Re: actual legal advice question
 

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Because you are creating an "issue" out of nothing, beyond even what a law professor would do?

Re: actual legal advice question
 

So you're worried whether picking up the mail bundle is a crime or otherwise improper? I say no, especially since you're not in a mailbox.

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Not fighting your hypo, just giving you the perspective from in-house. I sometime have these little dog claims that the internal client inist be brought...either they will lose or they'll win with no real shot at recovery...then they'll be pissed when the expense hits their books, so I may farm that out to a cheap err 'bottom feeder'....

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Spare us the agony of wondering, Hank. What did you do?

Or was this all just about letting us know that you have big important clients?

Re: actual legal advice question
 

It turns out they weren't paying a bill. Settlement check. Hank will be served today on the malpractice action.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Nice work if you can get it.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I want to say I hate this lawyer, but I know I'd do the same thing if I stumbled into the claim.

Which probably explains a lot my self-loathing.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I always stay at the Hay Adams when I go to the Fed Cir, but nimble nuts here is on his own dime, so who knows where he'll stay.

• False Marking Case Dismissed
  Posted: 10 Jul 2009 02:31 PM PDT
  Pequignot v. Solo Cup (E.D. Va.)
  
  Judge Brinkema has dismissed Matthew Pequignot’s false marking case against Solo Cup and cancelled the trial previously set to be heard this month. [Order] At oral arguments, the Judge indicated that the ruling is intended to "get [the] case teed up for the Federal Circuit."
  
  In this case, Solo knew that its patents had expired but continued to use the same molds to make its coffee cup lids and other disposable products. During that time - between 20 and 50 billion products were manufactured - each marked as patented. The falseness of the marking was not in serious dispute. Nonetheless, Judge Brinkema ruled that Pequignot did not have any direct evidence to prove that the false marking was done “for the purpose of deceiving the public” as required by the statute. 35 USC 292.
  
  On appeal the Federal Circuit will likely be asked to clarify the level of culpability or intent necessary for a finding of purposeful deception. The choice may follow the same lines of debate as the issue of willful patent infringement. The Federal Circuit recently shifted the law of willfulness to require at least objectively reckless acts of infringement (Seagate) and away from any affirmative duty of caution (Underwater Devices). Professor Winston has argued that intent to deceive should be presumed.
  
  Although the Federal Circuit will probably not be able to reach this issue, the parties hotly dispute the appropriate remedy. The statute calls for a maximum penalty of "not more than $500 for every such offense." Here, the question is whether damages should be calculated based on one offense per product line or one offense per item marked.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Before Heller Ehrman imploded, it distributed $9MM in profits but booked them as shareholder loans -- possibly without even telling those shareholders that their draw that year was actually a loan. Oooooooooops.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

help- a friend is writing a story that starts with this: a lawyer is in alaska to get some papers signed on a Saturday. as written she has the papers being a sales agreement for real estate. the thing is, the story requires that he be back in boston with the papers by monday.

any thing under Mass law that would require an original, because the writer just realized the documents could be scanned and emailed. FWIW, the law could be Ct or NY or Va or anything East Coast.

the only thing I could think of is unreasonable client insisting on seeing the lawyer with originals (maybe crusty old guy that remembers "originals") but any ideas would be appreciated.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

If the documents signed constituted a security this could work, but I'm not sure what story line requires that a security physically be somewhere unless there is some kind of security interest involved.

As to real estate law, not my cup of tea.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

right now it is pissed off buyer saying this must be done, and proof in my hands, by monday-

I thought of throwing out the law aspect and making it a coin collection or something else- the point is just must be there saturday, must be back Monday.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Could be a deed or a mortgage, or any recorded real estate document. Needs to be an original to be recordable. And that works in any state.

A Sad Day
 

Today, on this day of national mourning, I always think of all of you.

When the attacks happened, we turned to each other. With phones down in New York, we relayed messaged via infirm to let people know who was safe and who was drinking.

Re: A Sad Day
 

You should post this on the fashion board, where people will see it.

I was just thinking the exact same thing...

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

And $35 million in collectibles go poof at Thelen. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...id=48034&tsp=1

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Do you think even 5% of that was genuinely collectible? Or is Citi thinking the Chapter 7 trustee will be able to do the job for less, even after the 5% commission?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

At this point, you have to think not.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I guess the third possibility (and, now that I think about it a little, the most likely) is that Citi was faced with pursuing collections actions against existing customers and thus facing the prospect of throwing good money after bad *and* losing business in the exchange.

Better to leave a trustee to pursue anything collectible, probably using cheaper lawyers than Citi would, and keep a safe distance from your other customers. That has to be worth the 5%+expenses (or whatever it is in NDCal) that goes to the trustee. Could end up ahead on the net return *and* get to say to your customers being sued "hey, we can't control the trustee".

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I heart lawyers sometimes.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

That rocked. I am going to steal it from you and pass it on.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

"There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to
confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck’s own website, nor that anyone
was unintentionally confused – even initially. Only an abject imbecile
could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the
Complainant."

I likey.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

wanna take bets on who wins?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

You mean in the subsequent defamation suit?

I do look forward to the day that the subsequent defamation suit reaches the Supreme Court, and a distinguished attorney rises to explain Fark.com to the befuddled justices.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

One of my socks almost hit dat [sniff]

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I had to explain Facebook to a bunch of befuddled academics today. Upon looking at my own facebook page as an example, "But why would you spend time to write that stuff? Is this why it's taking people forever to get their grants done?"

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

To ask the question is to answer it.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Are you an asshole or a douche?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Douché.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Oh, I can't stay mad at you for long, you big lug.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Why the use of "or"? Aren't you thereby unfairly discounting the possibility that he is both??

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I so wish I could let my linguistic freak flag fly in my filings.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

2. it is hard to explain shit to people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

If I were that guy's insurance company, I'd be a little trepidatious about a tribunal that would take judicial notice of the existence of Gilbert Gottfried, much less the content of the YouTube videos of the Comedy Central Roasts.

if i get hit by a car send this to johnny cochrane
 

so my own reading of fringey's progress has been in parallel with the city i work in making it be more dangerous to be a pedestrian.

right outside my office is a busy intersection. decades ago the decision was made to put a ped safety island in to break up crossing in one direction, such that right turning cars are forced to see peds.

a city planner a year or so ago decided that we need more green space and they eliminated the safety island. right turning cars whip around the corner, and even someone like me, with knowledge of the problem, almost gets hit every week or so. a first timer will get nailed sooner or later (hi adder!).

so my question is- can a city be sued for boneheaded changes to it roads- assume the city itself decided to make the safety island in the first place, but the decision makers are all dead now.

Re: if i get hit by a car send this to johnny cochrane
 

Yes. I've been involved in successfully doing it. You need a few engineers and planners and it's boring as fuck, but if some element was improperly designed, barring any statutory immunities, negligent design or manufacturing theories apply.

Re: if i get hit by a car send this to johnny cochrane
 

are there generally municipal immunity statutes? say in Pa.

Re: if i get hit by a car send this to johnny cochrane
 

You have a public entity liability question and you go to Sebby? I'm hurt.

The full credit answer would take pages and even I would find it boring, but I'll try to kick it into a nutshell:

You start with sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is probably built into the state constitution. Then, because state legislatures are made up of trial lawyers who would have starved if it were only that easy, you look for a waiver statute. It will say "No public entity or official shall be liable for a dangerous condition of public property unless . . . want of care, etc." It will look like an immunity statute but is actually the only basis for liability because governments are not liable in tort ("I'm a SHAAARK! Suck my dick! I'm a SHAAARK!") but can be liable pursuant to a statute. So if you can plead your way into a government claim, you're in court.

But wait, you're not done; some states (California {cough}) have something called Design Immunity, which says that if a public entity made a decision to have a project designed in a particular way, it is assumed that it weighed the benefits, risks, and costs with the public's overall interest in mind, and a court cannot declare it negligent for a city to have installed a 3 ft. barrier wall just because a retained engineer would testify that a 7 ft. wall that would have been uglier and cost four times more would have prevented the individual plaintiff from being decapitated. This is what we in the public entity biz call the "can't make an omelette without decapitating some pedestrians" rule. This particular immunity only extends to injuries caused by a conscious decision to design the project in a particular way, and does not cover failure to maintain, etc. Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.