illinilaw08

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 01:12 PM) What I am trying to point out Alpha is each side agrees that there are people who should not have guns. How we get to that point is the struggle. Until both sides quit the b.s. theatrics, silly memes (really pencils and guns are the same), and all the other deflections, we'll keep having mass casualties. As a gun owner I am concerned that we'll go too far and good people will lose access to their guns. As a person who dislikes people misusing a tool and killing thousands of people every year in the US, I know we can do better. I think part of the problem is that the majority of evidence on firearms is anecdotal. I don't think anyone would argue that we have a problem with the amount of gun deaths in this country (particularly when suicides are included). Do guns actually assist with home protection? What's the net impact there? I'm not a gun owner. I have never fired a gun. I don't have a particular interest in learning to be competent enough with a gun to be comfortable with one. But I don't begrudge using firearms for sport, hunting, etc. I do begrudge people who are unqualified - either because they aren't trained to handle a firearm, are intoxicated, or think carrying a gun on the street makes society safer - from owing firearms. We haven't drilled down on the specifics as to what makes gun deaths in the US unique, and how to reduce that in a way that satisfies both sides of the aisle (ie, not completely removing guns from circulation, and not allowing unfettered access to guns).* * As an aside, part of the issue to me is that suicide gun deaths are not treated that seriously by the firearm lobby, but that's probably getting into a tangent.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) Just when she was growing on me, Amanda goes. I couldn't decide if she was hot or not but I got past all the freckles. That "Are You the One" team's strategy - to throw in other "Are you the One" teams - was very suspect.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) I'm still not sure what a disclosure requirement would do. Let's say we have that and the court and attorneys are provided that information, so what? What are they going to do with that information? Every court considers every claim filed one that has merit unless it is totally frivolous on its face. Do we really want judges using past filings as a factor in determining frivolous claims? I've seen that done with prisoner filings before, but that's when the prisoner files a new complaint against everyone in government on a weekly basis. You're never going to have that extreme with a billionaire trying to bleed a company dry through litigation. And again, what if this person is filing two "frivolous" cases for every five legitimate ones. You can't really say with any certainty the next one will be frivolous. You still have to decide the case on the merits. So nothing changes. It's more about who is the client. If a third party finances litigation, there should be waivers signed acknowledging that they aren't the client, and they have no say in directing the strategy of the case. It's relevant as to whether the plaintiff has waived attorney-client privilege in discovery. You are right - it's not relevant in front of a judge or jury at trail (unless, as you mention above, there's an extreme patter on frivolous filings). But you know as well as I do that litigation isn't file the case then go to trial. IF someone like Thiel was pulling strings behind dozens of lawsuits against Gawker, and directing the plaintiff or their lawyers to pursue riskier strategies in an effort to provide the maximum hurt to Gawker, that might not be relevant to put in front of a judge at trial, but it's extremely relevant to whether Gawker can bring counterclaims against Thiel. And it's relevant to what Gawker is entitled to in discovery.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) I mean if we are just talking about money here, what about situations where the media giant is libeling someone without money? Do they get away with it, because the person being libeled can't afford to take on the media giant in court? I'm not sure if you can bring a libel suit on a contingency basis (I think Jenks probably has a lot more experience in that area), but in general access to the court system should be much more open. A media giant like Gawker (or any other party with means in a lawsuit) shouldn't be able to win litigation by making the litigation long and unduly expensive.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:41 AM) Gawker has has access to the courts and could counter sue him as well if he continued to bring frivolous suits against them. EVentually he would lose a lot of money unless Gawker kept doing wrong. BUt you have a great point here that needs to be considered. Well, but part of the problem is that there's no disclosure requirement. Therefore, Gawker would have no idea that there's was a connecting thread behind all these lawsuits...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) To who though? Jurors? That's unfairly prejudicial for the same reason we can't tlak about insurance to jurors. End of the day who finances the lawsuit is irrelevant. Only facts matter. To the Court at the onset of the case. I'm not saying that this is something that should go in front of a jury, but at a deposition, it's certainly something that has a bearing on whether the lawyer is ethically pursuing the case, and whether the financial backer has a disproportionate level of influence on the case. Certainly doesn't get to the merits of the case, but is still relevant to whether the case is being pursued ethically.* * Note that this is getting away from the meat of this topic.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:55 PM) Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing? It depends. If he's directing the litigation behind the scenes and taking control of the case out of the plaintiffs' hands, then no, he isn't. Hence, disclosing the source of funds for litigation generally.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) I did, they don't mention specifics. You're assuming every case is frivolous. What if they're not? What if some are and some aren't? Is that still an ok tactic?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:48 PM) How do you prevent that though? Is it even possible? In the bankruptcy world (majority of my practice), we have to disclose source of compensation in all cases that we file on behalf of debtors. And if I file a Chapter 11 for someone who gets the funds from a different entity, I have to show that I gave that other person or entity informed consent that they are not the client. I don't see why that's a problem generally - particularly since a lawyer's duty of loyalty is to their client, not the one paying the bills.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:38 PM) They're bankrupt because they did something wrong. You guys keep buying up the whoa is me Gawker bulls***. End of the day, if they didn't do something s***ty to Hogan they wouldn't be in this mess. To me, this literally has nothing to do with Gawker. The Hogan judgment is irrelevant to the conversation of whether billionaires bankrolling any and all litigation against a company they personally dislike (regardless of the basis for that dislike) is something that we, as society, should be ok with. For the record, I also hate - on both sides, plaintiff and debtor - suits brought exclusively in an effort to get a settlement because the settlement is less than the cost of litigating the case. The legal system has legitimate access issues. Using the legal system to further a personal vendetta against a company is bad and wrong. I also think that Gawker's conduct both in outing Thiel, and regarding Hogan, was bad and wrong. Gawker is bankrupt because they did something wrong, but that doesn't make Thiel's conduct right and ok.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead? Jenks, you are looking at this almost exclusively through the lens of Gawker itself. You and I both know that big companies with vast legal resources can spend smaller companies into settling crappy cases that have just enough to get by a motion to dismiss. You and I also both know that contingency fee arrangements are a way to get lawyers to take smaller dollar suits, and to provide access to lawyers generally in certain types of cases (we can get into an argument generally about access to the legal system, but that doesn't really fit here). I don't see anything wrong with Thiel or other billionaires using their funds to provide access to the legal system generally. I do have a problem with billionaires like Thiel seeking out and bankrolling any claim against a particular entity - regardless of the merits of that claim. Bankrolling any and all litigation to try to drive a particular company out of business is, to me, an abuse of the judicial system, regardless of who employs that method.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) Sure, but that's the cost of doing business. That's why you get insurance. I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 09:33 AM) Just so we're clear, you're asserting that marginalizing an entire religion that makes up about 20% of the world due to a small percentage of extremists is on par with pointing out that the sort of ideas trump is proposing and his supporters want are radical, hateful and pragmatically counterproductive? And this somehow means that Democrats are equally to blame for the racist idiot conman that's the nominee of the other party? Obama wasn't saying that calling out radicalism is bad, he was saying that lumping all Muslims in as radicals or at best complicit is. So, I agree that labeling all Republicans as all having the same ideas and values as Trump holds is bad and counterproductive. Where that argument fails, however, is that social conservatives have co-opted legislatures - state and federal - with anti-LGBT, and anti-Muslim policies. The far right wing of the Republican party holds significantly more power over policy than the far left wing of the Democratic party, and that didn't start with Trump.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 04:22 PM) The dad wasn't sensitive enough to what has happened. 50 people massacred! I read today how he had so much ammo that he would shoot people and return to put more bullets in them to make sure they were dead. Horrifying stuff and this dad is talking politics. f*** him. Show some compassion. I'd feel terrible as well. I mean it's going to happen in a sports arena and it's going to be so ugly and the end of sports as we know it. All it would take it gunmen storming each exit and firing away. Thousands dead. We are at war, folks, but we have to be too PC. It's sad when it's a major step just calling it "radical" Islam finally. We are at war. And if the wife knew, she better serve the rest of her days in prison. Greg, how does being "too PC" have anything to do with this? Please explain.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 08:26 AM) She doesn't need Qyburn to know those rumors are true. Someone find Gendry and put him on the throne. Gendry's been in that rowboat for the last 4 seasons... I keep expecting him to pop up in Bravos or Meereen or something.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 01:30 PM) Limbaugh says Trump will win in a landslide. This is interesting talk. is it true? Is Donald Trump our next president? The wild thing is if that is true, Hillary still could run and win in four years. Trump almost certainly won't get re-elected and Hillary would definitely win in 2020. That would be the wildest scenario. I'm serious here. Please comment on my point. It truly would be EASY for Hillary in 2020 if the scenario happens that Trump wins. OK, provided he doesn't get impeached and runs again, nobody, not even most Republicans would vote for more of Trump. We'll be so sick of him in four years. Hillary, meanwhile, has no Bernie trying to annoy her. She is the hailed Democrat nominee, wins in a landslide and she makes history this time without even sweating. So either way ... Trump would just be delaying the inevitable for four years. Greg, you need to stop getting your political news from Rush Limbaugh...

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 12:01 PM) Yes, but for that to come out in the election or debates, there would need to be an admission of racism the other way and the media would go crazy with it. But it also renders reverse racism, to the extent that it exists, irrelevant to policy. So why should it come out at the debates or in the election? Systemic racism is the policy issue, and that flows disproportionately in one direction.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 08:08 AM) Which is exactly why Trump is so popular. The left has honestly convinced itself that racism only works one way, which drives the right crazy, so now they are returning the racism favor. Hate begets hate, racism begets racism. The negative impact of racism in one direction is much more severe than it is the other way. That's the missing part of this conversation, and I don't think there's any evidence out there that can refute that fact.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 10:39 AM) I have no idea. Didnt really seem to me that would be the brotherhoods style to be marauders like that, they seemed (to me at least) to be the type that would be stealing from kingdoms as opposed to murdering peaceful settlers. But anything i know about them is based on the short couple episodes that they have been in Generally, I agree with this. But the Brotherhood in the show did sell Gendry to Melissandre, knowing she was probably going to kill him, back in one of the early seasons. In the books, the Brotherhood gets kind of dark when LSH shows up. It's possible that it was the Brotherhood, they saw the Hound, and that led LSH to give the order to kill everyone (assuming we're getting LSH this season).

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 31, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) She's learned something I've had the impression the Kindly Man always knew, she is a Stark and the North remembers. Were people questioning why she didn't suddenly become a bad ass swordsman when she trained with Syrio? Her wholee arc is about her trying to suppress who she truly is and what she's learned from it. This goes back to her time at Winterfell and her time as Arry. I get that. But in the show, has she ever really suppressed how she is with the Faceless Men? She's said she's no one a whole bunch, but she killed Trant and couldn't keep a straight face during the 7 Kingdoms show. Syrio isn't an apt comparison. She trained with Syrio for practically no time. That's entirely different than her spending two seasons with the Faceless Men. We're led to believe that Bran can become the 3ER in that time. During Arya's time with the Faceless Men in the show, she's scrubbed a bunch of floors, got beaten up a lot, and learned to fight with a bowstaff while blind. I always assumed that Arya was going to be a lot, lot deeper with the Faceless Men before she had the moment where she had to face whether she's a Faceless Man or a Stark. Not wanting to kill a nice lady actress seems like a cheap way to have Arya reach that reckoning because the show never conveyed that she had really given up being a Stark in the first place. Simply put, what has changed between the end of last season when she killed Trant instead of that merchant and now with Arya? Seems like at the end of last season, when put to the test, she chose being a Stark over a Faceless Man. Where has their been development in Arya's arc this season...

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 31, 2016 -> 08:56 AM) Were you expecting her to be some bad ass ninja in a year? Obviously her skills have progressed. We'll have to wait to see how much. It's amazing to me how much some viewers need everything spelled out for them. Other than bowstaff training (while blind), and practicing lying, what training has Arya gotten in the show? Her entire arc with the Faceless Men has been open defiance (killing Trant, not killing the actress) without any forward momentum. Arya is clearly an important character to the end game, and her time with the Faceless Men is important to her arc - otherwise Martin and the show wouldn't have devoted so much time to her. I'm not sure what she's learned in the show that makes her important going forward. But I agree, Arya's arc could have used a time jump...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 31, 2016 -> 08:17 AM) I think she will be running from them for the rest of her life. That's the impression I got from Benioff and Weiss in their episode summary. Queue up the terrible, tragic death in 12 episodes. For as much time as Martin and the show have spent on Arya, that would be such an annoyingly, terrible, ending to her arc. Also, has Arya picked up any real skills in the show? She's a better (but not good enough) liar, she's a better (but not good enough) fighter, and her sneaking skills aren't great (based on the fact that the actress she was supposed to kill noticed Arya was at a ton of their performances).

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ May 27, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) I have a handful of trophies from my childhood. Probably about 5 of what people would call "participation trophies" (which even as a kid I knew what they meant - it's associated with the experience of playing on the team, not achievement) and then there's a bunch of trophies, plaques, and medals I got from winning at various things. I knew the difference cuz I wasn't an idiot. I was better at certain things than I was other things. Yeah, I really don't see the problem with giving a 10 year old an award for finishing a season of Little League or whatever. Sports at that age should have an emphasis on learning the skills and doing stuff the right way - not on wins and losses. Case in point, when I was probably 9 or 10, our Little League had a deal with a local baseball card shop. Each kid that won a game ball got a coupon for a free pack of cards or something. My team's manager gave every kid a game ball at some point during the season. I distinctly remember being pissed because I had a great game and didn't get the game ball - the kid who was the worst player on our team got the game ball because he hit a double. It was objectively the highlight of that kid's season, and probably the only time he made a positive play all year. My Dad let me have it on the ride home for being a jerk about not getting the game ball. Now, I look back on that and respect the manager for rewarding that kid for making a play. He was there every practice and every game despite clearly not being a coordinated kid. I don't see the issue with rewarding what was essentially a participation trophy for that kid (and this was in the early 90s, so let's not pretend like awards for youth sports participation are a new phenomena).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 27, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) Come on boys this thread is lacking. I love how Bananas and Wes just hang back and let the dumbasses be dumbasses. Dudes will probably be in this thing until the end. Remember when the Challenge used to have eliminations? I don't think we've had an elimination challenge in two weeks... Also love TJ's hatred of quitters. Never gets old.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) I'm with Steve. I hire people all the time, and find it very hard to find people under 30 who can do that job and I would want to hire. I have had countless people show up to interviews completely blank as to what we do and most of the time what the job typically calls for. When I find good people, I find some really good people, but it is tough. And I would say it is tougher than back in the 90's and early 2000's. I get too many people with a super inflated set of job expectations in regards to pay and vacation relative to the amount of work required. And I do realize that my situation was unique. I paid off my college loans within 2 years, mostly because I worked my ass off every summer, every break and 2 nights a week in a factory to cover school costs NOT covered by my small scholarship. I was able to live at home, albeit paying rent, for about 9 months before I got a real job, and mover out a month after that. i realize not everyone could find and work a job like I did to pay for school. Doesn't mean they can't work at McDonalds or Kohls. Alpha - cost of education is significantly higher now than it was even a decade ago. When I was in law school (and tuition was a lot less than it is now), I worked at law firms in Champaign during the school year (and in the summer), had a scholarship that covered half my tuition, lived in crappy houses with a bunch of other dudes paying minimal rent, and still exited school with an amount of debt that I will call a "crapload." I was fortunate enough to not have any undergrad debt, but my law school debt is basically a second mortgage, and it's a second mortgage because of the astronomic cost of education - an issue that my parent's generation didn't have to deal with...