crazietalk.net

CathyCA wrote:

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Gosh, how I wish you could get us pictures of all these dudes.
Love, Ima

I know! Can't you get your bailiff to snap some pics while you are arraigning these entertaining people?

I will ask. All he can say is no, after all.

I'm working on drafting an Answer and Counterclaim to an utterly ridiculous Complaint this afternoon. While researching various affirmative defenses, I came upon the following typo:

The facts not having been fully developed, Defendant further affirmatively pleads the following affirmative defenses as may be applicable in this action:

Res Ludicata

In legal terms, Res Judicata means "a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties."

In my world, "Res Ludicata" means "a matter that is so ludicrous and far-fetched that no competent court would consider it, nor would any competent attorney undertake representation of the matter.

CathyCA wrote:I'm working on drafting an Answer and Counterclaim to an utterly ridiculous Complaint this afternoon. While researching various affirmative defenses, I came upon the following typo:

The facts not having been fully developed, Defendant further affirmatively pleads the following affirmative defenses as may be applicable in this action:

Res Ludicata

In legal terms, Res Judicata means "a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties."

In my world, "Res Ludicata" means "a matter that is so ludicrous and far-fetched that no competent court would consider it, nor would any competent attorney undertake representation of the matter.

Another handy tip:

When using a stolen credit card for a purchase, it is advisable not to use one's own rewards card to get rewards for said purchase.

lawgrad91 wrote:Another handy tip:

When using a stolen credit card for a purchase, it is advisable not to use one's own rewards card to get rewards for said purchase.

Dang! What a loyal customer!

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Another handy tip:

When using a stolen credit card for a purchase, it is advisable not to use one's own rewards card to get rewards for said purchase.

Dang! What a loyal customer!

And GameStop helpfully printed his name on the receipt. He saved his victim $7.50. What a nice guy.

Two lessons from district court. One, the phrase is "sucker" punch, not "soccer" punch. Two, when there are enormous signs in the hallway that read, "if you have a case, enter the courtroom. Do not remain in the hall," don't come in 45 minutes after your case is called and say, "I have been waiting in the hall for the bailiffs to call me."

Should you ever find yourself in the passenger seat of a car, and your panties and 12 grams of methamphetamine are in an eyeglass case in the passenger floor, it is a bad idea to say to the officer, "I'm not wearing any panties. Do you want to see?"

lawgrad91 wrote:Should you ever find yourself in the passenger seat of a car, and your panties and 12 grams of methamphetamine are in an eyeglass case in the passenger floor, it is a bad idea to say to the officer, "I'm not wearing any panties. Do you want to see?"

Dang! That might invite other charges.

Attempted indecent exposure?

Attempted solicitation?

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Should you ever find yourself in the passenger seat of a car, and your panties and 12 grams of methamphetamine are in an eyeglass case in the passenger floor, it is a bad idea to say to the officer, "I'm not wearing any panties. Do you want to see?"

Dang! That might invite other charges.

Attempted indecent exposure?

Attempted solicitation?

Attempted malicious wounding for the horrible injury that would have occurred to the poor officer's eyes.

Line from a police report: [witness] is believed to suffer from dementia and possibly other mental disorders based on her family.

I hope they don't talk to my family!

lawgrad91 wrote:Line from a police report: [witness] is believed to suffer from dementia and possibly other mental disorders based on her family.

I hope they don't talk to my family!

That reminds me of this:

Punishments are getting harsh in the Varnish Zone.

From a presentencing report: "(defendant) has two children, who will be terminated when she goes to jail."

According to the probation officer, it should say, "(defendant) has CUSTODY OF two children, WHICH will be terminated when she goes to jail."

lawgrad91 wrote:Punishments are getting harsh in the Varnish Zone.

From a presentencing report: "(defendant) has two children, who will be terminated when she goes to jail."

According to the probation officer, it should say, "(defendant) has CUSTODY OF two children, WHICH will be terminated when she goes to jail."

Talk about the sins of the "father" (parent/mother ?) being visited on their children.

lawgrad91 wrote:Punishments are getting harsh in the Varnish Zone.

From a presentencing report: "(defendant) has two children, who will be terminated when she goes to jail."

According to the probation officer, it should say, "(defendant) has CUSTODY OF two children, WHICH will be terminated when she goes to jail."

Oh my goodness! Bad grammar affects me like nails on a chalkboard!

lawgrad91 wrote:Punishments are getting harsh in the Varnish Zone.

From a presentencing report: "(defendant) has two children, who will be terminated when she goes to jail."

According to the probation officer, it should say, "(defendant) has CUSTODY OF two children, WHICH will be terminated when she goes to jail."

Yikes! Poor kids!

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Punishments are getting harsh in the Varnish Zone.

From a presentencing report: "(defendant) has two children, who will be terminated when she goes to jail."

According to the probation officer, it should say, "(defendant) has CUSTODY OF two children, WHICH will be terminated when she goes to jail."

Oh my goodness! Bad grammar affects me like nails on a chalkboard!

Same here!!!!!

I guess the local access TV station thinks it is helping a local business by posting this (or maybe the business is paying for the exposure, bless their hearts) but telling me that the local Mexican joint's lunch special is "Lunch #5" really isn't very helpful.

The sound of metal silverware on teeth makes me cringe.

lawgrad91 wrote:I guess the local access TV station thinks it is helping a local business by posting this (or maybe the business is paying for the exposure, bless their hearts) but telling me that the local Mexican joint's lunch special is "Lunch #5" really isn't very helpful.

I guess you're not a regular there. . .