am consulting with an attourney.

sleepy.eyes posted:

Let's say (hypothetically) I agree to pick up a friend and their significant other from the the airport in Florida. If I had a dashcam, and the SO told me that they didn't consent to being recorded, and I told them that they could choose between that or walking, what mischief could they potentially make if they had more money than God and a vindictive streak a mile wide?

homullus posted:

Are you imagining that cases have obvious right outcomes all the time, and one side is stuck arguing awful stuff? They are like that sometimes, sure, but often there are bad acts, bad facts, or unclear law on both sides. You rarely see cases with exactly the same situation as the precedent(s). An interesting or horrific feature of common law is that judges can read precedent however they want, to arrive at the answer they want. They can look at a precedent and say "yes, that law still applies here, to these different facts" or they can say "well, these facts are different, so that precedent doesn't apply." If the precedent isn't on your side, you do your best to encourage the judge to distinguish it. Afterward, the judge's opinion will make the judgment sound like the natural outcome, and potentially make the other argument sound stupid.