Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
Thorn.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
They're jettisoning the old agreement and starting with a brand new financing agreement. The old one is null and void, by my reading. They should have no right to a single penny from before the signing of that agreement.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Nice job.
Before she spends it all, may be worth noting that if the principal was reduced, she could have COD income if the extender is not passed again. (At least, I think so; haven't dealt with that rule re forgiveness on a principal residence.)
Before she spends it all, may be worth noting that if the principal was reduced, she could have COD income if the extender is not passed again. (At least, I think so; haven't dealt with that rule re forgiveness on a principal residence.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorn
Footballguy
They "refinanced" the total current balance, i.e., old principal balance plus outstanding interest. The only "downside" is that she will have a balloon payment for the remaining principal and interest ... in 2034.
"I'll be pushing up daises by then," she said.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Isn't this just part of the game?
I had a judge tell me she would dismiss my case the next time I abbreviated Boulevard in the complaint.
Zow
Footballguy
So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
Zow
Footballguy
As for today, I just finished a jury trial I had absolutely zero business winning. Didn't even give myself the trial psychosis where I've prepped so much I convince myself we should win. I litigated the heck out of this thing, but thought I had zero chance. Two examples as to why: my "key" witness gets on the stand, absent-mindedly rolls up his sleeves, and numerous swastika and white power tattoos are displayed (note: there were multiple races on the jury); my client testified and significantly changed her story to the extent that it no longer was consistent with my opening statement and completely obliterated one of our two defenses.
Jury only deliberated for an hour or so. Came back right in the middle of the lunch hour too so I figured they rushed back. Verdict: not guilty. I almost fell out of my chair.
Jury only deliberated for an hour or so. Came back right in the middle of the lunch hour too so I figured they rushed back. Verdict: not guilty. I almost fell out of my chair.
randall146
Footballguy
I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Roarin.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm too worried about potential PCR/ineffective claims and, as ####### terrible as this sounds, I've seen enough of it now that I can mentally prepare for it somewhat. Unfortunately oftentimes the proof issues relies too much on whether the state can prove age (and the majority of the victims in the pictures are never identified so age is an issue).I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?
Zow
Footballguy
Well, then, you've seen in your imagination when I've now seen in hi-def. What this guy did to his rectum should have wrecked him.
Zow
Footballguy
This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.
I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.
-fish-
Footballguy
Can we start a class action against comcast/xfinity? I went to add HBO so I could watch Game of Thrones on Sunday.
On the website, in red letters and a big bold font it says you can add HBO to your existing account for $10. When you hit the big yellow button to accept the offer, it puts it in your cart at $15/month (in smallish print). Three different comcast reps completely ignored the fact that there is an offer for $10/month and said that the promotional offer is $15.
I imagine a ton of people are resubscribing around now, and they're all getting ripped off to the tune of $5/month.
On the website, in red letters and a big bold font it says you can add HBO to your existing account for $10. When you hit the big yellow button to accept the offer, it puts it in your cart at $15/month (in smallish print). Three different comcast reps completely ignored the fact that there is an offer for $10/month and said that the promotional offer is $15.
I imagine a ton of people are resubscribing around now, and they're all getting ripped off to the tune of $5/month.
The General
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
It's really crazy. The original is like a sensitive ring around the guy's #### to see if he gets aroused. It theoretically terrifies me because I'm sure I'd show stimulation to some weird random thing.
The newer technology is even weirder - it's like an airbag around your #### that measures air displacement. What kind of sickos come up with these things?
Last edited by a moderator:
randall146
Footballguy
It is truly awful. And I've seen and heard a ton of other terrible things in criminal cases. Horrible autopsy photos, child molestation victim testimony, etc. I assumed I'd be fine seeing it because doing criminal defense kind of takes away your sensitivity to sick ####. I was way wrong. Like I said it's viscerally disturbing.
How disturbing it was really governs my view on pedophiles too, because I used to assume it was kind of a slippery slope where a person might like regular porn and someone might like "just 18 porn" and someone else might like young teen or then child porn. But when I saw it is was so totally disturbing that I now feel like those attracted to child porn must just flat out wired differently.
Also (and this is a completely non-defense attorney thing to say) I don't think any amount of therapy can change a pedophiles predilection, any more than therapy could make a straight guy gay or a gay guy straight. Therapy can certainly help a person manage and control their urges, but I don't think there's any "cure" to pedophilia.
Last edited by a moderator:
randall146
Footballguy
I will add that, unlike Woz, I've never had the pleasure of viewing dog or sheep ####### videos. Maybe it's because we don't really do that stuff here in Rhode Island. Quahog #######, sure, but who among us doesn't like to #### a nice quahog.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gawain
Footballguy
Costanza defense?So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
Was that site wrong? Should I not have downloaded that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first launched internet explorer that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've visited a lot of 4Chan, and I tell you, people do that all the time.
krista4
Footballguy
That's interesting stuff. I remember listening to a show on NPR that basically came to the same conclusion.
Zow
Footballguy
I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.
I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.
I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.
Gawain
Footballguy
Dealing with sex offenders housing rights was my first big clue that I wasn't going to want to practice for very long.
I have no idea how you guys manage to put it away at night and leave it at the office.
It's a job that needs to be done under our current system (I'd rather go back to inquisitive criminal justice), but I cannot imagine dealing with the cesspool of humanity and not being changed.
krista4
Footballguy
Hey randall, I don't want to post in the SC shooting thread as I don't want to black dot it, but I saw you mentioned Bryan Stevenson in there. I love him and the Equal Justice Initiative. Have been supporting them for several years as I think the work they do is incredible, and he's a fascinating guy to see speak. 
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Good morning so far:
1. Stripper client subtly propositioned me as a thank you.
2. Was referred to as a "damn smart attorney" by an ICE officer who had to explain to the probation department why he could no longer take my client because I wisely crafted the plea and factual basis to make the conviction likely not a deportable one.
1. Stripper client subtly propositioned me as a thank you.
2. Was referred to as a "damn smart attorney" by an ICE officer who had to explain to the probation department why he could no longer take my client because I wisely crafted the plea and factual basis to make the conviction likely not a deportable one.
chet
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.
As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.
Speaking of, my poor paralegal had this conversation with the prosecutor's paralegal this morning:
Theirs: Feel free to set up your own interviews of the civilian witnesses in this case.
Mine: Okay, we need to contact non-victim witness X as we do not have their contact information. Could you please provide it?
Theirs: It should be in the police report.
Mine: it looks like the witness is the victim's sibling and shares the same address. So it's been redacted.
Theirs: That's correct. We won't give out victim information.
Mine: I understand that, but we still need to contact witness X. Would you be okay just providing the witness's telephone number?
Theirs: Send them a letter and see if they are comfortable providing it.
Mine: We don't have their address.
Theirs: Well this is why we usually try to stay out of setting up defense interviews of civilian witnesses.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
She's the reporting party and above 18 so, in my opinion at least, that should be public information. They may attempt to redact it later (although I suppose that ship has sailed).
We don't use the "restricted" language in my jurisdiction so I really don't know though.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.
Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.
I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.
Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.
I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.
El Floppo
Footballguy
Did you get an answer? I don't have time to read through the thread (no idea why I'm reading it in the first place, but it's kind of on par with watching Homeland)... but I live in the city and had my building vacated after a fire.
non-rent-stabilized/controlled apt means its up to the tenant's renter's insurance to cover anything. we had none, and ended up having to pay a lot of money for various vacate-related things (moving, storage, replacement of damaged items, etc). Fortunately, the lease was pretty clear that we didn't have to continue paying rent for our vacated apartment.
I seem to recall my wife rattling off some benefits the stabilized/controlled folk get when forced to vacate. To be clear- I recall the rattling, not the benefits.
Zow
Footballguy
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
No updates yet. Mysteriously, no one is returning my call.
On another front, I just was able to negotitate a massive win on a contract case for my client. King of the world type moment. Today is a good day. For now. It's only 11.
On another front, I just was able to negotitate a massive win on a contract case for my client. King of the world type moment. Today is a good day. For now. It's only 11.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
Thorn
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.
I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Attorneys that deal with electronic discovery: Remember to have someone ensure that redacted records are OCR'ed prior to production. If they use the extracted text from the original record, the redactions can be searched and viewed in the text file despite not being seen on the produced images.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I may have gone with "Libertine", "Licentious", or "Profligate". Still, "gadabout" is a solid choice. Before the movie "Rounders" I may have used that as well, but it seems to have shifted its meaning, at least in my mind.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sort of an aimless social butterfly.Ditkaless Wonders said:
Zow
Footballguy
Awesome.Henry Ford said:
A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.
Similar threads
