Comments for Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 22 May 2012 18:16:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on “Lawyers Intentionally Inflicting Emotional Distress” by L Nettles http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/lawyers-intentionally-inflicting-emotional-distress/comment-page-1/#comment-158555 L Nettles Tue, 22 May 2012 18:16:43 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29891#comment-158555 I once defended a malicious prosecution case brought by 2 lawyers against a doctor. The lawyers alleged they suffered emotional distress when they were served with the suit that was the foundation of the malicious prosecution claim. I imagined the jury falling out of their chair laughing. The case never got that far. (Doctor sued for malpractice by lawyers on behalf of client. Malpractice case dismissed on summary judgment. Doctor sues lawyers. Appeals Court rules only client can be sued for malicious prosecution, not lawyers and dismissed Doctor's suit, then lawyers sue doctor) I once defended a malicious prosecution case brought by 2 lawyers against a doctor. The lawyers alleged they suffered emotional distress when they were served with the suit that was the foundation of the malicious prosecution claim. I imagined the jury falling out of their chair laughing. The case never got that far.

(Doctor sued for malpractice by lawyers on behalf of client. Malpractice case dismissed on summary judgment. Doctor sues lawyers. Appeals Court rules only client can be sued for malicious prosecution, not lawyers and dismissed Doctor’s suit, then lawyers sue doctor)

]]> Comment on Law professor anagram names by Fake Drudge http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/law-professor-anagram-names/comment-page-1/#comment-158549 Fake Drudge Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29797#comment-158549 Tall Swooner? Tall Swooner?

]]> Comment on May 22 roundup by Walter Olson http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/may-22-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-158543 Walter Olson Tue, 22 May 2012 16:18:18 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29705#comment-158543 You make a good point and I've reworded so as not to track the Examiner's perhaps overwrought headline. Musicians are definitely scared of taking their instruments across international lines, but that's still a step short of domestic raids. You make a good point and I’ve reworded so as not to track the Examiner’s perhaps overwrought headline. Musicians are definitely scared of taking their instruments across international lines, but that’s still a step short of domestic raids.

]]> Comment on May 22 roundup by DensityDuck http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/may-22-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-158540 DensityDuck Tue, 22 May 2012 15:58:26 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29705#comment-158540 Nobody's threatened to "sieze" anything. In fact, according to Sen. Alexander, the DoJ and Fish&Wildlife have said that they <i>won't</i> do that. He and Sen. Wyden just want to make a law guaranteeing that it can't happen. The whole "poised to seize" is the article writer's invention. Not that the whole "we're not going after musicians" thing excuses anyone. If anything, it makes it <i>more</i> questionable as to why only Gibson was raided. Nobody’s threatened to “sieze” anything. In fact, according to Sen. Alexander, the DoJ and Fish&Wildlife have said that they won’t do that. He and Sen. Wyden just want to make a law guaranteeing that it can’t happen. The whole “poised to seize” is the article writer’s invention.

Not that the whole “we’re not going after musicians” thing excuses anyone. If anything, it makes it more questionable as to why only Gibson was raided.

]]> Comment on Hands up: this is a civil asset forfeiture by doug http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/hands-up-this-is-a-civil-asset-forfeiture/comment-page-1/#comment-158527 doug Tue, 22 May 2012 13:57:55 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29865#comment-158527 how is that a datapoint? how is that a datapoint?

]]> Comment on Hands up: this is a civil asset forfeiture by L Nettles http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/hands-up-this-is-a-civil-asset-forfeiture/comment-page-1/#comment-158525 L Nettles Tue, 22 May 2012 13:46:09 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29865#comment-158525 A datapoint "MADISON, Wis. (AP) — One of the men convicted in the deadly 1970 bombing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was arrested last week after authorities found $800,000 cash in the motor home he was driving. A court document says 65-year-old Karl Armstrong was arrested in Chicago. The Wisconsin State Journal (http://bit.ly/K5rOKA) reports Armstrong's arrest Thursday led to a search on Saturday by the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation of a Town of Madison trailer home where Armstrong lives for evidence of marijuana trafficking." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-wi--universitybombing-arrest,0,7851065.story A datapoint

“MADISON, Wis. (AP) — One of the men convicted in the deadly 1970 bombing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was arrested last week after authorities found $800,000 cash in the motor home he was driving.

A court document says 65-year-old Karl Armstrong was arrested in Chicago. The Wisconsin State Journal (http://bit.ly/K5rOKA) reports Armstrong’s arrest Thursday led to a search on Saturday by the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation of a Town of Madison trailer home where Armstrong lives for evidence of marijuana trafficking.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-wi–universitybombing-arrest,0,7851065.story

]]> Comment on Feds charge South Texas DA with racketeering by Bumper http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/feds-charge-south-texas-da-with-racketeering/comment-page-1/#comment-158474 Bumper Tue, 22 May 2012 07:16:15 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29748#comment-158474 Incredible irony given OB's misuse of the IRS with the Tea Parties and the outing of Romney supporters and just how bad a Dem does one have to be to get on OB's DOJ radar. Incredible irony given OB’s misuse of the IRS with the Tea Parties and the outing of Romney supporters and just how bad a Dem does one have to be to get on OB’s DOJ radar.

]]> Comment on May 22 roundup by Yeaah http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/may-22-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-158472 Yeaah Tue, 22 May 2012 07:13:34 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29705#comment-158472 Youtube version of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2a9ULpDLgA" rel="nofollow">coffee movie</a>. The video is very slow and has long introductions and you can skip them in this version. Even better if you can download it and double the speed. Youtube version of the coffee movie. The video is very slow and has long introductions and you can skip them in this version.

Even better if you can download it and double the speed.

]]> Comment on “Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families’ Bail Money” by Bill Poser http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/wisconsin-cops-confiscate-families-bail-money/comment-page-1/#comment-158470 Bill Poser Tue, 22 May 2012 06:20:44 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29814#comment-158470 There is something that I don't understand about this case: how is it that the cops were present in the first place? In the jurisdictions that I know about, bail is paid to the clerk of the court, not to the police. In Wisconsin, is bail paid to the police? Or are the police hanging around the clerk's office with their dogs? There is something that I don’t understand about this case: how is it that the cops were present in the first place? In the jurisdictions that I know about, bail is paid to the clerk of the court, not to the police. In Wisconsin, is bail paid to the police? Or are the police hanging around the clerk’s office with their dogs?

]]> Comment on “‘People’s Rights Amendment’ Would Knock Out People’s Rights” by ZB http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/peoples-rights-amendment-would-knock-out-peoples-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-158465 ZB Tue, 22 May 2012 04:02:20 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=29763#comment-158465 Hans Bader, the case is called Dartmouth College v Woodward, or Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. It talks of of the rights of "the trustees" plural to have the contract acknowledged and enforced. The college was merely acting for them ("had standing"), not independent of. Due to your reasoning the whole of The Bill of Rights should apply to the corporate form, yet it does not, never has, and prior to 35 years ago the justices would have picked apart and rejected any lawyer arguing a bank in, and of itself had free speech rights like a born, naturalized citizen(s), or otherwise living breathing human(s). Last year Judge Roberts, showing a line of inconsistency because not even he completely believes such wretched nonsense, ruled that personal privacy laws did not apply to ATT corporation. Still, The Supremes as of the last three to four decades have been excellent usually at finding ways a state licensed "legal fiction", or the "paper mask " people incorporated wear, and usually wealthy (such as a bank, or Monsanto), has rights independent of the "real biologically living face, and body". This type of reasoning is not only of the absurd, but it leads to the corporation in and of itself having a much greater voice than mere humans, individual and freely assembled (associated), as appears to be the intent of the lawyers and judges involved in producing this legal farce. (Talk About Overlawyered!, or should I say over thought, or half baked?) It is without wonder that The United States is rated as a less free society than ever within the last 30 years. (See the Freedom House report on our ranking for press freedoms compared to other countries). Compare that to the days when liberal, and moderate politicians and judges dominated the government 40 + years ago, and properly regulated things. And if freedom of speech (and the Bill of Rights) applies to non-humans equally with humans than certainly The Constitution's Preamble: "We The People", "...blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", and the Ninth Amendment which makes clear rights exist for humans because they are humans do not actually mean what they say. Just one last thing, Hans Bader, since this is an argument in part on who is mangling the reading of the constitutional text, and people love to go back to The Founding Fathers, and The Court Giants for inspiration, how come all along none of them had these notions about bank's speech, and the like, that have been in legal vogue since roughly 1978, or 1980??? If that was the case, surely the Citizens United ruling should have been made 105 years ago to undo the Tillman Act of 1907 it effectively and recently dethroned after a century of practical enforcement? Hans Bader, the case is called Dartmouth College v Woodward, or Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. It talks of of the rights of “the trustees” plural to have the contract acknowledged and enforced. The college was merely acting for them (“had standing”), not independent of.
Due to your reasoning the whole of The Bill of Rights should apply to the corporate form, yet it does not, never has, and prior to 35 years ago the justices would have picked apart and rejected any lawyer arguing a bank in, and of itself had free speech rights like a born, naturalized citizen(s), or otherwise living breathing human(s). Last year Judge Roberts, showing a line of inconsistency because not even he completely believes such wretched nonsense, ruled that personal privacy laws did not apply to ATT corporation. Still, The Supremes as of the last three to four decades have been excellent usually at finding ways a state licensed “legal fiction”, or the “paper mask ” people incorporated wear, and usually wealthy (such as a bank, or Monsanto), has rights independent of the “real biologically living face, and body”. This type of reasoning is not only of the absurd, but it leads to the corporation in and of itself having a much greater voice than mere humans, individual and freely assembled (associated), as appears to be the intent of the lawyers and judges involved in producing this legal farce. (Talk About Overlawyered!, or should I say over thought, or half baked?) It is without wonder that The United States is rated as a less free society than ever within the last 30 years. (See the Freedom House report on our ranking for press freedoms compared to other countries). Compare that to the days when liberal, and moderate politicians and judges dominated the government 40 + years ago, and properly regulated things. And if freedom of speech (and the Bill of Rights) applies to non-humans equally with humans than certainly The Constitution’s Preamble: “We The People”, “…blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, and the Ninth Amendment which makes clear rights exist for humans because they are humans do not actually mean what they say. Just one last thing, Hans Bader, since this is an argument in part on who is mangling the reading of the constitutional text, and people love to go back to The Founding Fathers, and The Court Giants for inspiration, how come all along none of them had these notions about bank’s speech, and the like, that have been in legal vogue since roughly 1978, or 1980??? If that was the case, surely the Citizens United ruling should have been made 105 years ago to undo the Tillman Act of 1907 it effectively and recently dethroned after a century of practical enforcement?

]]>