|
Vox Nihili posted:please view the below clip, thank you *Pounding table* More! We need more of this!
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Law nerds might be interested to hear that Alberta judge who wrote up the big decision on sovcits dropped a new one recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SeHLhSyT_Y Vvvv thanks for putting in the effort I was too lazy for. I enjoy traffic cone man's lawsplainer vids. I have no education in law, but a healthy curiosity. B33rChiller fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Sep 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
Draadnagel posted:~Snip~ Oh wow! The judiciary striking seems like the kind of big deal that would be noted as an historical spark, years down the road. I bet that got some attention.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 09:01
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Yup, I mentioned my "previous travel plans" to the lawyer I'm working with and they said they'd be in touch with details later. They specifically mentioned a trial, with a start date listed and a date for me being called as a witness several days later. Is there a chance that they might request me to do a deposition instead? That'd be way better than flying. I realise you came here to ask questions, but I'm curious: Are your services in this case something that insurance covers?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 06:58
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Yeah, I have no idea. It's a large health system, so it's presumably covered by their malpractice policy. Thanks. This actually answers it. I was just curious generally, if this was the sort of thing covered by (I was guessing) malpractice insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Also do not create documents from fictional governments, ie Moorish American passports. The crooked USA system will not recognize them. Vvvv how can they be under sanctions, if they're not real, hmmmmm? B33rChiller fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
As a rando with odd interests, one of the best and least expected developments of the 21st century is this new phrase I've learned: Zoom court pro se sovcit. Amazing content. Thank you American dedication to transparency and public access. VvLOL "I know your parents didn't name you iPhone 7. And if they did, I'll change it for free." B33rChiller fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the litigators in this thread spend most of our time either reading people’s emails or using those emails against people That feeling of reminding your gov supervisor that all your email contents are subject to public access requests. "Don't worry. It'll all come out at the inquiry. "
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:As opposed to the interesting kind of law, which isssss.... *crickets* For values of "interesting" mostly within the range of "depressing" to "gently caress this, I'm going to flip burgers" From what I gather, the zoo is seldom boring
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:There's always a new twist on a problem and it always leaves your soul a withered husk.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not really, no. I bounced around a bit at first through various things, some better, some not, and wound up lucking into my current role which is perfect for me, but there are also a grand total of like 5 people who do it (and aren’t on the pharma payroll), so it was very much luck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Neat! Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
I saw what might be the most powerful self own legal strategy by a pro se ever. Guy calls his prior attorney to the stand, and he appears via zoom from the hospital on oxygen. Before the questioning, the witness lays out a big warning about how this guy is going to wave privilege, and that he really shouldn't do this. Guy proceeds, starts arguing with his old attorney on the stand about not being given all the discovery materials while this fella was representing him. The witness lays out some freaking bombs "I got you an acquittal on your first felony sexual assault charge, then you accused me of corruption" Quotes the rules of procedure he was operating under. Explains the rules 3 or 4 separate times. Explains that he handed over all materials when the court ordered it, releasing him from the prior restrictions, etc. Pro se gets negative useful testimony feom his witness (that he compelled to appear while hospitalized for pneumonia) Then the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming: cross. "Did Mr. So and so tell you he was guilty of this sexual assault?" "Yes."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:My head-canon is that the witness/attorney was offered the opportunity to reschedule this hearing but hated this guy so much that he wanted to have the hearing before the pro se guy got some sense or good advice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 00:26
|
|