She's my representative. I got a response from her last Friday to one of the "knock it off" emails I sent. It came with a multi-page pdf talking points memo too! It was so chock-full-o-bullshit (as here) that I had to take the rest of the afternoon off and go shoot billiards to avoid destroying any of my belongings or scaring my pets. Only slight exaggeration, and not about Feinstein's response.
You keep using the term "hoover" as a verb, which is 1) distinctly British terminology (I know, because I'm from California and I own the Monty Python box set); and 2) a flagrant use of Hoover's trademark generically in a public forum, risking Hoover's exclusive rights. Don't you care about Hoover's trademarks?
A Theory on the Seeming Ubuiquity of Bad Lawyering
Thing is, in law school they teach you the law, and if you're lucky, some practical skills for the real world. But it's all rather abstract until you are actually in the litigation trenches.
Used to be that most law students would get a clerking job or internship while in school, where they would be mentored by a practicing attorney on how things actually work; what kind of arguments or motions you can actually bring without looking like an idiot or failing the laugh test; and how to go about doing it. Or, would get a job at a law firm after graduation, obtaining the same guidance.
Last five years or so, I have increasingly been astounded by incomprehensible arguments, bizarre motions, and all sorts of litigation weirdness that only frustrates and wastes the time and resources of the Court and all others involved.
When looking at the attorneys' backgrounds, these are often fairly new attorneys, with no boots-on-the-ground practical law firm experience. This trend's timing ties into that whole economic crash business and law firms downsizing, and the like. So these kids just go into business for themselves right out of school, and are wreaking bizarre havoc in the Courts.
This theory was recently buttressed by the California Bar, who is working up proposed CLE practical experience requirements for new lawyers. (OK, so it isn't just me who is seeing this trend.)
An old adage was that a person who graduates from law school then hangs out a shingle should put the word "Malpractice" on it as well.
You damn sure don't want a doctor just out of school cutting into you based on his test scores. Similarly, you probably don't want a fresh new lawyer on his own representing you on anything, you know, important.
I frankly don't know what practical experience the Prenda-related lawyers had prior to opening up their own shops, but I can sure see the correlation to the above theory (with an added extra dose of ethical bankruptcy).
John Steele has done nothing more than what most copyright enforcers do and have to go on.
Satire "horse" or not, are you saying that most copyright enforcement lawyers actually own the copyrights in the porn works sued upon -- works which were likely never "published" per copyright law or ever made for sale, but instead likely posted by the same lawyer on torrent sites to bait potential defendants -- and machinate elaborate subterfuges to obscure the lawyers' ownership of the works from the Courts and public using forged documents, and simultaneously brag about all the money they make, and then respond to legitimate concerns of defendants regarding this activity by carpet bombing most anyone who would formally claim they are doing what they are doing with accusations and retaliatory lawsuits, and then lie like the dickens to the Courts and everyone to brazenly attempt to foist their own cognitive dissonance on everyone else in the face of, you know, reality? Is that what you are saying?
(I know, I know: Don't feed the trolls. But I couldn't help but post this epic sentence after it popped into my head.)
I have dealt with the CA State Bar several times regarding disciplinary proceedings (not about myself). They are way overloaded with (usually unfounded) complaints, and don't tend to countenance bull*** -- not having the time.
My take: They'll look first for the bull, and they should find it rather rapidly.
"the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events"
This is most odd. I don't know from criminal law or MO law, but usually authentication requires "sufficient evidence that it is what you say it is." I.e., not a whole lot. And that it was filmed by the police would in my mind cover that. It should be self-authenticating due to the source.
This article alerted me to the fact that I spend undue amounts of time watching gaming vids. Seeing that Google's study was for the 18-54 US demographic, it seems we've reached a point where it's not embarrassing for, say, a 48-year-old lawyer to learn how to build cool Minecraft stuff from 10-year-old Europeans. Whew.
Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications
Because the NSA can't know to preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications unless it has read the privileged communications already.
I'm not sure whether to become a hermit, or to go all activist guns-a-blazing over this. (That's a metaphor you knee-jerk reactionary govt. fucks.)
Regarding stopping terrorism - my wife says, "We'll take our chances, thanks."
And the concern for us is what happens 25 years down the line if this data collection isn't abated. Then every living citizen will have most or all of his/her life, movements, contacts on file with the US Govt. And what if another Nixon or J. Edgar gets in office and starts cleaning house of ... you know, anyone they don't like? They'll have the goods on everyone.
We've been looking at our pets these last few weeks and been actually, vocally relieved we did not have children. That's scary.
Agreed. That's why I noted the ethics rules are for the "obviousness impaired." We have to take ethics CLE units as well, which my dad notes are silly -- you can't *teach* an adult ethics. They got it or they don't.
Oh, it's an ethical duty ... for obviousness-impaired lawyers.
The CA Rule: B&PC 6068(m) and CRPC 3-500 are essentially the same as MR 1.4(a). Each requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
* * *
ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.