This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What are we talking here? Just making sure this is all de minimis...
I generally talk to opposing counsel beforehand regarding potential authentication issues of text messages. Usually we can reach an agreement/stipulation if both clients review it and confirm it is true and correct. Also, the family law judges* in my jurisdiction seem to have interpreted the more relaxed rules of evidence in civil court to basically mean everything gets admitted and the judge just decides what weight to give the evidence if authentication appears an issue.
A Prosecutor's Office I worked for some decades back had a pro bono policy. We each had to handle two pro bono matters each year. The office decided the best way to avoid conflict was to take appeals of social security benefit denials. That struck me as odd because every client I had was younger than 40 and a biker, the sort likely to end up in court on the wrong side of a prosecution.
Over the years I have wondered whether those two girls were twins.Ditkaless Wonders said:
One of the lap dances I referenced above came from a former client who was an employee at a place where such a gesture was common. She suggested she had friends/co-workers that would help with said dance.
These nitwits are from a Vault 50 firm.
An I.T. firm we may be contracting with sent over a 137 page contract. In addition to insisting that we violate the Colorado Constitution, even after cogent explanation, they insist that their waiver provisions must stand exactly as written. I tried to explain that my concern is that they have an error in the text as well as that my client would not agree to their term. They assured me they make no errors. Given that, I probably have to study up some. See I understand warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose but I have never even heard of matters being fit, or not, for a particularly "Podfwpose". Guess I need to go back to school and learn about this podfwpose concept.
I'm keeping the best of thoughts for you Woz. Your emotions must be all over the place. As I understand such matters the courts give a powerfully strong presumption to not severing such ties if the parents are involved in contesting the matter. I will not ask for details or speculation, I just offer my good wishes.
To clarify, in the event I wasn't clear before, the only issue before the court at this particular trial is whether the parents rights should be severed. Even if that happens it does not mean that the court has decided we get to adopt. That's a whole separate legal proceeding. But the former has to happen before the latter can be possible. Nonetheless, at this stage, we're merely observers and whether it's in the best interests of our foster daughter to be with us is, for the most part, irrelevant for this particular proceeding.bananafish said:
You're not wrong, especially in theory and by an academic reading of the law, but in reality, at least in my jurisdiction, the courts probably find clear and convincing evidence for the severance more than 75% of the time. In other words, the state usually isn't going to go the severance route unless they're pretty darn sure they'll win and the parents have significantly dropped the proverbial ball.Ditkaless Wonders said:
Its always good to see the young opposing lawyer, who you know researched and wrote the brief, sitting in the gallery while the arrogant senior partner guy steps up to the podium to argue.
I'm not even in the gallery. I just finished watching the webcast. In fairness, my wife was the primary drafter and I assisted. This guy was with another firm and is a friend of the client's GC. We found out LAST WEEK that the guy is no longer with a firm, but he still inexplicably was chosen to do the argument. And he was convinced that doing a moot argument was a waste of time.
I normally think that too. I'm still worried here. It should be a slam dunk. This guy also did the oral argument for the intermediate appellate court. I thought he kind of botched that too, but the Panel in that case seemed to be completely adopting our argument. They killed opposing counsel. Then, we didn't hear anything for over a year before an opinion came out against us using reasoning that was nowhere in the opponents briefing and that never came up in argument. It was really weird.
Skipping the moot court where he could have been instructed on a better way to answer those questions is borderline malpractice.
I think you brought this up in jimtan, and used the expression about something else...
Not that it matters, but this is another example of curious reporting on legal issues. The question isn't whether social workers know that perjury is wrong. The question is whether social workers, when testifying in their role as government workers, know that committing perjury is a constitutional violation. If that isn't clearly established law, they are immune from suits under Section 1983 under the qualified immunity doctrine.
