Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:I get that, but if its a complete waste of everyones time then its not in anyones interest. Theres a point to pro bono if you can win because the other side would pay costs, but to do it knowing you'd lose? Seems like a futile endeavour.

Again, you're not very familiar with the US legal system... if they lose five out of six times but the sixth pays a good bit of bank then there's no reason not to (no to mention many departments/cities will just throw some money at them to make them go away). Plus PIG lawyers aren't worried about money. Their costs to sue are low and they have a vested interest in suing (or threatening ) as much as possible.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:if it doesn't pay why do it.

It's called pro bono.

People don't date pro bono work that makes them look incompetent.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:if it doesn't pay why do it.

It's called pro bono.

People don't date pro bono work that makes them look incompetent.

Sure they do.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:if it doesn't pay why do it.

It's called pro bono.

People don't date pro bono work that makes them look incompetent.

See my previous response. It applies equally here.

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:I get that, but if its a complete waste of everyones time then its not in anyones interest. Theres a point to pro bono if you can win because the other side would pay costs, but to do it knowing you'd lose? Seems like a futile endeavour.

Again, you're not very familiar with the US legal system... if they lose five out of six times but the sixth pays a good bit of bank then there's no reason not to (no to mention many departments/cities will just throw some money at them to make them go away). Plus PIG lawyers aren't worried about money. Their costs to sue are low and they have a vested interest in suing (or threatening ) as much as possible.

I'll be first to admit i'm not, only bit of law I did at college was English law, and I barely understand that lot of convoluted, labyrinthine bewilderness, but then neither do most of the police. You ask them what the difference between a law and a statute is and they look at you like your asking them to explain m theory, in Esperanto.

Lets take the sleeping a library situation, surely the defence only need call a librarian to the stand and ask "who is allowed to sleep in the library?" They reply "noone". Ergo it's not discriminatory, case dismissed. Why would anyone, even someone just out of law school and wanting some court time, bother with such a waste of time? Do lawyers take on similar cases in regards to sex/race/religion/sexuality?

dæl wrote:Lets take the sleeping a library situation, surely the defence only need call a librarian to the stand and ask "who is allowed to sleep in the library?" They reply "noone". Ergo it's not discriminatory, case dismissed. Why would anyone, even someone just out of law school and wanting some court time, bother with such a waste of time? Do lawyers take on similar cases in regards to sex/race/religion/sexuality?

"Who is allowed to breastfeed in public?"
"No one."

Ergo, it's not discriminatory, case dismissed.

edit: to clarify a bit more.

When the practice prevented is a quality of the class members sought to be protected, a higher burden should be required to show that the action is not discriminatory. Homeless people sleep in the library because they're homeless. People who have homes generally don't sleep in the library because they've got somewhere else to sleep. Therefore, a law prohibiting people from sleeping in the library is discriminatory towards those who are homeless.

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:I get that, but if its a complete waste of everyones time then its not in anyones interest. Theres a point to pro bono if you can win because the other side would pay costs, but to do it knowing you'd lose? Seems like a futile endeavour.

Again, you're not very familiar with the US legal system... if they lose five out of six times but the sixth pays a good bit of bank then there's no reason not to (no to mention many departments/cities will just throw some money at them to make them go away). Plus PIG lawyers aren't worried about money. Their costs to sue are low and they have a vested interest in suing (or threatening ) as much as possible.

I'll be first to admit i'm not, only bit of law I did at college was English law, and I barely understand that lot of convoluted, labyrinthine bewilderness, but then neither do most of the police. You ask them what the difference between a law and a statute is and they look at you like your asking them to explain m theory, in Esperanto.

Lets take the sleeping a library situation, surely the defence only need call a librarian to the stand and ask "who is allowed to sleep in the library?" They reply "noone". Ergo it's not discriminatory, case dismissed. Why would anyone, even someone just out of law school and wanting some court time, bother with such a waste of time? Do lawyers take on similar cases in regards to sex/race/religion/sexuality?

"Is the library open to all? "
-yes
"how many times have you called the police on non homeless people"
-er never.(never needed to)

DINGDINGDINGDING! Pass Go. Collect $200.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:if it doesn't pay why do it.

It's called pro bono.

People don't date pro bono work that makes them look incompetent.

See my previous response. It applies equally here.

No, I really don't think it does. I think this is just more of the tammany hall anti rights pro business conservative bunk that gets frivolously tossed around anytime either of you join a thread even tangentially related to this kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:I get that, but if its a complete waste of everyones time then its not in anyones interest. Theres a point to pro bono if you can win because the other side would pay costs, but to do it knowing you'd lose? Seems like a futile endeavour.

Again, you're not very familiar with the US legal system... if they lose five out of six times but the sixth pays a good bit of bank then there's no reason not to (no to mention many departments/cities will just throw some money at them to make them go away). Plus PIG lawyers aren't worried about money. Their costs to sue are low and they have a vested interest in suing (or threatening ) as much as possible.

I'll be first to admit i'm not, only bit of law I did at college was English law, and I barely understand that lot of convoluted, labyrinthine bewilderness, but then neither do most of the police. You ask them what the difference between a law and a statute is and they look at you like your asking them to explain m theory, in Esperanto.

Lets take the sleeping a library situation, surely the defence only need call a librarian to the stand and ask "who is allowed to sleep in the library?" They reply "noone". Ergo it's not discriminatory, case dismissed. Why would anyone, even someone just out of law school and wanting some court time, bother with such a waste of time? Do lawyers take on similar cases in regards to sex/race/religion/sexuality?

"Is the library open to all? "
-yes
"how many times have you called the police on non homeless people"
-er never.(never needed to)

DINGDINGDINGDING! Pass Go. Collect $200.

I like your dollhouse courtroom where everyone is a charicature and everything is simple.

"How many times have you called the police on non homeless?"
"Objection, irrelevant."
"Sustained"

Do not collect 200 dollars.

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I really don't think it does. I think this is just more of the tammany hall anti rights pro business conservative bunk that gets frivolously tossed around anytime either of you join a thread even tangentially related to this kind of thing.

No, the "you don't know much about lawyers, do you?" post.

But congratulations on throwing a lot of left-wing talking points into one sentence. I'm genuinely impressed.

ShumaGorath wrote:I like your dollhouse courtroom where everyone is a charicature and everything is simple.

"How many times have you called the police on non homeless?"
"Objection, irrelevant."
"Sustained"

Do not collect 200 dollars.

What is your experience with the rules of evidence? Particularly FRE 401?

Do you know the difference between questions of law and questions of fact, and why the distinction is relevant?

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I like your dollhouse courtroom where everyone is a charicature and everything is simple.

"How many times have you called the police on non homeless?"
"Objection, irrelevant."
"Sustained"

Do not collect 200 dollars.

What is your experience with the rules of evidence? Particularly FRE 401?

Do you know the difference between questions of law and questions of fact, and why the distinction is relevant?

I have an inkling, care to explain the relevancy to this discussion? Or are you trying to live in the straw house you've been building?

No, the "you don't know much about lawyers, do you?" post.

But congratulations on throwing a lot of left-wing talking points into one sentence. I'm genuinely impressed.

When you're around it's just so easy.

ShumaGorath wrote:I have an inkling, care to explain the relevancy to this discussion? Or are you trying to live in the straw house you've been building?

Which part?

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I have an inkling, care to explain the relevancy to this discussion? Or are you trying to live in the straw house you've been building?

Which part?

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what I was talking about. I know you enjoy the meta discussions with dogma, but I'm not so much about those these days. Get dat rubix cube and make all the colors on one side the same color. It'll come to you in a dream.

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I really don't think it does. I think this is just more of the tammany hall anti rights pro business conservative bunk that gets frivolously tossed around anytime either of you join a thread even tangentially related to this kind of thing.

You know Tammany Hall was a Democratic machine right? RIGHT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I have an inkling, care to explain the relevancy to this discussion? Or are you trying to live in the straw house you've been building?

Which part?

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what I was talking about. I know you enjoy the meta discussions with dogma, but I'm not so much about those these days. Get dat rubix cube and make all the colors on one side the same color. It'll come to you in a dream.

You have an "inkling" of the rules of evidence? Pray tell, what Bar did you pass, and I'm not talking about the local microbrewery.

ShumaGorath wrote:It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what I was talking about.

Are you asking about how this is relevant, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, or are you asking how the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact are relevant to this discussion?

But the snarkiness of your response is acknowledged, if not appreciated.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I really don't think it does. I think this is just more of the tammany hall anti rights pro business conservative bunk that gets frivolously tossed around anytime either of you join a thread even tangentially related to this kind of thing.

You know Tammany Hall was a Democratic machine right? RIGHT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I have an inkling, care to explain the relevancy to this discussion? Or are you trying to live in the straw house you've been building?

Which part?

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what I was talking about. I know you enjoy the meta discussions with dogma, but I'm not so much about those these days. Get dat rubix cube and make all the colors on one side the same color. It'll come to you in a dream.

You have an "inkling" of the rules of evidence? Pray tell, what Bar did you pass, and I'm not talking about the local microbrewery.

Anything that existed 100 years ago can't really be attributed to either major party, especially in light of how they basically switched ideals with the southern strategy, but concepts such as progressiveness and conservatism were still pretty standard. For a lengthy portion of it's (lengthy) existence it pushed a deregulated lasiz faire economic style while cultivating the "working mans" vote and grabbing patronage from immigrants. It was also often hollow and corrupt.

Working in legal in my company, I can tell you that most of this never goes to court. Instead, the insurance company of the library looks at potential court cost to prove their just actions (Around $30k) and offers a settlement of $15k. Sleazy lawyer takes half ($7.5k in his pocket for a few hours of work). The insurance company saves $15k that it would have had to spend to prove it was in the right.

The tax payer now has to pay more for that insurance. (in other words, the only screwed person is the tax payer... again!)

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It shouldn't be that hard to figure out what I was talking about.

Are you asking about how this is relevant, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, or are you asking how the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact are relevant to this discussion?

How is my lack of a law degree relevant when I imply that his oversimplification of courtroom proceedings is stupid. Equivocating a trial to the board game monopoly is stupid. I honestly don't need to be able to discuss trained law jargon to identify when something someone says is crass and foolish. You can certainly try and come down saying that I have no right to speak at all, but honestly, this is all an aside. He said something kinda foolish (many times) and I pointed it out as such.

Are you going to say that by uttering the magic phrase "how many times have you called the police on non homeless people" 200 dollars just falls out of the sky?

But the snarkiness of your response is acknowledged, if not appreciated

You lost the pretense of civility when you started off in this thread with "You don't know much about lawyers, do you?" Playing the pity card now isn't going to count for much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Working in legal in my company, I can tell you that most of this never goes to court. Instead, the insurance company of the library looks at potential court cost to prove their just actions (Around $30k) and offers a settlement of $15k. Sleazy lawyer takes half ($7.5k in his pocket for a few hours of work). The insurance company saves $15k that it would have had to spend to prove it was in the right.

The tax payer now has to pay more for that insurance. (in other words, the only screwed person is the tax payer... again!)

Then what prevents everyone from already doing this?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Working in legal in my company, I can tell you that most of this never goes to court. Instead, the insurance company of the library looks at potential court cost to prove their just actions (Around $30k) and offers a settlement of $15k. Sleazy lawyer takes half ($7.5k in his pocket for a few hours of work). The insurance company saves $15k that it would have had to spend to prove it was in the right.

The tax payer now has to pay more for that insurance. (in other words, the only screwed person is the tax payer... again!)

Then what prevents everyone from already doing this?

The lack of a law specifically making the action "questionable". A court will be obliged to hear the case since the new law made it possible to 'make an argument'. Without taking a side, the court must acknowledge the potential for an argument. The case then proceeds.

ShumaGorath wrote:How is my lack of a law degree relevant when I imply that his oversimplification of courtroom proceedings is stupid.

It's relevant because you suggested that the question presented is irrelevant. The rules of evidence (and I referred to the federal rules because they're the most widespread and well known) govern whether evidence is relevant or not. If you don't know how to tell whether evidence is relevant, your argument that a judge would sustain an objection based on relevance is ill informed, at best.

Which is why I asked about your experience with the rules of evidence. I suspect Frazzled knows a lot about those rules. And the question would not be irrelevant.

ShumaGorath wrote:Equivocating a trial to the board game monopoly is stupid.

I think you mean "equating."

ShumaGorath wrote:I honestly don't need to be able to discuss trained law jargon to identify when something someone says is crass and foolish.

Of course not. But when you make an objective statement that a question is irrelevant, you're not "identify[ing] when something someone says is crass and foolish." You're saying that it is irrelevant according to the rules of evidence. If you're going to say that, you should be able to back it up.

ShumaGorath wrote:You can certainly try and come down saying that I have no right to speak at all, but honestly, this is all an aside.

I'm not saying that you have no right to speak. I'm saying that you have no experience on which to base your opinion. Which is wrong, btw.

ShumaGorath wrote:He said something kinda foolish (many times) and I pointed it out as such.

Frazzled says a lot of foolish things. This wasn't one of them.

ShumaGorath wrote:Are you going to say that by uttering the magic phrase "how many times have you called the police on non homeless people" 200 dollars just falls out of the sky?

No. Also: what?

The question is relevant to a factual inquiry regarding positive discrimination on the basis of housing discrimination.

ShumaGorath wrote:You lost the pretense of civility when you started off in this thread with "You don't know much about lawyers, do you?"

It was a legitimate question. You don't know much about lawyers if you think "no one is going to do that case pro bono without legitimate discrimination." I know plenty of lawyers who will take a case like that pro bono. Pro bono work is often done for indigent clients and is seen as a way for young attorneys to advance the law and make a name for themselves. The fact that "legitimate discrimination" against the homeless is unstated, vague, legally untested, and largely a factual inquiry makes this even riper ground for interested lawyers to seek out plaintiffs.

Shouldn't basic human rights apply to the homeless anyway?

The fact that this is even needed is kind of disgusting.

What is almost as bad is that providing homeless people with more opportunity to see those rights protected has for some reason by labelled as an excuse for frivolous law suits rather than welcomed. Some people really need get a grip, seriously.

Frazzled wrote:

Thats kind of scary

Says the guy who got wood posting a thread about cops murdering someone...

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Working in legal in my company, I can tell you that most of this never goes to court. Instead, the insurance company of the library looks at potential court cost to prove their just actions (Around $30k) and offers a settlement of $15k. Sleazy lawyer takes half ($7.5k in his pocket for a few hours of work). The insurance company saves $15k that it would have had to spend to prove it was in the right.

The tax payer now has to pay more for that insurance. (in other words, the only screwed person is the tax payer... again!)

Then what prevents everyone from already doing this?

The lack of a law specifically making the action "questionable". A court will be obliged to hear the case since the new law made it possible to 'make an argument'. Without taking a side, the court must acknowledge the potential for an argument. The case then proceeds.

Would a case under current discrimination laws be unfeasible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's relevant because you suggested that the question presented is irrelevant. The rules of evidence (and I referred to the federal rules because they're the most widespread and well known) govern whether evidence is relevant or not. If you don't know how to tell whether evidence is relevant, your argument that a judge would sustain an objection based on relevance is ill informed, at best.

Which is why I asked about your experience with the rules of evidence. I suspect Frazzled knows a lot about those rules. And the question would not be irrelevant.

I made fun of his phraseology and the silliness of the situation, not the legitimacy of the question. His three line post implied that law arguments can be distilled into the quick end of schoolyard shouting matches. No one shouts "Dayum" and hands out 200 dollars after single question.

I think you mean "equating."

My bad, I rushed that post out as I was preparing to leave.

Of course not. But when you make an objective statement that a question is irrelevant, you're not "identify[ing] when something someone says is crass and foolish." You're saying that it is irrelevant according to the rules of evidence. If you're going to say that, you should be able to back it up.

I think you have read between the lines with my posts too far and too often. I was doing none of that. I questioned the relevancy of your post because you were priming the charges for the teardown that followed after a fundamental misreading of my rather short posts. I had no interest in this discussion because it's not my field and it's certainly not one that Frazzled ever wanted to be informative in.

I'm not saying that you have no right to speak. I'm saying that you have no experience on which to base your opinion. Which is wrong, btw.

You couldn't even figure out what my opinion was. It wasn't particularly difficult to discern and you still managed to hijack a freight train that I wasn't even on and run it into the station.

Frazzled says a lot of foolish things. This wasn't one of them.

Yes. It was. Whether you agree with what he inferred or not it was a silly thing to say. You like to hold things in your teeth and never let go, and I don't doubt that you'll hold onto this forever as well, but keep in mind that no one really thinks the discussion was particularly civil or serious before you white knighted it, and it's not really better now.

The question is relevant to a factual inquiry regarding positive discrimination on the basis of housing discrimination.

Did you even read what frazzled posted?

It was a legitimate question. You don't know much about lawyers if you think "no one is going to do that case pro bono without legitimate discrimination." I know plenty of lawyers who will take a case like that pro bono. Pro bono work is often done for indigent clients and is seen as a way for young attorneys to advance the law and make a name for themselves. The fact that "legitimate discrimination" against the homeless is unstated, vague, legally untested, and largely a factual inquiry makes this even riper ground for interested lawyers to seek out plaintiffs.

And finding a case that will move to the courtroom and not be defeated will be a relative rarity unless discrimination is/was actually commonplace in which case I don't understand what the problem is. There is plenty of pro bono work out there, they aren't going to move to these cases unless there is a specific advantage in doing so. If it exists actually describe it, don't just argue from behind closed doors. It's uninformative, unhelpful, and uninteresting.


If you would like an example on how to not load questions, construct strawmen, and generally be unpleasant look at Gen Lees responses. He seemingly holds an identical position to yourself and frazzled, but due to the storied technique known as being civil and informative he has typed a fifth what you have and said ten times as much.

Palindrome wrote:What is almost as bad is that providing homeless people with more opportunity to see those rights protected has for some reason by labelled as an excuse for frivolous law suits rather than welcomed. Some people really need get a grip, seriously.

I don't think that a suit against a library under the given circumstances would be frivolous at all. In fact, such a suit seems wholly consistent with the intent of the 'law.'

Then again, looking at the law, it's incredibly poorly written. Almost as if the Senator who wrote it was trying to make a political statement without actually committing to anything.

Almost.

ShumaGorath wrote:If you would like an example on how to not load questions, construct strawmen, and generally be unpleasant look at Gen Lees responses. He seemingly holds an identical position to yourself and frazzled, but due to the storied technique known as being civil and informative he has typed a fifth what you have and said ten times as much.

Stop making uninformed comments and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Until then, fair game.

Stop making uninformed comments and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Until then, fair game.

I'll try to exert more control over the imaginary posts that you read from now on.

Bill that could help the lowest of society stop being treated like public abuse dummies.

Frazzled is mad because possible harm to libraries.

It's funny, I thought Republicans would have been defending a law that emphasizes personal freedoms and reduces some of the nebulous power of government.

Pic related:

biccat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:What is almost as bad is that providing homeless people with more opportunity to see those rights protected has for some reason by labelled as an excuse for frivolous law suits rather than welcomed. Some people really need get a grip, seriously.

I don't think that a suit against a library under the given circumstances would be frivolous at all. In fact, such a suit seems wholly consistent with the intent of the 'law.'

IF that is true (and I very much doubt it) then the US legal system is not fit for purpose.

streamdragon wrote:The things you're describing are things they don't want anyone, homeless or not, to be doing though. I don't think the issue is so much who is doing it (homeless v not) so much as what is being done. (loitering, heroin, etc)

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France.

There's a serious problem with saying the law is just as long as it punishes homeless people for loitering, because it ignores the simple fact that homeless people have no choice but loiter, because they have no homes to return to. As such, any effort to force homeless people to move on (to some other public place where they will in short order be punished again for loitering) or detain them, that has no element of providing support in the form of temporary housing will only make the problem worse.

The way you solve homelessness is homes. Nothing else works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:This is entirely different than saying "You have to go. No, you can't buy food here, leave."

Those clauses aren't worth the paper they're printed on. A laminated piece of card can't actually change your obligations in operating an establishment open to the general public.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Nope. If there's potential money and attorneys involved, its never a strawman.

Which is a rather contentless way of justifying opposition to everything ever, because someone could theoretically use it to sue, even if there is absolutely no basis in law for the suit.


Actually, I've just noticed this is actually an argument you've made about lots of pieces of proposed legislation before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:If a cop says move it buddy I don't have recourse. Under that proposed law if I'm homeless and the cop says move it buddy I can now sue him and the police department. Bring on the Benjamins.

Fraz knows this is true because he half skimmed through an article on the subject.

This is fething ridiculous. Homelessness is a serious issue (and having just visited the US, it's even more serious there than in any other developed country I've visited) and improving it is a complicated subject (without about 100 years of well funded, well intentioned efforts from a wide variety of private and government bodies without a great level of success), that could lead to an interesting conversation here on Dakka. Instead we've got Fraz saying a piece of legislation could be used disingenuously by lawyers employed by the least resourced people in society, and his only justification for this is the general assertion that lawyers are manipulative.

Just stop it. There's actual real things to talk about.

sebster wrote:

streamdragon wrote:The things you're describing are things they don't want anyone, homeless or not, to be doing though. I don't think the issue is so much who is doing it (homeless v not) so much as what is being done. (loitering, heroin, etc)

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France.

There's a serious problem with saying the law is just as long as it punishes homeless people for loitering, because it ignores the simple fact that homeless people have no choice but loiter, because they have no homes to return to. As such, any effort to force homeless people to move on (to some other public place where they will in short order be punished again for loitering) or detain them, that has no element of providing support in the form of temporary housing will only make the problem worse.

The way you solve homelessness is homes. Nothing else works.

Chlorine gas. But I assume you meant 'humanely'. So, carry on.