“It is common, in many states, for judges to bar anyone but lawyers and their clients for those particular proceedings to sit at counsel table. It is unusual for lawyers to represent clients in small claims courts and I am unfamiliar with how a paralegal would be treated. This is not a TV court show,right, but an actual court?
Once, during a hearing with a family law judge related to my request to have visitation between my ex and our minor child for the upcoming summer, my ex, a lawyer, brought his paralegal into the hearing -- it was held in a conference room, not an open courtroom, probably because it was related to some confidential family data, I forget why -- and the judge said 'who is this?' and when my ex, a lawyer, said "my assistant paralegal" the judge said "you can't bring a paralegal in here with you, only lawyers and the parties are allowed". It might have been because it was family law related but I don't think so: I think it is not traditional for paralegals to sit at counsel table.”
enhancedvibes on May 26, 2011 at 07:49:34
“It was because it was family law related and not a matter held in the courtroom which is a public room. Honestly in small claims how much documentary evidence could the plaintiff attorney possibly have that he needs his paralegal? Probably little to none. But still, the defendants atty's motion is beyond ridiculous.”
“It's not legal. WI State law requires 24 hours notice unless an emergency demands less notice and then they needed two hours notice. This vote did not get two hours notice and there was no emergency that couldn't have waited 24 hours.”
“Here's a link to an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle that explains how what happened in WI yesterday matches any basic definition of fascism. Yeah, the word fascism is scary. Read the story: google a basic definition of fascism: what the Repugs in WI are doing fits fascism. Whoda thunk it could happen here?
“Her venality, however, seems to spring from a canny genius. Clearly, she has not had a good education, only a serviceable one. Her language gaffs are strange, yes. But her language gaffs tap into the very thing within her that appeals to many.
I thought repudiate was actually a smart mistake, the mistake of someone with a unique (artistic? creative) relationship to the tool of language.
I think 'a cackle of rads' is another smart mistake. The phrase 'a cackle of rads' could easily be interpreted to mean "a shrill cry of radicals" . . this meaning is not far off the definition.
Plus language is constantly evolving. No word and its meaning is etched in stone. The fact that Palin has a worldwide bully pulpit for her new language is scary.
If a poet had written the phrase 'a cackle of rads', many would see that as a brilliant language choice. I think it is a brilliant language choice. Sarah Palin scares me. Her audience loves this kind of clever, insidious, skillful and manipulate use of language.
She irritates people who don't like her and thrills the people who do with such 'mistakes'.
On some level, perhaps a deeply intuitive one, Sarah Palin knows exactly what she is doing. And she knows what she does works.
Be afraid of her. Be very afraid. I think Hitler also have a gift for appealing to greedy, venal citizens who cared more about their own wellbeing than the wellbeing of the whole.”
“I usually like Tina Fey's choices . . . she tends to go with classic lines but maybe does something a big different. Tonight, she had classic lines but the animal print?!! Yuck. I think it was the Golden Globes where Tina Fey wore a dress many trashed . . .. it was not floor length, it looked like something from the fifties, black and white and kicky. . . Tina is still young enough to look fun. . . . contrast her fun choices with these new young stars donning dresses their moms could wear to their weddings. Weird.”
“Many of the young women wore looks that seem a bit matronly to me. . . why can't young women look young, fun, cute and sexy without going all mother-of-the-bride or tacky-prom-dress?! What's with all the huge puffs and rustles? I know stylists and fashion folks come up with that but women don't have to don it. The top five favorites here all share sleek silouettes, classic lines. . .”
“My small town bank notified me that they had reason to believe there had been a security breach in their database and they were issuing me a new debit card. I was supposed to cancel the old card when the new card arrived but I missed that instruction, I failed to read the letter carefully. I thought all I had to do was register the new card. This meant the old card still worked and it was used. .. for $33 a month for two months before I noticed.
$33 a month is very small change. .. but I am sure these thieves were doing this to thousands of accounts . . . and they didn't get away with it forever, not with me, and probably not with most accounts . . . but such criminal enterprises operate like efficient businesses. . . they make their money by working in volume. . . and make a good 'living' this way. . .
An employee at my bank got my money back. The bank did not automatically credit my account when I informed them that it was not my transaction. This surprised me.
I think that the George W. administration deregulated banking in ways that we average consumers don't understand but you better believe the banks understand.
Previously, when I notified my bank that a $33 debit was not mine, they would have refunded my money and THEN investigated. . . but this time, the bank investigated for months before refunding”
chris l on Mar 9, 2010 at 23:51:41
“Reallllyyy? You realllllyyy decided that it was appropriate to drag politics into this? This is a simple case of a bank trying to cheat a man out of his money. Keep your politics to yourself, not everything bad in the world can be blamed on your prejudices.”
“it looks like several of my posts have been deleted by staff . . . fine. . . censorship. . . I'm gone. . . I thought this website encouraged discussion. I was not abusvive and did not use profanity. I'm gone.”
“Actually, I am an attorney. That doesn't make me a constnitutional law expert, but I venture to guess it makes me more of an expert than you. I do not believe the constitution guarantees morons the right to walk around town carrying guns. I believe the 'right to bear arms' is about a citizenry electing to maintain some kind of weaponry to defend itself against oppression . . . oppression by the government or by groups seeking to impose their will outside of a democratic process. England tried to prevent Americans from maintaining any kind of militia when it still dominated our culture . . I believe the constitutional clause about 'right to brear arms' is strictly related to that and the constitution does not give people a 'right' to walk around with guns. . .
I do recognize that morons have a legal right to carry guns around town . . . but I don't think its right and I get to have my opinion, just like you do.
Starbucks does not, btw, have a liberal mindset and it never did. it you read my first comment accurately, you would have noted that I said they built their business 'on' a liberal mindset. . . it was spin, bullshit, marketing.. . .”
“Actually, I went to law school, which is all about persuasive writing, rooted in sound legal analysis. I was not trying to write a persuasive comment here. I was voicing my opinion, which is very different than persuading. Lumpyspun, I would never try to persuade in a huffingtongpost forum. . this is just people popping off. . .
Yes, in fact, I do not that STarbucks has done an excellent job of spinning their allegedly healtah care benefits to part time workers and I know Sbux is routinely ranked as one of the best places to work in this country. . . and, in some places, friendly to gays. . . I also know that most of that is spin. I know that starbucks doeso not pay living wages, I know their healthcare for part time employees is not really affordable to those part time employees. I did my masters thesis on the way corporations manipulate their images and how they even succeed in conning their employees. Most employees at a place like starbucks think it is a good place to work because (1) they are like stepford wives and (2) the workplace for the middle class has gotten so awful while neocons shove corporatist capitalism down our throats that nowadays people with any job think it's a good job. . .starbucks is so not a great place to work. . .”
lumpyspun on Mar 1, 2010 at 09:38:53
“Congrats on law school. My point was that your comment is hard to take serious when the hatred starts with the taste of the coffee and rolls into hatred of their unproven conservative mentality.
I will assume you never worked a day in your life at Sbux. I do work there - and I can only hope that you are as happy showing up at your job each day that I am about showing up at mine.”
“I have almost completely stopped patronizing Starbucks before this latest pro-gun baloney. Their coffee really isn't all that great. Here in the Bay Area, it is very easy to buy much better tasting coffee, usually within close proximity to Starbucks. I used to buy coffee in Starbucks at least once a day, typically twice a day (morning coffee, afternoon break coffee and, somtimes, after work coffee . . . I don't drink booze, I drink coffee). . .
but this new position, where they have practically invited gun-toting loonies to come to their stores . . . I am glad. I will never, and I mean, never, consider spending anything in Starbucks again. I might still go into one of their stores to ask them to fill my water bottle. . . there are, after all, STarbucks near most of the subway stops. . . but I will never spend money there again . . not until they ban open displays of guns. This is, really, good news. Starbucks have built itself by playing into a liberal mindset. . but now they reveal themselves as the conservative mentality that they really are.”
lumpyspun on Mar 1, 2010 at 01:31:11
“You should take a persuasive writing class. You start your diatribe complaining about the coffee and end by complaining about how Starbucks has a conservative mentality. I wonder if you know or care about the fact that Sbux offers health care to part time workers and is consistently named one of the most friendly LGBT places to work. Allowing people the right to follow the 2nd amendment in their stores is hardly a conservative mentality.”
boyoboy on Mar 1, 2010 at 01:24:17
“The only people who buy Starbucks are the teenieboppers popping into Safeway for a mocha before A period.”
Pilotincommand2 on Mar 1, 2010 at 01:21:54
“doesn't the liberal mindset support individual rights?”
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:16:27
“as another comment already pointed out, The Color Purple had 11 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and, still unbelievably, it won none. "Out of Africa" won. . . the other noinees that year were Prizzi's Honor, Witness and Kiss of the Spider Woman . . . all, if you ask me, good movies. . but Purple should have won.”
listentome on Feb 27, 2010 at 23:20:08
“I agree. It should have won something.”
stagger lee on Feb 27, 2010 at 23:01:34
“I'd pick Prizzi or Witness out of that list. CP is a powerful story with some terrific acting but from I remember it really didn't have the 'edge" it needed to be a truly powerful movie. I don't think Speilberg had yet figured that out as he did later on with Schindler and Private Ryan. Either way though, Africa was by far the worst pic on that list.”
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:10:21
“Here here to what you say about "The Color Purple". . . it was a travesty that it won no Oscars. 'Out of Africa" might have been great if Sidney Pollack had been able to resist casting Redford. Having Redford with his stubbornly American accent playing the main male character turned every scene with Oscar flat. Streep. on the other hand, was extremely amazing in her roile in 'Out of Africa'. she nailed that accent just after nailing the accent in "Sophie's Choice" I think STreep has been robbed of plenty of Oscars and it is pathetically sad that mediocre talent Sandra Bullock has a real shot at taking the Oscar this year, esp. for the mediocre movie Bullock is in this year.
I won't watch the Oscar show -- I have not for a long time. . . but I will pay attention to the winners so I can talk about it.”
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:05:38
“I have stopped respsecting the Oscars ever since Julia Roberts won hers. Ms. Robert recites lines like a moderately talented high school sophomore. I know she sells tons of movie tickets and I know the oscar academy is about validating the business of selling movies and not really about artistic achievement. I knew that all along . . . but after the Roberts Oscar, I really 'got' it. . . the Oscars are weird and are not awarded based on artistic merit.
I could, of course, list many unworthy Oscar recipients. . . such as the little girl in "Little Miss Sunshine' I really hate it when a child gets an Oscar. giving such an award to a child belittles the career-long efforts of professional artists.”
sarabedlam on Feb 27, 2010 at 22:53:35
“I don't remember the exact statistics but there is apparently a substantial number of elderly members of the Academy who vote. If you want to know who's going to win, ask your granny.
For a prime example of the meaninglessness of the awards, consider the example of Paul Newman. Honorary Oscar in 1986, Best Actor Oscar in 1987 for "The Color of Money." Are you kidding me? From "Somebody Up There Likes Me" (in1956) through The Long Hot Summer, The Hustler, Hud, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Butch Cassidy, The Sting, The Verdict--it took more than 30 years to finally give him an Oscar and for an only okay film with Tom Cruise?”
Feb 27, 2010 at 21:59:52
“Surely the most undeserving Oscar of all time -- and one of the greatest insult to the Oscar academy itself -- was the Oscar for the song "it's hard out there for a pimp" . . . I still have a hard time grokking that song really, truly won the oscar for best song.”
DocSyracuse on Feb 27, 2010 at 23:40:48
“I think the academy wanted to acknowledge the truly difficult times pimps have suffered throughout history.”
alguien on Feb 27, 2010 at 22:02:21
“it was one of those songs where there's really no song there.”