I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you say you're just giving your individual perspective, and that you don't mean to "invalidate" anyone else's opinions. If you read people saying, "I'm locked out of an aspect of what is supposed to be a fun game because of physical limitations outside of my control, and that makes me feel bad," with "games are supposed to be hard" and "it's okay to not be able to do things - I know because I had to use a guide to understand how to do things," you're a fucking asshole and I hope you accidentally dump your dinner down the garbage disposal.
This is fine.
(Yes this is why the 2 Stupid 2 Sanction June 6 update is taking so long.)
if i say "the queer community", i am referring to the community of self identified queers. if you're not a self identified queer, then i wasn't talking about you!
"i don't like to be called queer because it hurt me!" cool, fine, whatever. the word gay hurt me, i get it. but see, i didn't actually call you queer, i was talking about, and this might be difficult to follow; people who like being queer! that's why i said "queer community", to refer to the broad community of queers.
"but i'm gay/lesbian/bi/ace/whatever and i don't like it being used as an umbrella term!" okay, cool. if someone forces you under an umbrella you don't like that sure does suck! i hate being forced under the "LBGT+" umbrella myself. i absolutely loathed "trans*", i get it, trust me. i would like to draw your attention to the fact that i just said "queer community", which explicit in text and implicit in meaning, refers to a community of people... bare with me here.... people who are queer. if you do not consider yourself queer.... then it wasn't about you. it was about me and my community.
"but i know what group you're talking about and it applies to me too!" okay but you see that, you see that you're putting yourself under the umbrella there right? and then complaining about it, right? it's not my fault you decided it was about you? you're always going "it's okay for you to use, but" and then attack us when we do use it for ourselves, by shoving yourself under an imagined umbrella of your construction, hurting us in the shove, and then screaming like you were forced in here.
"but it's a--" listen.
listen to me.
you might think i'm being obstinant and maybe i am a little! but i'm trying to illuminate a point here. you've constructed an idea in your head of "us" as a monolith, a singular group that you want covered by a singular umbrella with a singular term; and you've decided that this "us" group - including you - is who i'm talking about right now, and then you've gotten shitty at me for using a word you don't like for an idea you projected over my words.
but here's the secret: there is no singular group like that. there is no monolith. there is no singular cohesive "us". there's just people, individuals with infinite experiences and selves and sexualities and genders and loves and all these beautiful things, and sometimes when we're similar enough we band together into groups and pick labels; gay, trans, queer, rainbow, whatever. these are just names, names for imagined groups, imagined groups with fake made up boundaries! people will argue there are definitions, gay means this, lesbian means that; but people will always disagree, so the names expand and the groups get broader. msm, wlw, bi, pan, genderqueer, rainbow quiltbag alphabet soup!
and you can expand and contact and refine and broaden but you will never cover everyone. at some point, you have to just accept letting people self define, and decide if they want to be in the group. if you have a "gay" group, the socially straight msm will get shitty at being called gay and it's not the fault of either the gays or the word "gay" that they're not included! people will expand and stretch and redefine and shrink, all these groups and labels will ebb and flow as different people have different needs and want to include - and exclude!- different people for their communities.
but some of "us", many generations ago, got sick and tired of constantly redefining labels and groups and decided to pick a nice word for ourselves and welcome anyone who liked it to use it, and that's queer. maybe it was already a slur that we reclaimed, maybe it was already our word before it became a slur, maybe it was just common slang for someone a little unusual and oddball and we liked that! historians both academic and communal disagree! it doesn't even matter, it's our word; "our" being anyone who likes it. if you like "queer" and want to be queer and respect the existing queers, you're welcome. and generation after generation, we pass it on for anyone to use, to say: it's okay not to box yourself in, it's okay not to define yourself down to the molecule, it's okay to be free, to come and go, to love and be whatever. it's our sanctuary. you are queer if you want to be queer. that is the gift that was given to me by the queers that came before me, i will gift it in turn to anyone that wants to carry it forwards. not everyone has to be queer, but we chose to be.
and you motherfuckers.
you motherfuckers keep smashing through the windows of our sanctuary, declaring it to be your umbrella, scream about slurs like we've never been hurt in our lives, and then hurl violence and vitriol at us because you personally hate being inside our sanctuary and want the entire structure destroyed and rebuilt for you.
fuck you.
i suffered through years of torment and abuse being called gay and having it spat at me with hate, being berated in church for questioning love, being screamed at and beaten by family and classmates and having them spit - literally - the word gay at me. i suffered through it, i survived it, i flourished to spite it and was embraced by queers who taught me love for myself and gave me safe sanctuary in this beautiful, ambiguous word, and you don't get to take that away from me.
if i say "us queers" and you come at me about how it hurts you and start yelling about umbrellas and slurs: 1) i wasn't fucking talking about you, 2) you're not part of my community and don't get to tell me what i call it, and 3) you are the fucking problem here, you are the one doing the hurting right now.
when you come into my community of queers and tell me that our sanctuary is "a slur", you are indistinguishable to me from the people spitting "gay" as they beat me.
if you're gay as in happy, you're free to be that and i won't stop you or tell you your whole core is a slur. you pick whatever umbrella you want to imagine for yourself, and i'll probably chose not to stand under it.
because i am queer. as in fuck. you.
and you will have to kill me to stop me being queer
Mata v. Avianca update!!!
I am currently still deep in the June 6 filings, but for those of you who want a direct look at the June 8 transcript: it's public! Courtesy of Dan @ Eodyne1 over on twitter!
Oh, my god. An absolute horror show.
An incomplete selection things you never want to hear a judge say, especially during a sanctions hearing:
Mata v. Avianca update!!!
I am currently still deep in the June 6 filings, but for those of you who want a direct look at the June 8 transcript: it's public! Courtesy of Dan @ Eodyne1 over on twitter!
Hi folks! I am trying to determine how much background information I need to provide to make part of my summary of the June 6 filings in Mata v. Avianca (the chatbot-using lawyer case) comprehensible to normal people. If you want to help out, please let me know how comprehensible you find the following sentence:
"Schwartz had access to opinions from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals through his New York State bar membership, but he would not have had access to Fifth Circuit cases."
*I know what the 2nd and 5th Circuits are, but I don't understand why his state bar would only give him access to the 2nd.
**I know the 2nd and 5th Circuits have something to do with federal courts, but some more information would be helpful.
Thank you!
I've seen a fair amount of fat liberation activists explain that they have always been fat, they're not about to stop, and that's natural and beautiful and fine. That's an incredibly important message.
What I've seen less - and what I want to remind people of - is this: if you've become fat, that's also natural and beautiful and fine.
When you're a fat person who has been thin in the past, that comes with its own brand of shaming. People take your history of thinness as proof that you don't have to be fat. You often fear the look of disappointed surprise in the eyes of someone you haven't met since you were thin. People try to determine "what happened". They don't see your fat body as just you, but as a sort of symptom that isn't part of you.
Becoming fat is not a tragedy, it's not a sign of failure, it's not a bad or shameful thing. The thin you is not the Real you. You are always real and always worthy of freedom, respect and peace. You are allowed to be fat no matter how or when you became fat.
I would like to lodge a formal complaint about the design of the human body. Why must I continuously eat food? I feel faint and sick just because I haven't eaten in over a dozen hours? Terrible design, 1/10 stars.
Anonymous asked:
Did I miss your write up of what happened last week or are you still waiting for the transcript? I’m following your tag with bated breath because this is appalling, hilarious, and educational.
You did not! I have not updated the main post with anything that happened next week, although I did post a reaction to a live tweet thread of the hearing here. An update on the June 6 filings will probably be posted either today or tomorrow, with the caveat that I can't guarantee when it will be posted because I have my own life and work. :)
(Also: I am glad you are enjoying it, but please don't take anything I say as gospel, I am just a random person on the internet. And please please don't take anything as legal advice.)
Anonymous asked:
Hang on I thought barred meant blocked, or not allowed. "The door is barred against zombies."
And disbarred would be like released, or unblocked. Totally wrong in lawyer land?
A false cognate! :)
In the U.S.,* the "bar" refers to the legal profession; in particular, it refers to a group of attorneys who are legally allowed to practice the law in a particular jurisdiction. So a "barred" attorney is an attorney who is a member of a bar, i.e., has a current license to practice law. To be "disbarred" is to have your license taken away (which is very very serious and very rarely happens). A lawyer can be not-barred without being "disbarred," e.g., Schwartz is not barred in the Southern District of New York, but he has not been "disbarred." A "bar association" is a formal group of attorneys.
*Other commonwealth/former British colonies also use the term "bar" with reference to the legal profession, but, as I understand it, the exact meaning varies from country to country, so I am only talking about the U.S. here.
As I learned it, the term comes from the physical courtroom itself! If you've ever seen a U.S. court, you may have noticed there is a physical barrier (or "bar") between the benches where the spectators sit, and where the people participating in the trial or hearing are. See, e.g., this screenshot from Legally Blonde:
So the members of the bar are the individuals who are admitted, based on their profession, to be on the practicing side of that barrier. If you aren't a lawyer or a participant in a case and you try to walk through that gate, the bailiff or the clerk will usually yell at you.
Similarly, if you ever see someone talking about U.S. law/legal practice refer to the "bench," they are referring to the judge(s)! The "bench" is the place where the judge sits (although in the modern day, it is usually a fancy desk with a comfortable chair), and is used to refer to the judge in their formal role as the judge of the court. So, for example, a "bench trial" is a trial where the judge, not a jury, decides the facts.
Just realized they wouldn't actually be false cognates because the two words do share the same linguistic origin, RIP to my english major.
Anonymous asked:
Hang on I thought barred meant blocked, or not allowed. "The door is barred against zombies."
And disbarred would be like released, or unblocked. Totally wrong in lawyer land?
A false cognate! :)
In the U.S.,* the "bar" refers to the legal profession; in particular, it refers to a group of attorneys who are legally allowed to practice the law in a particular jurisdiction. So a "barred" attorney is an attorney who is a member of a bar, i.e., has a current license to practice law. To be "disbarred" is to have your license taken away (which is very very serious and very rarely happens). A lawyer can be not-barred without being "disbarred," e.g., Schwartz is not barred in the Southern District of New York, but he has not been "disbarred." A "bar association" is a formal group of attorneys.
*Other commonwealth/former British colonies also use the term "bar" with reference to the legal profession, but, as I understand it, the exact meaning varies from country to country, so I am only talking about the U.S. here.
As I learned it, the term comes from the physical courtroom itself! If you've ever seen a U.S. court, you may have noticed there is a physical barrier (or "bar") between the benches where the spectators sit, and where the people participating in the trial or hearing are. See, e.g., this screenshot from Legally Blonde:
So the members of the bar are the individuals who are admitted, based on their profession, to be on the practicing side of that barrier. If you aren't a lawyer or a participant in a case and you try to walk through that gate, the bailiff or the clerk will usually yell at you.
Similarly, if you ever see someone talking about U.S. law/legal practice refer to the "bench," they are referring to the judge(s)! The "bench" is the place where the judge sits (although in the modern day, it is usually a fancy desk with a comfortable chair), and is used to refer to the judge in their formal role as the judge of the court. So, for example, a "bench trial" is a trial where the judge, not a jury, decides the facts.
Speaking of accessibility of images in posts:
Normally, when I post a text screenshot, I include the context of the image in the alt text before I quote the text included in the image, unless I have already included the context in the surrounding regular text. E.g., when I post a screenshot of a legal brief, I will have the alt text say, "A screenshot of a legal filing that says, "[whatever it says]."
For people who use screen readers/otherwise use alt text, does that approach work for you? Or is it better to just have the text quoted without the context? Or something else?
Thank you!
Hi I hope this kind of ask is okay, but I just wanted to let you know if you weren't aware that on your chosen tumblr layout the columns aren't quite wide enough to show the full width of the tweet text images in the ChatGPT thread you posted so reading on your blog is pretty awkward since you gotta keep scrolling lil scroll bars to catch end words! Just noticed cause I read it fine on dfash but when I shared it with a lawyer friend I realised it'd be hard for her to read!
okay never mind my last ask turns out you can just click the images and see them I am DUMB
You aren't dumb! I didn't realize this was an issue since I always read it on my dash. I am posting your ask just in case anyone else has run into the same issue.
Thank you!
ok so i didnt know about the first guy (sorry i cant remember how to spell his name ✌😔) not being licensed to practice law. that changes absolutely everything in my perception of this. i thought they were equals here, yknow? as i said, i know very little about law, much less american law, i assumed that maybe you sometimes have a coworker look over and cosign stuff. but he was in some way OVERSEEING the other guy??? for 27 years???? why didnt you help him get licenced??? in those 27 years??? if you thought he could be trusted enough to sign his work without reading??? absolutely agree there is no excuse for this, and while yeah, a very human thing to do still, what the hell
and yeah. i obviously feel worst for the original client. from the little information i knew about them from your post, i was rooting for 'em, bc i will always root for the little guy seeking retribution from a large company like an airline. i hope their case doesnt get thrown out bc of this, and that they will be able to find/afford better legal counsel. honestly i hope they get their money back, bc i know from exp that legal costs are A LOT
Ah! So this is a misunderstanding from me not being clear, sorry.
Because the law in the U.S. is a weird mess where you have federal law and then each states have their own individual laws, lawyers in the U.S. don't get a general license to practice law. Instead, lawyers are admitted (or "barred") in individual jurisdictions. So lawyers are licensed to practice in individual state(s). E.g. Attorney Smith may be licensed to practice in New York, and Attorney Jones may be licensed to practice in California. If Attorney Jones has a client with a case in New York, they normally couldn't represent their client in that New York case, because even though they are a licensed attorney, they are not licensed to practice in the state of New York. However, they could be admitted "pro hac vice" (e.g. on a temporary matter, normally for a single case or matter), which usually requires the out-of-state attorney to have "local counsel" - an attorney who is admitted in the state who is the attorney of record in the case.
Since federal courts are a different jurisdiction from state courts, even if they are covering the same geographical area, just because an attorney is licensed to practice in state court, they are not automatically licensed to practice in the local federal court. So in this case, LoDuca was licensed to practice in both the state of New York and the Southern District of New York (the federal court where this case is taking place). However, Schwartz was only admitted in the state of New York.
So Schwartz is a barred attorney, and he is licensed to practice law. He just isn't licensed to practice law in the court that this case was in.
Now, being admitted to the local federal court is usually pretty simple, especially pro hac vice. I just checked the rules for the Southern District of New York - it should have been trivially easy to do. He didn't even need local counsel. Basically he just needed to file a quick motion, fill out an affidavit, submit a certificate of good standing from the New York state bar, and pay a couple hundred bucks. It seems like he just didn't do so in this case because these clowns were cutting every single corner they could.
So to be admitted to practice in SDNY, Schwartz wouldn't have had to prove any additional legal knowledge (although he should have, you know, read the local rules, at a minimum). But because he didn't bother to get admitted pro hac vice, LoDuca entered an appearance as the plaintiff's attorney and filed all of Schwartz's motions for him, and signed them as his filings. And therefore, LoDuca became responsible for the content of all of those filings, because he was the attorney of record in the case, and they became all of his motions and submissions. So even though normally, yes, they would be coworkers, when LoDuca agreed to put his name and license on all these documents, he should have been overseeing and checking all his work.
I hope that helps clarify the issue, and wasn't too technical or confusing!
I've written more about the original client's options here.
“Art is a human right” and “pay for your damn commissions” are in no way incompatible stances. The right to have access to the arts in general does not imply a right to have any particular artist produce a bespoke piece to your exact specifications. The second one is a luxury in the same sense that any other bespoke service is a luxury. This isn’t rocket science.
(That's also why settlement agreements should never be, on their own, considered proof of guilt: even if you are sure you will win a case but you will have to pay 100K in attorneys fees to go through the whole process, and the plaintiff will settle for 50k, you can save money by settling.)
I disagree. So many settlements come with insistences that they are not admissions of liability that this has even been discussed in legal journals as potentially bringing the legal system into disrepute due to the fact that the average Joe Public does not care about the arcanities of settlements and simply sees a defendant coughing up money at the eleventh hour to avoid an adverse court decision which would most definitely impute liability to them.
I am going to polity disagree.
First, I think your question is saying that average Joe Public sees a settlement agreement of proof of guilt, and I don't disagree. My argument is that average Joe public shouldn't automatically see a settlement agreement, on its own, as proof of guilt.
Second, I keep saying "on their own" because I think the sometimes, in an appropriate and specific context, certain settlement agreements can be part of why it may be reasonable to assume guilt or liability (in the public/private context, not in a legal sense).
Third, yes, there are all sorts of problems with the process of and content of settlement agreements of all kinds, and in some contexts, the form denial of responsibility can be such a problem. If you have citations to specific articles arguing that denials of admissions of liability in settlement agreements are "potentially bringing the legal system into disrepute,"* I am happy to look at them.
*I assume that we are talking about the legal system in the U.S. specifically here, as that is what I have been talking about, but if you are talking about another country, I am still happy to take a look - I may just not have as much to say.
The ChatGPT case made over herein Australia as well, thought you might find it interesting
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/lawyers-blame-chatgpt-for-tricking-them-into-citing-fake-cases/102462028
Thank you! One of the arguments by the Professional Responsibility lawyers for why LoDuca et al. shouldn't be sanctioned is that they have already suffered sufficient humiliation in the press. I don't agree with them; however, I do think there is an argument that regardless of whatever formal sanction is imposed, their greatest punishment is this literally-internationally humiliation.
I GOT A FUCKING RAISE THE POTATO WORKED WTF
This potato works. Every. Fucking. Time.
Reblogging because it’s a damn potato and I want to encourage people to assume potatoes are magical.
w-what if potato is actually lucky
i know very little about law, but im gonna be honest, i feel a bit bad for the loduca guy. is it a good look to sign a coworkers work without looking? absolutely not, they are paid to be anal about this stuff. but it feels like such a human thing to do, if you worked with someone for 25+ years, and never had a significant reason to doubt their work, to just kind of visually skim over the thing, and then sign and stample, bc you trust the guy.
and yeah maybe you saw he was having some issues with this case, the opposite side/judge asking for some documents they cant find and therefore think are fabricated, but again, you trust your coworker, trust that they did the job and this is a mistake not on his part, and you probably have your own workload to worry about, your own cases, so you think little of it. idk, while a bit lazy (bad look) it feels like something that would happen at an office, you know?
that being said ive got a feeling those people are not going to be practicing law quite soon. more so i dont recall if the law firm was one of theirs, but i assume even if it's not, it will have a very hard time recovering from this
A bit of a long and rambling answer here on just my own thoughts on the matter, so I'm putting it below the cut!