killthelawyers 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (47) comment rss

  • On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue… As A Class Action

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2017 @ 07:34am

    Re:

    It sounds like there were two issues:

    1) You weren't given enough time to use the PACER training (https://www.pacer.gov/psc/etraining.html) or read the documentation to figure out how to use the system.

    2) Your boss was an enormous asshole.

    Personally, (2) sounds to be the reason why you hate the system and everything associated with it.

  • On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue… As A Class Action

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2017 @ 07:31am

    Re: Government Legal Bureaucrats

    Stenographers get transcripts up within one to two days. They also assure that there is an accurate record of proceedings, which is important if you want to challenge something that happened in court or during a deposition.

  • On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue… As A Class Action

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2017 @ 01:57pm

    Re: Anyone remember?

    You've reached the point of the suit.

  • On the post: Trump Muzzles Federal Employees; Reporters Start Asking For Leaks

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2017 @ 05:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Hm

    Do tell us about your deep familiarity with the FDA and your expert-level background which justifies your opinion.

  • On the post: Rudy Giuliani To Head Up Trump's Cybersecurity Team As The Internet Laughs At Giuliani's Security Bona Fides

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2017 @ 09:48am

    Knowledge is Overrated.

    Who needs knowledge or ability when you have 9/11.

  • On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2017 @ 06:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, the plaintiff is a resident of Massachusetts. I'm not sure how much homecooking that buys him, but it's as good of a reason as any.

  • On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2017 @ 12:38pm

    Re:

    As far as I know, Ken White of Popehat is based out of California and this case was filed in Massachusetts. While the Popehat Signal may find a lawyer willing to take on this case, there are going to be a lot of costs (regardless of attorney's fees) that have to be covered.

  • On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2017 @ 12:35pm

    Re: What goes around, comes around

    Calling someone names isn't libel. Claiming something factually untrue is. This case is about TD's claim that the plaintiff did not invent email and that he has lied or misled people by representing that he did so. Legally speaking, if Mike merely insulted the guy this wouldn't even be a case.

    To put it another way, your schadenfreude is balanced by mild amusement at your ignorance.

  • On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2017 @ 09:20am

    Re: It's kind of off the subject but I have a question...

    Obvious answer: the State prosecutes all cases, while public defenders do not represent all accused.

    It's a fair point about the inequities of funding, but your choice of words was unfortunate.

  • On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2017 @ 09:17am

    Re: Re:

    While I think that the general idea of your post sounds about right, I'm not sure how the fee shifting would work in practice. This really comes down to just hours worked during the case review and public defenders don't traditionally record hours worked. So this would only really work if public defenders were conducting review specifically for this purpose, otherwise it's going to be a rough guess. Additionally, I imagine the majority of the inadvertently discovered cases would be the result of a PD working on a present or future case, rather than working on this project. So, while I see the merits in providing an incentive for the state to provide complete records, I'm just not sure that this is a feasible or effective one.

  • On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2017 @ 07:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Plead Guilty when innocent?

    Criminal defense attorneys want their money up front, as well. Do you have $10,000 for the attorney, plus whatever the cost of the testing?

  • On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2017 @ 07:10am

    Re: Rule 11 -- the part about the prosecutors standing behind filings!

    First, the Rule 11 you are referring to is Civil Rule 11, not Criminal Rule 11. These are criminal cases, so that requirement is not there. That being said, being less than forthcoming with the courts is generally a bad thing.

    Second, the issue being highlighted is that it isn't necessarily easy to figure out which convictions "relied" on these tests. The issue here is you can't just say "all cases involving field tests will be overturned" because there are likely many where drugs were actually recovered, witness statements were collected, and there was other evidence which alone may have been sufficient for a conviction. The end result is that this will be a labor intensive investigation.

    Third, to counter the jist of this article, it's really not a bad thing for defense attorneys to conduct the review. The issue here is this - if you didn't trust the State to fairly adjudicate these cases the first time, why on earth would you trust them to clear people the second time? You do want a party who has a mandate to act in the best interests of their client to conduct the investigation because at least they have an incentive and ethical obligation to do so.

    The real issue here, which has been confounded, is that public defenders are overworked and underfunded. While that has unfortunate and real consequences, the proffered solution in this article is not without fault.

  • On the post: Confirmed Horrible Person James Woods Continues Being Horrible In 'Winning' Awful Lawsuit To Unmask Deceased Online Critic

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2017 @ 01:38pm

    I wonder why the judge did not just request that Mr. White submit the information for an in camera inspection (giving it to the judge for the judge alone to review). If the court had not yet ruled on whether to require revealing the Plaintiff's identity, it seems inappropriate to do so on the premise that the case is now mooted.

  • On the post: Trump Still Falsely Taking Credit For Sprint Jobs He Had Nothing To Do With

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2017 @ 10:50am

    Re:

    Trump will restore this country back to what it was, a country that is not dependent on food stamps and health insurance.

    Well, dying is a solution to both of those problems.

  • On the post: City Passes Ordinance Mandating CCTV Surveillance By Businesses, Including Doctors And Lawyers Offices

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2016 @ 12:22pm

    Re:

    No, really, really no. You're not going to be disbarred for defending anything, so long as you have a reasonable basis for your position. As stupid as this law is, you can think of at least theoretically plausible defenses.

  • On the post: South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2016 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re:

    Well, in the United States, assuming it was manufactured in or before 1898, it would legally not be treated as a firearm. Instead, it is an antique firearm which has significantly more lax restrictions.

  • On the post: Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2016 @ 11:20am

    Re: Regulators are Divine

    Well, except that such content-focused restrictions would fall under strict scrutiny and would be struck down by the courts very quickly because they are not narrowly tailored.

    So, to reply, your uninformed opinion on the law carries no weight.

  • On the post: Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2016 @ 08:13am

    Re: Regulators are Divine

    Net neutrality is not focused on the content of the message and service; rather, it is focused on the competitive advantage an ISP gives to itself or those from whom it is able to extract a price. That has literally nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with preventing anti-competitive practices.

  • On the post: Dunks And Drunks: Jagermeister Blocks Milwaukee Bucks Logo Trademark Application

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2016 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Not unusual

    They don't, but it's an incentives issue. On the one hand, aggressive protection is beneficial because the other side may withdraw its application and, therefore, whatever lost value (however small) you may have suffered will not be felt. Further, it may discourage others from challenging your trademark or infringing because they're aware of how litigious you are. Lastly, there is no punishment for being overly protective, so the only costs are the money you spend and the sting from getting benchslapped on occasion.

  • On the post: Court Says Police Chief's Social Media Policy Violated The First Amendment

    killthelawyers ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2016 @ 06:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Purely coincidental timing I'm sure

    This case was decided on summary judgment. Summary judgment typically comes at the end of the fact-discovery portion of the case. To survive summary judgment, you must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact. That requires more than mere speculation about what may have happened; simply put, you have to show there are some facts which demonstrate the merits of your claim.

    In this case, sure, there's plenty of odd circumstances and speculation about why things happened, but the plaintiffs failed to uncover any facts which demonstrate that the investigations were pretextual for retaliation. Suspicious timing on its own is not evidence that will ever survive on summary judgment because timing does not demonstrate pretext alone. You need facts which demonstrate the pretext, rather than just speculation about motive. Had they found an email or memo directing the department to "dig up dirt", or a witness who claimed they were told so, or just about anything that was more than just speculative, they would have survived summary judgment. That they didn't should tell you more about the strength of their case rather than the wisdom of the judges.

Next >>