US Election Week 2020

[Josquius]

Glad to see the second wave is peaking.
Three waves was the way of the Spanish Flu and the second was the worst. No reason why history must necessarily repeat but... looks promising.

[Monoriu]

Glad to see the second wave is peaking.
Three waves was the way of the Spanish Flu and the second was the worst. No reason why history must necessarily repeat but... looks promising.

Hong Kong experienced three waves so far.  The third wave was a lot worse than the second.

PS Why are we suddenly talking about coronavirus in the US election thread?

[celedhring]

Glad to see the second wave is peaking.
Three waves was the way of the Spanish Flu and the second was the worst. No reason why history must necessarily repeat but... looks promising.

Hong Kong experienced three waves so far.  The third wave was a lot worse than the second.

PS Why are we suddenly talking about coronavirus in the US election thread?

It didn't keep safe distance with the other covid threads.

[Razgovory]

Lawyer question:  How do law-talkers feel about bringing frivolous and meritless lawsuits before a judge?

[Sheilbh]

I'm not American or a litigator - but I think there's a reason Trump is using the law firms he's using for these claims.

Edit: Although probably the two other big considerations for taking a client is that they won't actively make your life more difficult by publicly contradicting you etc and will they pay. I'm not sure Trump comes out very well on either of those fronts.

[The Brain]

Lawyer question:  How do law-talkers feel about bringing frivolous and meritless lawsuits before a judge?

For them, it is Tuesday.

[Eddie Teach]

Wrong! It's Friday. The Thirteenth. 

[The Brain]

Wrong! It's Friday. The Thirteenth. 

pls let it be part 8 jason takes manhattan

[Josquius]

I'm not American or a litigator - but I think there's a reason Trump is using the law firms he's using for these claims.

Edit: Although probably the two other big considerations for taking a client is that they won't actively make your life more difficult by publicly contradicting you etc and will they pay. I'm not sure Trump comes out very well on either of those fronts.

What reason?

[Malthus]

Lawyer question:  How do law-talkers feel about bringing frivolous and meritless lawsuits before a judge?

I'm not a litigator, but I work with many. They would not do it. There are many reasons.

The first, obviously, is that it is unethical to waste the time and money of the court and the other side on merit less proceedings. Though of course non-lawyers often refuse to credit it, many lawyers take professional ethics very seriously.

However, even assuming ethics isn't an issue for a litigator, there is also a healthy dose of self-interest involved. As a litigator, your most valuable resource is your reputation - judges and opposing counsel  are human (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding  ) and they remember lawyers, just as lawyers remember judges. Get a reputation as a person who brings merit less proceedings and you will find them less willing to give you any sort of breaks in the future. There are all sorts of ways this can harm your future career, long after you have spent all the cash you got from your frivolous and vexatious client.

Indeed, one of the major mysteries of the Trump thing is how many professional types apparently forgot this fact, and were willing to permanently blot themselves with his stink just to earn some cash now.

[Sheilbh]

What reason?

As Malthus says about reputation. And you know they will have duties to the court so they submit a claim for PR purposes, but as soon as they're in front of a judge, they have to admit there's no evidence to support it. I imagine the better litigators in the US would either be preparing claims that are narrower and based on the evidence, but that wouldn't meet Trump's PR needs (and there's a difference between very aggressive claims to threaten contractors who might not be able to fight back - Trump's typical tactic - and ones against US states that will defend their electoral system).

Plus, as I say, Trump is an uncontrollable client and I'm not convinced he'll reliably pay his bills.

[Josquius]

What reason?

As Malthus says about reputation. And you know they will have duties to the court so they submit a claim for PR purposes, but as soon as they're in front of a judge, they have to admit there's no evidence to support it. I imagine the better litigators in the US would either be preparing claims that are narrower and based on the evidence, but that wouldn't meet Trump's PR needs (and there's a difference between very aggressive claims to threaten contractors who might not be able to fight back - Trump's typical tactic - and ones against US states that will defend their electoral system).

Plus, as I say, Trump is an uncontrollable client and I'm not convinced he'll reliably pay his bills.

It would definitely be true to form.
Man it'd be beautiful if he doesn't do it even in the world's spotlight...
Would like to think it will lead to justice finally coming and all the little guys he screwed over finally being compensating but you just know the sane won't push him and the Trumpies will see it as only right that he didn't pay those losers.

[Malthus]

I've heard it called the "paper bag test".

As in, never make an argument or bring a claim that makes you wish you were wearing a paper bag over your head with eyeholes cut out so no-one can see who you are while you are making it ...

[Caliga]

I think all the news orgs have called Arizona for Biden now.

[Razgovory]

In the US the "paper bag test" means that your skin must be lighter than a paper bag to get into a place.