Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39343
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. She impeded her progress to second by tagging her ass out. The rule is a piece of shit.
  2. https://brobible.com/sports/article/college-softball-world-series-obstruction-controversy-ucla-ole-miss-rule/ Obstruction occurs when a defensive player, neither in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch or impedes the progress of any runner who is legally running bases on a live ball. It can be intentional or unintentional.
  3. Well, the defensive flinch is telling the tale.
  4. Lets blow this fucker up.
  5. What a load of shit.
  6. It is hard to be sure.
  7. TK seems a lil wild.
  8. Stewie is pretty cute for a bigger gal, especially compared to that.
  9. That's the way you put the kibosh on that.
  10. Damn. I keep thinking Glasco is an ump.
  11. No excess artificial crab meat?
  12. Not just small, but a very shallow pocket, really shallower than shown there. I never played any infield except 3B, but the two guys mentioned above basically caught most things two-handed and used the glove to kind of "knock down" the ball to have it drop into their meat hand for the throw. Especially apparent with Jamie's really old school glove.
  13. Addendum to this. So much of the docket is under seal, but the government and Abrego Garcia have been going back and forth about the adequacy of the government's responses to discovery. The court has ordered the government to respond and cure the deficiencies, which is a prerequisite to obtaining sanctions. They seem to have been through this drill several times. So, sanctions seem to be on the table for repeated instances of disobeying court orders. The government has "incrementally" responded to each court order, not quite complying and offering new excuses and justifications for less-than-full compliance. For example, they originally resisted discovery not on state secrets, but some sort of separation-of-powers, this is the executive's sole prerogative shit. They didn't raise state secrets until the second or third go-round, and then they did it in a conclusory fashion.. So that seems pretty well teed up for something. What exactly remains to be seen. Sanctions on the government are pretty rare because a) they're usually pretty good about obeying the rules and doing what they're supposed to and b) the government ostensibly represents the public interest and is not "made of money" (the usual or first sanction). The quality of advocacy here is pretty low. The briefs may be decent, if disingenuous, but the behavior is really over the top. But exactly the kind of shit you expect from Trumpy lawyers.
  14. Rule 37 provides for sanctions for improper responses to discovery, I.e. "discovery abuse." This differs somewhat from other sanctions that a district court can deliver, for bad pleadings (Rule 11), and general vexatious conduct by inherent power and by statute. Under Rule 37, it depends on what the abuse is. The first "line" of sanctions is paying the other side's attorneys fees and expenses in securing proper answers to discovery. beyond that, the rule provides for: the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following: (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
  15. Coach to Miss. St.?
  16. Welp, there it is.
  17. In oldlaw, which is still mostly viable for the present, for non-public figures, belief was irrelevant. For public-figure defamation, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth is required. So, belief can be relevant, but only if it is a well-founded belief.
  18. Raises interesting question. Seems like it's similar to diesel exhaust. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00690-y
×
×
  • Create New...