dcbc

/an image for ants

No, I mean I actually forgot what we're talking about, and there's no comparison. I agree.

You should have seen what happened to him after the self-portrait he turned in in art class.

A buddy of mine used to joke (I presume) that if your search term is more than five words, you're a proper pervert. But that's probably a conversation for a different thread on a forum that does not exist here.

Fatwah 101 sounds like pass/fail. The ultimate pass/fail. But if you pass, you get 72.

Well played. My dogs are wondering why I'm staring at a screen and laughing my head off. Also, I assume that means he represents UT (to quote aggy)

Without saying who (obviously), what sorts of clients/cases are these. I'm obviously in a different part of the state (different world, let's face it), but I don't tend to see a lot of a political undertones on much of what we see around here. That is to say, what kind of civil cases get an obvious yea or nay from the MAGA juror?

Ixnay on the isposableday aperpay Me, too. And work for elected officials. And I check my personal politics at the door when I do my job because politics has no place in the interpretation of the law. It's also why I push back at the notion that the overall system is broken. Ain't nothing broken leaving my desk. It might be "wrong." Occasionally it has been declared as such by some guys and gals down in Austin. But even when it's declared "wrong," it's not emblematic of a broken system.

Realtors? Chiropractors?

You've been reading my letters to Santa.

That's South Texas College of Law and Hair design, thank you. Signed, Proud Alumnus Not defending the maker of that statement though

I tend to agree. And if you want to continue to complain, be my guest. But I'll still point out that it's not productive or that it doesn't make for interesting reading after a while. Maybe we need a "The system is Broken" thread? I'd read it.

That's interesting. Let's expound on the "threatening our democracy" definition outside of what we're now dealing with which surely would qualify. We need a definition that survives all constitutional vaguness and overbreadth challenges. But this is a good start.

I think it's just that the posts seem to preponderate heavily toward "the system is shit" and not so much of how the system should be rethought. Without the how, it's just complaining, and to the extent that it's valid, it's pretty tiresome to read. That doesn't mean some of us who are pretty familiar with the judicial system don't agree. How to fix a "broken" system is a more interesting and useful discussion.

I forgot we still were talking about the Beard award. My mistake.

1. Is your BBQ delicious? 2. Is it for sale? 3. Are you open today? If the answers to each of these questions is yes, I don't care if the place is closed 6 days per week. Should that make a difference in the rankings? Sure. But as far as the question of should a person try this place goes, it's not relevant in the least.

Counterpoint

Me, everytime this Chicken-Little talk starts up again: It's not that I don't have the same worries/concerns. But I will vote for the good guys in November and try to get others to do the same. That is what I (and most of the rest of us) are able to do. Apart from that, "Bitch, chill; be cool."

At this point, I think a lot of his legal bills are paid in the form of large retainers. Whether he, personally, is paying them (unlikely) or it is trickling out of what remains in the coffers of the various PACs or RNC, is not of concern to me. This is, in fact, how we drain the swamp.

I was thinking the same thing about summary judgment in civil cases. I'm not up to speed on federal, criminal practice, but as far as objecting pre-trial to jury questions, it seems like you'd still have to have a charge conference after the presentation of evidence so that you could object at that point based on lack of evidentiary support. As alternatives, I guess you could try to make a pretrial motion for directed verdict on a defensive theory unsupported in the law, which clearly has been raised at this point. Or, you could seek mandamus relief after the charge conference, but that's far from ideal with the jury cooling its heels after the presentation of evidence with it's collective memory of what it heard fading. I'm rarely surprised when civil cases get procedurally FUBAR as time goes on. Criminal cases usually have other weirdness, but are procedurally normalized.

I still think styling it as a motion in limine is the wrong move because a such is not a final determination on admissibility (be it of a legal theory or evidence to support it) and it doesn't get decided until the argument gets reurged at trial. I'd probably style it as a pretrial motion to exclude any and all evidence offered in support of the PRA defensive theory because the PRA has no applicability here. Sure, maybe some evidence could be offered for another purpose, but you try to get her to rule on the question of law and if she doesn't you can file your petition for writ of mandamus pretrial. If that doesn't work, you could file a motion in limine as to the defense's mentioning PRA defensive theory itself. If she's already dodged that by saying any underlying evidence could be offered for another purpose, you've at least got her backed into a corner. Honestly, I think the current refusal to rule may be enough to take it up, but it's certainly not a lock. It's a sticky wicket, as they say.

is c-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me! How are you gonna c-c-c-catch me, K-K-K-Ken?

But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she agrees to admit it at that point. the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached. Granting a motion in limine is just another way for her to kick the can down the road past the non-jeopardy barrier.