Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«898 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

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?"

Appeals have very specific and limited wordcounts. For example, initial briefs for Florida DCAs are limited to 50 pages. The appellee then gets 30 pages to answer and the appellant 15 to reply. In the State of Florida v Kraft appeal, the state solicitor general filed a motion a week before his brief was due asking for permission to submit a brief that was 14 pages longer than allowed because the state had to respond to three different defense attorney's arguments along with numerous amicus briefs. The DCA said "nah, make it 15" so the SG did.

If you have room to ask for frivolous poo poo in an appeal, you're probably sunk anyways.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

For frivolous poo poo at the trial level in florida there is fla. stat. ß 57.105. A court can sanction a party and their attorney equally for filing frivolous poo poo in court.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007







Smellrose

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.

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

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

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

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





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 í 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.

Iíve considered your brief and itís bad

Itís judgment

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





blarzgh posted:

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

Itís a thing ley people thing is real but it is not

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





Btw you canít cite the dictionary for the definition of legal words

Lmao

VanSandman
Feb 16, 2011
SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

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

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

euphronius posted:

Itís a thing ley people thing is real but it is not

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

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?

They just get the bailiff to remove them from the courtroom.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

euphronius posted:

Itís a thing ley people thing is real but it is not

57.105s in florida require service of your on the opposing party 21 days before you can bring it to the court's attention. Your motion has to outline the reason the opponent's argument is not supported by the material facts or law. If it actually is sanctionable and makes it the three weeks to get filed, it gets attention. There is a good faith exception:

"Under paragraph (1)(b) if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success."

People have a lot of leeway, but attorneys here absolutely do get hit with 57.105s. A lot of them avoid the sanctions by challenging deficiencies in the process of 57.105 rather than actually defend their sanctionable activities.


e: forgot you're also in florida. I might just work for lovely attorneys and/or have lovely OCs, but my firm has filed a number of 57.105s over the years in their various slapfights.

Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:05 on May 21, 2020

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009






Exactly

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

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?

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

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer


I can't tell if the double misspelling, the followup, or neither are intentional and I got scooped up

pentyne
Nov 7, 2012
I POSTED ON SOMETHINGAWFUL AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS STUPID REDTEXT.


blarzgh posted:

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

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

tater_salad
Sep 15, 2007


euphronius posted:

Btw you canít cite the dictionary for the definition of legal words

Lmao

What if it's Blacks Law Dictionary 1893 Addition/Edition Judgement /Judgment Day Version?

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007







Smellrose

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:

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?

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

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.

If a judge is done with a bullshit argument, they'll let you know. You then move on to your next bit. If you have nothing but bullshit, the judge will get pissed. If you just have a few bullshit things because it's an edge case your client pushed for, its no big deal as long as you understand when the judge says to move on to not go back and try to harp on poo poo that doesn't matter.

homullus
Mar 27, 2009



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.

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.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





Judges are motivated by millions of unknowable factors

In my experience the lawyer making some ďdumbĒ 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

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

pentyne posted:

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

Me personally? No. It happens, particularly in discovery issues. People that get thrown in jail for being rowdy can't really appeal that.

I have seen a dude thrown in jail for back-talking a municipal court judge, tho but because the town didn't have a jail (too small) he just go handcuffed and had to go sit in time out for a couple hours in one of the interview rooms over at PD and it was hilarious.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007







Smellrose

Alright well fair enough, I suppose. Thanks to all of you for answering my dumb idiot questions and putting up with my poo poo posts.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





Administrative law doesnít get talked about much here but itís probably as busy or ... more than ďtraditionalĒ civil and criminal cases and judges are just off the wall in those

And then arbitrators holy hell lmao

It always pays to hire a lawyer who knows the judges

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

Arbitrators do whatever the gently caress they want and there's next to no recourse.

VanSandman
Feb 16, 2011
SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

blarzgh posted:

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

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

tinytort
Jun 10, 2013


VanSandman posted:

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

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
Dec 21, 2011
ABS THUNDERSKULL.

element: thunderbolts.

steed: a thunderbolt.

slogan/motto: "gonna clap them cheeks like a Thunderskull."


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.

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.

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.

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 fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 21, 2020

ulmont
Sep 15, 2010

IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE


euphronius posted:

Judges are motivated by millions of unknowable factors

In my experience the lawyer making some ďdumbĒ 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

...plus sometimes an argument made only in a footnote becomes the winning argument if the judge disagrees with the main argument of the brief but really wants to get rid of those claims.

ulmont
Sep 15, 2010

IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE


PHIZ KALIFA posted:

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

You really should read the OP for this thread.

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 canít tell you what to write on your complaint. If you want to get divorced, we arenít 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 isnít going to know the answer to a question involving Minnesota law. Make sure your post includes your state at least. You donít need to include your city or county, in general, and you probably shouldnít reveal that much information on the internet anyway.
...
6. And lastly, if you are not a lawyer please donít argue with those of us who are attorneys. If we tell you that The Law means X, and you donít like that response, please do not argue that The Law REALLY means Y. We arenít trying to fight with you or make you feel bad, so donít act like we are your enemies just because you didnít get the answer you wanted. Itís 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.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





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.

Not even close

They are in jail for contempt and since they can ďpurgeĒ the contempt by merely complying with the judgeís order there is no constitutional issue.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





Everyone who doesnít pay child support can (and sometimes do) go to jail

There is no criminal trial

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009


MOTRONIC FOR MODERATOR, MAKE AI GREAT AGAIN


Grimey Drawer

PHIZ KALIFA posted:

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

lol

Eminent Domain
Sep 23, 2007





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.

There is a massive difference in "made threats" and "threats of violence towards my family" when it comes to this poo poo.

Talk to that attorney then because for harassment orders it is extremely fact specific and probably will depend on your local court too. That attorney you are talking to will hopefully know what the judges focus on for granting that and how to present the case to get a favorable result.

Be extremely open about what communications you have had with this person, because if you said bad poo poo it is coming out in court probably.

No, even more open. Every detail. Your conversation with that attorney is going to be a maury povich tell all to borrow your quote.

Also don't try to get the harasser fired jesus christ.

Eminent Domain fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 21, 2020

Chicken Doodle
May 16, 2007



PHIZ KALIFA posted:


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

Another legal thread success story!

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





For no reason at all Iím posting this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference


Itís not related to anything and no one should think Iím talking to them or giving them advice

Iím posting it because it is a interesting tort

sleepy.eyes
Sep 14, 2007

Like a pig in a chute.


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?

Outrail
Jan 4, 2009

www.sapphicrobotica.com


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?

They could buy your company and have you transferred to the new Siberian office. I know that's not what you meant but that's what I would do if I had more money than God and a vindictive streak a mile wide.

Also hire paparazzi to follow you nonstop and slanderously report on your every move in the newspaper they bought for this purpose for the next twenty years.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

Nothing scarier than an artillery barrage -- Am I right?


Legal Questions: Failure to read the OP is sanctionable

Whitlam
Aug 2, 2014

Some goons overreact. Go figure.


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.

But doesn't stare decisis mean judges have to rule the exact same thing every time and thus case outcomes are 100% knowable from the outset?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

sleepy.eyes
Sep 14, 2007

Like a pig in a chute.


What can I say? I'm curious, if you take the ride would you be able to make a fuss later? Would the fact you took the ride mean you have up your expectation of privacy or whatever? How would that work?

e: I mean if you actually we're rich why would you even need to ask for a ride? Something very close did happen and it made me wonder what a rich rear end in a top hat could do with the law.

ee: Is there another thread to ask this stuff if it isn't valid? I figured I would get a better answer here then Reddit or something.

sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 02:39 on May 22, 2020

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«898 »