Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery.
 

Maybe lying about it in such a stupid way isn't the best move, either.

Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery.
 

Big deal. They probably fed him lunch, being all Southern Hospitalian down there and stuff. I've had worse lunch hours.

(Unless he was raped anally or something)

Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery.
 

OK, now you're just trying to get Atticus going.

Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery.
 

Given the choice between lying about it in a stupid way and lying about it in a smart way, also I tend to favor the smart way. I think that makes me an intellectual.

I will never write a non-fiction book because . . .
 

. . . the blurb might sound mildly interesting to Richard Posner, who will then read it and take two or three days away from deciding Seventh Circuit cases, teaching law school, writing his own books, and otherwise having uninvited and unwelcome opinions about life in general in order to demolish its "analysis" in The New Republic.

He acknowledges it was written by a journalist for a "popular audience" and then proceeds to criticize it for offering its lay readership colorful though analytically irrelevant details, reminding us all why the world hates lawyers. Seriously, this is the guy in your book club who got pissed off that you wasted his time making him read The Pilot's Wife all the way through, like someone held a gun to his head after he realized it was horseshit.

Look for this cogent defense of racial profiling by auto salesmen:

• An individual's characteristics may be difficult to determine in a brief encounter, and a salesman cannot afford to waste his time in a protracted one, and so he may quote a high price to every black shopper even though he knows that some blacks are just as shrewd and experienced car shoppers as the average white, or more so.

"Some" blacks are just as shrewd and experienced as the "average" white? Can somebody explain to me how this isn't racist, even in context?

I will never write a non-fiction book because . . .
 

is it a "defense" or an explanation? Did you become physically ill, and throw away the book half-way through after reading this? If so, the press would like to talk to you.

It seems that what troubles you is your assumption of an unstated (and not necessarily implicitly asserted) belief that on average blacks are less "shrewd" than whites. I'm not certain that's there. For the hypothesis to have traction only two things need to be the case: 1) that shrewdness is not equally distributed--i.e. some have more and some less; 2) that salesmen believe that average (and the distribution of) shrewdness differs according to race. The first is entirely neutral; the second is likely an untested (if not untestable) hypothesis, at least as to the underlying fact (or non-fact). At worst, Posner is a "racialist"--he acknowledges that there may be differences across races (at least in the U.S.) that may be relevant to responsive behavior.

Never crossed the street?

I will never write a non-fiction book because . . .
 

If you think he's a racist jackass, why would you care if he smacked your book around? If you write something, and more than one or two people (friends) review it, someone will criticize it. At least if it's someone well known, the demolition derby would probably increase sales.

I doubt he spent as much as two or three days on that review.

tales of workplace woe
 

This site is priceless.

A taste:

• My Boss: Why the hell didn't you print the attachments of the email that came just now? Me: uuuhhh..sir...the email that came just now doesn't have any attachments (thinking: Am I blind?) My Boss: It Does! Me: (thinking wtf??) No, sir, it doesn't... My Boss: (in a bad temper) But I see the paper clip that indicates the attachements (on MS Outlook)..Come into my office and i'll show you! Me: ok (thinking: Whatevah!) ..And I go to his office...and I look at his screen.. Me: excuse me, sir..but where's the attachment? My Boss: Here! Look! (finger pointing at a certain spot on the screen) Look at the paperclip that indicates the attachment! And I looked..The sweet sweet terror! He was pointing at the MS Office Assistant that looks like a paper clip, only with big blinking eyes.. Me: ..... (thinking: OMG sonofa%#@$@!%!%(!%*#%)

But wait, there's more!

• I've been cutting a commercial for a large insurance company and it's been like chewing tin foil so.... I got hauled into the boss's office yesterday and he was pissed. My Boss: I just got off the phone with the client and they want a meeting to discuss having you pulled from the project. Me: Why is that? My Boss: She said you've been difficult to work with because you won't give her exactly what she wants. Something about you refusing to put thier URL in the spot at the end because it "can't be done". WTF are you doing?! Me: No, she wants the URL at the end to allow viewers to go directly to the website via the television by clicking on it with the remote. I told her it was impossible because a TV set isn't even connected to the internet let alone not being a browser. Maybe sometime soon, but not right now. She then went on a tirade about how she KNOWS about WebTV and that cable AND satellite both carry the web and that I just don't want to do the work. My Boss: ::*eye twitch*:: WebTV? Sorry, pal. Go back to work I'll fix things. God help us all....

I will never write a non-fiction book because . . .
 

If there is any difference between "racist" and "racialist," the distinction becomes less apparent to me when talking about characteristics such as intelligence (here, "shrewdness"). "Blacks are on average dumber than whites, but I don't hate them for it" is not a particularly important step toward humanity.

If your argument is that Posner was simply reporting an assumption made by the salesmen, and then defending their behavior as rational because they held that assumption, maybe so. But in a book review that praises responsible, analytical, "articulate" thinking over the book's argument for the supposed superiority of snap judgments, it would seem strange that Posner would call the salesmen's behavior "rational" when it is accomplished at the end of a train of flawless logic that nonetheless has an inarticulate snap judgment as the locomotive.

Frankly, I admire Posner as a judge. There is no question that he is smart. But the question is whether that makes him wise.

delaware
 

Hello, everyone. I'm new here. It will be nice to meet all of you, I'm sure.

Are there any Delaware lawyers around? If so, what treatise do you use for contract interpretation? I'm new to Delaware law, so...

Cheers.

CheeseGrits

Metadata
 

See

http://www.nysba.org/Content/Navigat...pinion_782.htm

and pass this along to your law firm IT staff and your malpractice loss prevention partner.

QUOTE snip

New York State Bar Assoc. Committee on Pro. Ethics

Opinion 782 — 12/8/04 (1-04)

New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics

Topic: E-mailing documents that may contain hidden data
reflecting client confidences and secrets.

Digest: Lawyers must exercise reasonable care to prevent the disclosure of confidences and secrets contained in metadata in documents they transmit electronically to opposing counsel or other third parties.

Code: DR 1-102(A)(5), 4-101(B), (C), (D); EC 4-5.

QUESTION

DR 4-101(B) states that a lawyer shall not
knowingly reveal a confidence or secret of a client. Does
a lawyer who transmits documents that contain metadata
reflecting client confidences or secrets violate DR 4-101(B)?

Metadata
 

This is a serious-ass problem with MSWord. You can't actually delete or clean out the metadata, either, so far as we've been able to figure out (there are scrubber programs that claim to do it, but they apparently don't actually work).

It's not just information about the doc you are sending, either - if it was copied (or sections of it were copied) from another doc, it will probably contain the meta-data of the other doc as well. So you also need to worry about Word docs you send to your own clients, because you're potentially divulging confidential information of the other clients from whose docs you copied text.

Seriously, we should all go back to WordPerfect 5.1.

Metadata
 

Or convert to a pdf.

But if you like not having to use a mouse, WP 5.1 is always there. As is the typewriter.

Metadata
 

PDFs and hardcopies suck, because opposing counsel sends me back crappy hand markups rather than nice redlines I can actually read. And PDFs tend to fuck up your mail box when you're trading drafts of 75 page documents with 25 person working groups 3x per week. I'd happily go back to 5.1 if anybody else could open it.

BR(my systems generally guys consider me comic relief, but tend to agree with me about lamenting the demise of WP 5.1)C

Metadata
 

Why does no one else insert notes in .pdf documents? Why does no one else see the notes I insert in .pdf documents?

True. Oh the humanity!

Metadata
 

Do you need Acrobat, and not just Reader? If so, I've got about 250 reasons why most lawyers don't use it.

Metadata
 

Interesting. As it happens, my firm recently rolled out a program that stops you as you send out email and prompts you to "analyze" and "cleanse" all attachments of all metadata. The explanation was the risk of (for example) inadvertently disclosing data about Client A when you use Client A's doc as a base for drafting something for Client B, instead of casting it in purely ethical terms, but still.

Anyone know anything about these Greedy Associates?

Metadata
 

Oh you are so so so right about ALL of this. First, getting back to WordPerfect. It was so nice to use the "reveal format" function so you could see what bullshit was screwing things up and delete it quickly. Second, Microsoft Word likes to "automatic format" and it screws everything up and I can't turn it off. Third, with WP everything was done without a mouse by Code and it was awesome typing away without ever looking up or moving from the keyboard as long as you were handy with those codes.

And those PDF files? Oh how they screw up my mailbox. I got sent a billion PDFs today and you frantically are transferring them to your hard drive (while keeping the email so you have a record of who sent it and when and why) so you can fricking use your email again. Nothing worse than getting a bunch of PDFs and you can't use your inbox b/c you have to clean out this bullshit. I cringe everytime I get the message that my mailbox is too full to send the message that NEEDS TO BE SENT NOW BY ME.

On another note, on my home computer I am seriously hurting with constant popups, some of which require me to delete it, and then I get a "follow up popop" asking me if I'm sure I wanted to delete that (a Reg cleaner product). Literally, this double whammy pop up intrustion happens every time I go to a new page on the internet. For someone who uses the Internet heavily for research it is ghastly. I got over 75 popops from this reg cleaner dudes. I run "spyhunter" constantly and it always says I'm eliminating 35 or so "parasites" but this crap happens all day. I'm using a popop blocker (by panicware) as well as the function on my Internet explorer under "tools; block pop up ads" but still no avail. How can I prevent these intrusions, some of which come up when I'm working on a Word document?

Thanks.

VM

Metadata
 

If you have stuff backed up, reformat your hard drive (reinstall windows from the original disks) and then use (a) install virus/privacy/firewall immediately, before going to any websites AT ALL, or opening any mail, or doing anything; (b) update windows from the windows website, using explorer (c) instafirefox/mozilla and use it whenever you can for websites instead of crap explorer. You can set it to block popups and it actually works. It also gives you (at the top of the screen) a message if it blocked a popup and you can click to see what got blocked -- kinda handy. search "firefox" on the computers board for details.

If you use McAfee virus/firewall/privacy service, you can set it to ask you before it accepts any cookies. However, you have to load and update McAfee using Explorer, which kinda sucks, but I trust their site not to give me spyware or anything. I will accept cookies from the actual website I want, but I don't accept them from anything else. I would think Norton would have something similar.

You can try just switching to firefox/mozilla and then running your spyware and virus check and stuff several times to try to get rid of everything, but this was stunningly unsuccessful for me. I don't think the spyware removers are fully effective and I think they can't, no matter how hard they try, keep up with all the spyware stuff.

And, of course, never ever ever ever download anything off the web unless you really really trust it. Even things that seem "fun" and "cool" and should be "harmless" but are free.

(Reinstalled windows and did all the stuff above; had a great, fast running, popup free computer for like a month, then hard drive went kaput and got a new one and had to install windows etc. etc. and didn't do all the stuff above in the right order because I am a DUMB ASS and had to go thru whole process again. Painful. But, happy computer now.)


ETA this is kind of extreme advice, but it sounds like you are having big problems.

It's Penske's beta board for testing his inisidiously insipid socks. It used to be known as the Prodigy.Net greedyboard until the bubble burst.

Metadata
 

1. Go into the autocorrect menu and turn off autoformat. There are several different types of autoformatting (lists, italics, 2 caps, etc.) leave on only those you want.

2. Word has keystrokes as well for formatting--you can customize what keys turn on/off italics, bold, undl., etc.

3. Use any browser other than IE. Netscape, Firefox, your own programming all are better, have pop-up blockers that work, and avoid most spyware. don't use IE. Just don't. seriously. that will cure 75% of your problems.

4. Learn to use the archive feature in outlook--no more problems with inbox space limitations. If all you're doing is archiving for records purposes, it will be perfect.

Metadata
 

Burger and LTL -- you are the best. You have improved the quality of my life. Whew hew! Oh, and things got much crazier with the computer (a box that kept insisting I "switch" to something or "retry" that wouldn't go away) but I got some relief from using System Restore to go back to a prior setting date. The thing that made it screwy was downloading from Symantec a download that purported to remove the annoying "Websearch toolbar" which kept trying to download itself.

On a more general note, I'm confused as to why the people who buy popups think it will work to get people to buy their stuff. Do people really buy this stuff from popops? Most just try to block the stuff.

Metadata
 

I assume it's a bit like spam (although they do have to pay something)--they figure if only a small percent are intrigued, that's enough to return value. Also, it probably creates name recognition. Heard of X10?

Could you be one of the stolen?
 

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

• BY HELEN PETERSON
  and KERRY BURKE
  DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
  
  
  A Brooklyn judge wants a deadbeat dad to choose the law over God - telling him to use his legal degree to make money to support his kids, and postpone plans to become a minister.
  
  The bizarre intersection of church and state was revealed yesterday in a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine.
  
  The judge held the wanna-be clergyman in contempt for being "voluntarily unemployed" and stiffing his ex-wife out of $40,000 in back child support.
  
  The trouble started when Ivy League grad Simon Ajose left his six-figure job as a lawyer, stopped paying child support and enrolled in divinity school.
  
  Sunshine told Ajose, 38, to put down his Bible - for now - and belly up to the state bar and put his Columbia Law School degree to use.
  ..........................
  
  "I love my children more than anything in this world," said Ajose, who lives with his mother in Brooklyn. "I have done the best I possibly can to provide for them. I feel that nonmonetary contributions should be taken into account."
  
  .....................
  
  Saltzman said Sunshine's order will likely help get his support amount raised again, based on his earnings ability - a minimum of $100,000 a year.
  
  The judge did not say what penalty he'd mete out for the contempt, but Ajose could face a fine or jail time or be ordered to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.
  
  "When you have skills you just can't stop doing the work you've done during the marriage," Saltzman said. "This husband is intentionally not practicing law."
  

Daily News, via Steve Gilliard

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

What is the purpose of this board? Is it purely law topics? Sort of a motherboard to the regionals? Do I need to check it to be informed?

where is penske?

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

Its more serious and not supposed to be part of any gamesmenship, like the adult board it is intended to serve a narrow purpose and shouldn't be misused/

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. That feels good.

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

apolitical law topics.

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

This idiot was seen by the defense attorney buying newspapers at 7-11 the day of the verdict -- apparently the jury was still fucking deliberating. As a result, a guilty verdict against a wife-killer was thrown out. I hope she gets totally stiffed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr21.html

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

It's a jackass move by a juror. But, really, did it matter? Who says she read teh paper? And was there even an article about the case? (in fact, a quick search of the Post archives shows two articles about the case--one from the first day of trial and one from the day the verdict was reached.)

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

I'm not opining on whether it mattered to the verdict. The point is she was instructed not to read the paper and then asked whether she had, and she lied. Whether or not there was an article is more an issue for the judge in his decision to throw out the verdict or not on that basis. I don't know the standard, so I can't say whether he made the right call. But it's certainly not for a juror to decide in her discretion that it's not a heavily covered case and therefore it's okay to defy the judge's orders. Did she think the instructions were meaningless? The fact is that (i) it could have mattered, hence the prophylactic instructions, and (ii) because of her actions, the judge threw out the verdict and the county has to pay for another trial.


Really, it was the last day -- she couldn't hold out for her horoscope for one more day?

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

I'm not defending her perjury, but the instruction was to avoid media coverage of the trial. If she bought a people magazine there's no problem. If she bought the wall street journal there's no problem. So why is there a problem if she buys the post if it has no articles about the trial?

I'm chapped at two people:

1) The defendant for necessitating a trial, and taking a life, not to mention preventing twelve jurors from reading Ziggy.

2) The judge, for granting a mistrial soley on the basis of a juror's perjury, when that perjury may not have had any relationship to the verdict itself.

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

Good points. Was there a story about the trial in the Potomac Weekly, or whatever the hell else she bought?

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

Because I'm so fucking anal, I searched for one there too, and did not find anything on Apr. 15.

It seems like the perjury superceded any rational inquiry.

Then again, newspapers suck at legal reporting, so it may have been that the front page of yet another paper she bought said "Fry the wife-killer".

Judge comes down on lying, rule-defying, stupid juror
 

I'm chapped at them, too, but save some outrage for the juror. Judges have to show some responsiveness to this supposed "stealth juror" problem. Judges don't particularly like mistrial motions and they routinely get denied even by pro-defense judges. When they go into chambers with a juror and the juror gets caught in a lie (when it's rare to have any basis to impeach), the Judge could have concluded she lied about other things affecting the trial on which there was no direct impeachment evidence. She might have sworn up and down that she hadn't seen anything about the trial on TV, too, and there would have been no videotape.

OTOH, remember the stealth Peterson juror who got dinged because Geragos said he had a witness who sat next to her on a bus to Reno in which she said she was planning to get on the jury to get Peterson to fry? It turns out Geragos's tipster had doubled up on his medications and slept the entire way to Reno. He refused to say any of what Geragos had profferred he would say under any kind of perjury penalty of his own. That part didn't get as much media play.

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

Hi. I propose that I should be the topic of this board. Like the Big Board on Infirm.

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

2!

Judge comes down on insufficiently greedy associate.
 

Clever! I like the cut of your jib bro!