LTE 2.0

[lawgrad91]

I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

That is too funny. Did everyone keep a straight face?

[Very Duke Blue]

We finally got home today around 4pm. I'm exhausted. And I'm behind at work and will have a shitty day tomorrow. Ugh.

Glad you and your family are home, safe & sound.

[Very Duke Blue]

I can begin shooting balls again with a 5 iron. It's been way over a year since I been able to do either. I'm excited.

You shoot balls with a 5 iron? Where do you load the bullets? And whose balls are you shooting?

That's for me to know and you to find out.

[Very Duke Blue]

[
I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

Too funny. The girl must really be nuts.

[CathyCA]

I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

That is too funny. Did everyone keep a straight face?

The judge had a hard time 'splaining the law to her. My witnesses were beyond frustrated.

[lawgrad91]

T-shirt in court today: "Sarcasm. Just one of the services I offer." It was on a defendant's mama, and he was in court for not paying costs and restitution. She spoke on his behalf. I'm sure the Judge was as impressed as I was.

Our courthouse has a dress code of no shorts. People who wear shorts to court are "invited" to wear orange inmate pants. Today we didn't have enough inmate pants to go around.

[ArkieDukie]

People in hell want ice water, too, buddy. Enjoy your time in protective custody in the Virginia prison system....

[CathyCA]

T-shirt in court today: "Sarcasm. Just one of the services I offer." It was on a defendant's mama, and he was in court for not paying costs and restitution. She spoke on his behalf. I'm sure the Judge was as impressed as I was.

Our courthouse has a dress code of no shorts. People who wear shorts to court are "invited" to wear orange inmate pants. Today we didn't have enough inmate pants to go around.

We should do that in our county.

Does your county have a dress code for tank tops?

[lawgrad91]

T-shirt in court today: "Sarcasm. Just one of the services I offer." It was on a defendant's mama, and he was in court for not paying costs and restitution. She spoke on his behalf. I'm sure the Judge was as impressed as I was.

Our courthouse has a dress code of no shorts. People who wear shorts to court are "invited" to wear orange inmate pants. Today we didn't have enough inmate pants to go around.

We should do that in our county.

Does your county have a dress code for tank tops?

Yes. No tank tops, no shorts, no "inappropriate" T-shirts.

[Lavabe]

T-shirt in court today: "Sarcasm. Just one of the services I offer." It was on a defendant's mama, and he was in court for not paying costs and restitution. She spoke on his behalf. I'm sure the Judge was as impressed as I was.

Our courthouse has a dress code of no shorts. People who wear shorts to court are "invited" to wear orange inmate pants. Today we didn't have enough inmate pants to go around.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but what if you're poor or homeless, and the best/cleanest thing you have to wear is a t-shirt and/or shorts?

Just sayin'.

[colchar]

I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

Up here, there is currently a woman suing the Ontario government because she is a problem gambler and, apparently, the government hasn't done anything to force our casinos to refuse her entry. She is suing for $15 million. If I get picked for that jury I'm wondering if "Are you fucking daft?" is a legally valid verdict?

There is another guy suing our government lottery corporation because he is addicted to instant lottery tickets and the government hasn't taken, according to him, appropriate steps to prevent him from buying scratch tickets. What does he expect them to do - station someone in every single lottery outlet in the province just in case he shows up to buy a ticket. Hell, he's the kind of idiot who would sue for being prevented from buying tickets if the government ever had done anything to prevent him from buying them.

What bugs me even more are the lawyers who file these cases on these people's behalf. They should get demerit points for every ridiculous case they file and, after a certain number of points, they should be suspended for a period of time. After three suspensions they should be disbarred.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Good morning.

It's hot. Damn hot! I think this afternoon I'll get a large mocha iced coffee at Dunkin Donuts. Boy, are they ever tasty and refreshing! I had one yesterday, too!

[lawgrad91]

T-shirt in court today: "Sarcasm. Just one of the services I offer." It was on a defendant's mama, and he was in court for not paying costs and restitution. She spoke on his behalf. I'm sure the Judge was as impressed as I was.

Our courthouse has a dress code of no shorts. People who wear shorts to court are "invited" to wear orange inmate pants. Today we didn't have enough inmate pants to go around.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but what if you're poor or homeless, and the best/cleanest thing you have to wear is a t-shirt and/or shorts?

Just sayin'.

Not my call, Lavabe. Frankly, the shorts don't bother me as much as some of the T-shirts and other assorted and inappropriate clothing, and I know a lot of people here wear shorts to work in the few factories that remain open. I guess the problem is that a lot of people who should know better (and should cover up their more than ample flesh) will wear Daisy Dukes or halter tops to show off their tramp stamps and muffin tops.

FWIW, the people wearing shorts aren't fined or anything, they just wear the orange pants til their case is over, and leave them on their way out.

[CathyCA]

I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

Up here, there is currently a woman suing the Ontario government because she is a problem gambler and, apparently, the government hasn't done anything to force our casinos to refuse her entry. She is suing for $15 million. If I get picked for that jury I'm wondering if "Are you fucking daft?" is a legally valid verdict?

There is another guy suing our government lottery corporation because he is addicted to instant lottery tickets and the government hasn't taken, according to him, appropriate steps to prevent him from buying scratch tickets. What does he expect them to do - station someone in every single lottery outlet in the province just in case he shows up to buy a ticket. Hell, he's the kind of idiot who would sue for being prevented from buying tickets if the government ever had done anything to prevent him from buying them.

What bugs me even more are the lawyers who file these cases on these people's behalf. They should get demerit points for every ridiculous case they file and, after a certain number of points, they should be suspended for a period of time. After three suspensions they should be disbarred.

Lawyers don't draft every complaint that is filed. You would not believe some of the pro se cases that we defend sometimes. I'm working on an answer right now that makes me because the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

[lawgrad91]

What Cathy said. Also, sometimes in the criminal realm, defense attorneys will make arguments that they know have a snowball's chance in hell of winning because their clients will file a bar complaint on them or appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel on them. I don't know how it is in NC, but in VA, the VA State Bar is not our friend.

The brief I'm writing now is in response to a defense attorney who's a friend, who is just trying to cover her ass. Two briefs ago, I answered one written by the defendant himself (after his attorneys had told him he had no appealable issue). Basically, he said we convicted him of theft because he and his "wife" (they've never been married) have two different last names. When you think the Commonwealth spent $500 or more on crap like that (transcript, copies of everything, my time, etc.), it makes you hot under the collar.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

I'm curious. BFD? WTF? Or something else?

[CathyCA]

the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

I'm curious. BFD? WTF? Or something else?

The second one.

[lawgrad91]

the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

I'm curious. BFD? WTF? Or something else?

The second one.

Ozzie, we spend enormous amounts of $$ and invest lots of time so we can say WTF to people in ways that make it not sound like WTF, even citing cases that say, "This dumbass doesn't have a leg to stand on" in officious terminology.

Speaking of not having a leg to stand on....

http://www.koat.com/news/24311811/detail.html

[colchar]

the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

I'm curious. BFD? WTF? Or something else?

The second one.

"Go fuck yourself" might also work. Or, if you want to be even more concise "get fucked" will do.

[colchar]

I may have told you this before, but it's so funny that it bears repeating. I once represented a major air carrier who had terminated one of its flight attendants for stealing bottles of champagne from the plane. She sued the airline for wrongful termination. Her argument was: "I am a kleptomaniac, and it is my disability. Under the ADA, you cannot fire me for this disability."

I kid you not.

It was hard to keep a straight face in the hearing.

Up here, there is currently a woman suing the Ontario government because she is a problem gambler and, apparently, the government hasn't done anything to force our casinos to refuse her entry. She is suing for $15 million. If I get picked for that jury I'm wondering if "Are you fucking daft?" is a legally valid verdict?

There is another guy suing our government lottery corporation because he is addicted to instant lottery tickets and the government hasn't taken, according to him, appropriate steps to prevent him from buying scratch tickets. What does he expect them to do - station someone in every single lottery outlet in the province just in case he shows up to buy a ticket. Hell, he's the kind of idiot who would sue for being prevented from buying tickets if the government ever had done anything to prevent him from buying them.

What bugs me even more are the lawyers who file these cases on these people's behalf. They should get demerit points for every ridiculous case they file and, after a certain number of points, they should be suspended for a period of time. After three suspensions they should be disbarred.

Lawyers don't draft every complaint that is filed. You would not believe some of the pro se cases that we defend sometimes. I'm working on an answer right now that makes me because the litigant does not know what she is doing. I want, with all of my heart, to respond with a sarcastic three-letter defense, yet I must protect my client's interest, so I must do more.

Both of the cases I mentioned involved lawyers filing on behalf of the client.