Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to remain studiously ignorant of the meaning of most of these Latin terms. It reduces any temptation to use them. 

Ispe dixit loosely translates to, just because he says it's so don't make it so.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Res Ipsa Loquitur means “your fancy expensive expert won’t say the product is defective” in Latin. 

"Common law," in some circumstances is longhand for "not," as in common-law marriage.

 

"Axiomatic" means we have no legal authority.

Edited by dcbc
  • Haha 3
Posted
55 minutes ago, Player said:

walter14-jpg.420106

Were you able to hammer out a joint custody agreement for the pomeranian?

No damages.  You didn't rent it shoes, you didn't buy it a beer.  It's not taking your turn.

Posted

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice who wrote a ton of opinions over a few decades always refers to the trial court as the nisi prius (always italicized), and it always drives me crazy. He also starts his procedural and factual background section with the title "The Anatomy of Litigation." I was taught to use latin almost never and to talk like a person in my writing, which I do. We studied Bryan Garners book Plain English for Lawyers. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I took 2 years of Latin in high school, and I honestly didn't think I'd be seeing discussions about the language years down the road.  Yuck.

Surly Motto: We Saved Latin.  What did you ever do?

Edited by dcbc
Damnit. They beat me to it.
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

We studied Bryan Garners book Plain English for Lawyers. 

I'm down with the plain English part.  But don't get me started on the Cult of Garner and his convincing lawyers to put citations in the footnotes.  Every time I see that, I end up with whiplash.  And no, please don't make your statement of the issue half a page long.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I took 2 years of Latin in high school, and I honestly didn't think I'd be seeing discussions about the language years down the road.  Yuck.

The hills are alive...with the sound of Latin

200w.gif?cid=6c09b952zrqcmzl114zdeb0g6lz

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I'm down with the plain English part.  But don't get me started on the Cult of Garner and his convincing lawyers to put citations in the footnotes.  Every time I see that, I end up with whiplash.  And no, please don't make your statement of the issue half a page long.

I remember meeting that guy 20 years ago or so (I think it was at the annual Fifth Circuit Bar Ass'n CLE in New Orleans, which, coincidentally, Sidney Powell chaired).  He was quite proud of himself.

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted
40 minutes ago, 'stache said:

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice who wrote a ton of opinions over a few decades always refers to the trial court as the nisi prius (always italicized), and it always drives me crazy. He also starts his procedural and factual background section with the title "The Anatomy of Litigation." I was taught to use latin almost never and to talk like a person in my writing, which I do. We studied Bryan Garners book Plain English for Lawyers. 

There's no reason to bring the rule nisi into this.

Posted
4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Boy I'm late to this Latin party.

You dotty wee skid marks.

Oh, we're just getting started.  Wait till we start talking about the reversible error that happened during voir dire, and how the appellate panel fucked up, so we're looking to get the court to hear the appeal en banc.  That's right, bitches....we gots us law FRENCH, too.

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, we're just getting started.  Wait till we start talking about the reversible error that happened during voir dire, and how the appellate panel fucked up, so we're looking to get the court to hear the appeal en banc.  That's right, bitches....we gots us law FRENCH, too.

Stipulation pour autrui you say, cher!?

Posted
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9529gdzzdhcp3peak3vr0

I had a law school class with Bryan Garner.  Zero self-awareness and zero humility.  He got in front of the class and talked endlessly about how smart he was, pausing only to hit on some 3Ls in the front.  He's like a fatter, nerdier, lawyer version of Ron Burgandy, or a chatty, far less accomplished Philip Bobbitt.  I found it endlessly entertaining.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Keef said:

I had a law school class with Bryan Garner.  Zero self-awareness and zero humility.  He got in front of the class and talked endlessly about how smart he was, pausing only to hit on some 3Ls in the front.

Bryan Garner was the late La Federal judge Martin Feldman? I did not know that. 

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Bryan Garner was the late La Federal judge Martin Feldman? I did not know that. 

Bryan Garner, in someone's opinion I may or may not have overheard and which likely was parody, molests collies whilst sniffing his own farts.

 

Tim Terrell is another writing seminar guru I'd prefer not to hear again.  

 

If you want a book to help shore up your writing, save your money and just grab a Texas Law Review Manual on Usage & Style.  Refer to that if there's any question about usage or grammar.  Other than that, do your best to be clear and concise.  

 

As far as authorities on the subject of written communications, Michael Adams has far more useful things to say about the written word than Garner or Terrell ever could imagine.  And Robert Dubose has some very interesting and well-researched ideas about how more effectively to utilize and organize your writing when what you write will be read on a screen.  Nancy Tuten is an absolute grammar master who has managed to make all the boring rules easier to compartmentalize and remember.

 

But most people who can string a few sentences and paragraphs together by age twenty-five aren't magically going to be transformed into an amazing writer after a writing seminar.  But the ones who have consumed the Garner Kool-Aid are easy to spot. 

Edited by dcbc
Posted
15 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Bryan Garner, in someone's opinion I may or may not have overheard and which likely was parody, molests collies whilst sniffing his own farts.

 

If you want a book to help shore up your writing, save your money and just grab a Texas Law Review Manual on Usage & Style.  Refer to that if there's any question about usage or grammar.  Other than that, do your best to be clear and concise.  

 

As far as authorities on the subject of written communications, Michael Adams has far more useful things to say about the written word than Garner could imagine.  And Robert Dubose has some very interesting and well-researched ideas about how more effectively to utilize and organize your writing when what you write will be read on a screen. 

I'm a fan of Wayne Schiess.  https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wayne-schiess/  Attended a small presentation of his recently, and found myself nodding and saying "PREACH!" out loud several times, like it was Sunday at an AME church.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Bryan Garner, in someone's opinion I may or may not have overheard and which likely was parody, molests collies whilst sniffing his own farts.

 

If you want a book to help shore up your writing, save your money and just grab a Texas Law Review Manual on Usage & Style.  Refer to that if there's any question about usage or grammar.  Other than that, do your best to be clear and concise.  

 

As far as authorities on the subject of written communications, Michael Adams has far more useful things to say about the written word than Garner could imagine.  And Robert Dubose has some very interesting and well-researched ideas about how more effectively to utilize and organize your writing when what you write will be read on a screen. 

I still refer to my Elements of Style by Strunk & White from law school (Oxford Comma FTW!)

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I still refer to my Elements of Style by Strunk & White from law school (Oxford Comma FTW!)

That's a good one.  I like the UT book because it clocks in at under 100 pages and could fit in my pocket. 

 

I dug up my old Wariner's book from high school for something I was looking for late last year.  It now resides on my office bookshelf.

 

Stephen King's On Writing is a fun read as well.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm a fan of Wayne Schiess.  https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wayne-schiess/  Attended a small presentation of his recently, and found myself nodding and saying "PREACH!" out loud several times, like it was Sunday at an AME church.

I alternate between the UT Civil and Criminal Appellate seminars every other year.  I'd place pretty high odds on my having heard him speak.  I'll keep an eye out for him and the book.

 

To get back on topic, I think the due date for Trump to cough up someone's money in the EJC suit is just two short days away.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's a good one.  I like the UT book because it clocks in at under 100 pages and could fit in my pocket. 

 

I dug up my old Wariner's book from high school for something I was looking for late last year.  It now resides on my office bookshelf.

 

Stephen King's On Writing is a fun read as well.  

A fellow appellate lawyer I presume?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Thought there might be news. Silly me. It's all beach fleshlights and lawyer talk.

We were talking about fistfights that almost happened in courthouses, but I was hoping we’d talk about fistfights that landed us in courthouses.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Moving on

tenor.gif

 

Trump loses bid to delay $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll judgment

Judge Kaplan: “Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions. He has had since January 26 to organize his finances with the knowledge that he might need to bond this judgment, yet he waited until 25 days after the jury verdict …to file his prior motion for an unsecured or partially secured stay pending resolution of post-trial motions. … Accordingly, the present application for administrative stay is denied.”

image.thumb.png.a86a152599fe8d39c22964f2aab3cce4.png

 

I fail to see how this involves Hall and Oates.  Quit threadshitting.

 

 

 

 

Also, fuck that fucking guy.  I like him taking the L, but we need him to take a brutal, no-coming-back-from-this L, and right soon.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That order will be violated in a timespan that can be measured in milliseconds.

And there will be no consequences.

Just wait till Twice as to tell everybody what is meant by the overturning of the Trump jury conviction under the theory of “equipoise.”

Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Just wait till Twice as to tell everybody what is meant by the overturning of the Trump jury conviction under the theory of “equipoise.”

"Equipoise" was an underrated Hall and Oates album, no doubt about it.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Just wait till Twice as to tell everybody what is meant by the overturning of the Trump jury conviction under the theory of “equipoise.”

Equipoise sounds like an adult diaper. Very fitting for Trump except for all the unsightly bunching.



×
×
  • Create New...