Nerding out is a good way characterizing where we've gotten and--as I suspected earlier and am now certain--I don't understand what "Federal Rules of Evidence" means in the larger discussion of what kinds of disclosure would violate someone's constitutional rights.
> I don't know where on earth you got that from... The warrant needs to explain with probable cause
Thank you for the explanation. In my 11 years as an attorney, my experience has been that warrants are issued freely based on a complaining witness's statements. Has your experience been different?
> You are going one step further and saying that the accuser should give up all claims to privacy
I don't believe I claimed that at all. Productive conversation is easier if both parties fairly characterize one another's positions.
Some context: any litigator will have access to Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis to look up and verify cited authorities like cases. It’s considered bad practice, at best, to cite authorities that one has not reviewed—for example, case citations drawn from a treatise or article.
As a practical matter, it is inconceivable to me that the attorney here, at least upon being ordered by the court to provide copies of the cases he cited, did not look them up in West or Lexis and see that they don’t exist. That he appears to have pressed on at that point, and asked ChatGPT to generate them—which would take some pointed prompting—was just digging his own hole. That, more than anything, may warrant professional discipline.
> I thought the Supreme Court said that you had to explicitly state your refusal to answer questions, and simply stopping answering questions could be considered a response that can be used against you.
The first half of that sentence is correct. Not so sure about the second half.
> The probability of you making it all the way to prosecution and the total harm is so low that I’m not going to CCPA or GDPR enforce on my blog.
I hope this line would get included in discovery; I would... actually pay money to watch you explain to a judge that you explicitly decided to ignore the law.
(IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the real defense would be that the law actually doesn't apply to you)
> Prove my client knew it was fake, remember innocent until proven guilty + beyond reasonable doubt
It’s a civil case against the contractors not the government, it carries a much lower burden of proof, just needs to prove preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% chance of the claim being true).
Plus you have discovery and depositions to help build your case.
Oh and if they don’t comply with discovery, well then the judge will just find them liable and then the case will just be about how much money they owe (see the Alex Jones cases going on right now).
>Awesome, thanks so much, this cleared it up. Sorry this ended up requiring you to write a novel.
No apologies necessary. I misunderstood you and was unclear in my response.
I'll try to do better in the future.
That said, I'm glad I was able to clarify. Although I am curious as to your (and everyone else too) take on how we might tweak the legal environment to address the issues under discussion.
Some time after sending this petition I called to ask what was up. The clerk said he'd do something for me.
I didn't figure out the motion was denied until I called again, months later. They transferred me to the person I'd talked to before (who I'd later figure out was relatively high up the ladder at the clerks' office). He sounded very uncomfortable, and promised to send me another copy of the denial letter.
Later the Clerk of the Supreme Court refused to docket a paid petition for writ of habeas corpus, because it was 100% next-friend, and was not signed by my friend. I think the rules are clear that that type of petition was acceptable, but the clerk wouldn't docket it. I think that cost me $1400.
Additionally, I’ve realized your return letter to me for Application 22A181,
dated August 17 2022, was “sloppy”: your deputy clerk used the dates of
denials of my petition #21-6444, but the title of #21-1493. I assume this was
an honest mistake. Even if you have secret orders to be extraordinarily strict
with my submissions to your office, [...]
>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset.
I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population.
I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including this last missive.
What I cannot fathom is why you feel so compelled to prevent productive discussion that you would impeach your own integrity with a lie? Or why, having never supported that lie, failed to provide even a single quote from my post showing me giving legal advice?
Or why, having had this refuted repeatedly you are sticking to your guns. Surely an understanding of logic must compel you to recognize that you cannot provide any evidence of me giving legal advice, let alone attaching liability to myself.
I think its hilarious that your thesis has that lawyers can say "this is not legal advice" as a disclaimer but non-lawyers cannot. But maybe I'm wrong? If you're right, you should be able to provide evidence. You have never done so, as you have never done so for any of your claims.
Again where you have an opportunity pursuade me by providing evidence you choose not to. Hell, even if I rejected that evidence you could have more confidence in your own position.
Why have you not even meet such a low bar for evidence as that, yet you feel comfortable characterizing me?
I am having to guess that you are not equipped to engage in logical debate. I'm curious as to why this is, and why this seems to not be uncommon on HN. I don't observe this phenomena among people of my age group.
----
Responding to your deleted response:
Here's what you actually said:
" you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go"
All of which is false. Making your claim that the disclaimer is toothless irrelevant. Further, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
Thank you for clarifying.
Nerding out is a good way characterizing where we've gotten and--as I suspected earlier and am now certain--I don't understand what "Federal Rules of Evidence" means in the larger discussion of what kinds of disclosure would violate someone's constitutional rights.
<thinking face emoji>
reply