GO ABBA GO!!!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

• Lake Huron salmon fishing has had a hit and miss reputation. . . These days the hatchery is introducing up to a quarter of a million salmon into Lake Huron each year.

Organic, indeed.

I understand they're right up there with Utah Salmon .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I understand they're right up there with Utah Salmon .

Could you find out about the Huron oysters and mussels, too?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Could you find out about the Huron oysters and mussels, too?

I have nothing to ass except to change the re: line* and give you this:




*which no one reads anyway, but I was reading it and it kept reminding me of one of my favorite movie lines.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I understand they're right up there with Utah Salmon .

There are 5 great lakes: Ontario, Erie, Huron, Superior and Michigan.

a good mnemonic device is: Only Every Hundreth Snycpost Makessense!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Could you find out about the Huron oysters and mussels, too?

there are zebra mussels in all the great lakes, so we might be able to have other species. the most unbelievable thing would be Plantains. Those are tropical. All you all, a little slower on the typing fingers, and a little quicker with the brainwork.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
The tugging, the heat, the noise, the time ticking away ... ugh. I'm ready to bolt after five minutes.

Babe?

TM

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there are zebra mussels in all the great lakes, so we might be able to have other species. the most unbelievable thing would be Plantains. Those are tropical. All you all, a little slower on the typing fingers, and a little quicker with the brainwork.

Penske wanted me to relay to everyone that although your new avatar bears a passing resemblance to his prior avatar, that he in no way shape or form endorses your current avatar, and still remains in retirement. He will vigorously defend his avatar from misuse...

He says hi! [and raspberries to the haters!]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Could you find out about the Huron oysters and mussels, too?

As to the oysters, don't the Rocky Mountains drain into the Great Lakes?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Regardless, if I had the flu, I would bail on the race.

We would welcome you.

TM

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there are zebra mussels in all the great lakes, so we might be able to have other species. the most unbelievable thing would be Plantains. Those are tropical. All you all, a little slower on the typing fingers, and a little quicker with the brainwork.

Greenhouse/hot house. They can be grown, it just takes a lot of energy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds MFMs with clients:

• ¶57 The relevant language of SCR 20:1.8(k) is as follows:
  
  (k)(1) ... (i) "Sexual relations" means sexual intercourse or any other intentional touching of the intimate parts of a person or causing the person to touch the intimate parts of the lawyer.... (2) A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a current client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the lawyer-client relationship commenced.
  
  ¶58 The referee found that Attorney Inglimo engaged in sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend while she was doing the same with L.K. The OLR essentially argues that the word "with" in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) connotes a temporal and spatial connection. According to the OLR, as long as the lawyer and the client are both participating in a sexual act at the same time in the same place, they are having sexual relations "with" each other....
  
  ¶59 On this issue, we concur with the referee's conclusion [that Inglimo did not violate the rule]. The definition of sexual relations in SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) connotes conduct directly between the lawyer and the client. When the definition refers to touching, the rule speaks of the lawyer intentionally touching the intimate parts of "a person," but the subsequent alternative definitional phrase uses the more definitive "the person" when referring to a situation in which the lawyer causes the touching to be done to him/her. In addition, to the extent that sexual intercourse also qualifies as "sexual relations" under the definition, such conduct is likewise done intentionally (i.e., not by accident).
  
  Further, SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) prohibits a lawyer from having "sexual relations" "with a current client." Thus, the definitional language of SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) and the prohibition of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) together clearly indicate that the prohibited "sexual relations," whether intercourse or touching, must be intentionally done between the lawyer and one particular person, namely the client.... [B]ecause it does not appear that the definitional elements of "sexual relations" have been satisfied, the simple term "with" in the prohibitional phrase in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) cannot transform this situation into a violation of the rule.

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Inglimo

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds MFMs with clients:

• ¶57 The relevant language of SCR 20:1.8(k) is as follows:
  
  (k)(1) ... (i) "Sexual relations" means sexual intercourse or any other intentional touching of the intimate parts of a person or causing the person to touch the intimate parts of the lawyer.... (2) A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a current client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the lawyer-client relationship commenced.
  
  ¶58 The referee found that Attorney Inglimo engaged in sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend while she was doing the same with L.K. The OLR essentially argues that the word "with" in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) connotes a temporal and spatial connection. According to the OLR, as long as the lawyer and the client are both participating in a sexual act at the same time in the same place, they are having sexual relations "with" each other....
  
  ¶59 On this issue, we concur with the referee's conclusion [that Inglimo did not violate the rule]. The definition of sexual relations in SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) connotes conduct directly between the lawyer and the client. When the definition refers to touching, the rule speaks of the lawyer intentionally touching the intimate parts of "a person," but the subsequent alternative definitional phrase uses the more definitive "the person" when referring to a situation in which the lawyer causes the touching to be done to him/her. In addition, to the extent that sexual intercourse also qualifies as "sexual relations" under the definition, such conduct is likewise done intentionally (i.e., not by accident).
  
  Further, SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) prohibits a lawyer from having "sexual relations" "with a current client." Thus, the definitional language of SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) and the prohibition of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) together clearly indicate that the prohibited "sexual relations," whether intercourse or touching, must be intentionally done between the lawyer and one particular person, namely the client.... [B]ecause it does not appear that the definitional elements of "sexual relations" have been satisfied, the simple term "with" in the prohibitional phrase in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) cannot transform this situation into a violation of the rule.

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Inglimo

only where M is the client. If F is the client, it's a no go.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
only where M is the client. If F is the client, it's a no go.

Ah, shit. Professor Macgillicuty was right: Bad facts DO make bad law.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
only where M is the client. If F is the client, it's a no go.

Seems like you could, but it would take some of the fun out of it.

But what kind of client tells his lawyer "hey, you want to tag team my girlfriend tonight?"

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Seems like you could, but it would take some of the fun out of it.

But what kind of client tells his lawyer "hey, you want to tag team my girlfriend tonight?"

Alternative fee arrangement?