Jump to content

elmcitymaven

Members
  • Content Count

    13,974
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    31

elmcitymaven last won the day on October 7 2016

elmcitymaven had the most liked content!

About elmcitymaven

  • Rank
    class traitor
  • Birthday June 5
  • Member # 31091

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • City
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests
    Abiding by the TOS.

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Los Angeles CA
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

30,189 profile views
  1. I'm not always drunk when I post on VJ, but much like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, I find it assists with legal analysis.
  2. My beloved Mr U and I received our first jabs last week. We appear to be still alive, although he does function as an excellent 5G wireless hotspot now.
  3. Surprisingly evenhanded for Redstate! I don't disagree with it, in the sense that it's a primer on the procedural aspects of what juries do. I have nothing to say about whether cops will retire as a result of the conviction. If anything, I have been reading about how very many police officers, sheriffs and deputies have come forward to say that was not good policing under any stretch of the imagination. There is still honor in the job, and if this conviction is a reminder that officers who do not adhere to policing standards can be culpable for crimes they commit under color of law, so be it. Quite unlikely. I encourage you to read the piece in Slate I link to above. I do not condone her comments, which I think were highly unhelpful. But she does have the right to make such comments, and their import is unlikely to be such that they could have influenced any of the jurors' decisions in the circumstances they were made. It is one thing for a judge to say Chauvin has grounds for an appeal on the basis of her comments, and another to assume that they will be sufficient for a new trial to be ordered. The judge is, of course, just giving his own opinion here. It is not up to him whether an appeal is granted or not, but rather it's the role of the Court of Appeals in Minnesota. Very likely incorrect. I refer you to the relevant Minnesota statute on what constitutes jury tampering in that state: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.498 It is a far, far reach to get to even third degree jury tampering. Where was the intimidation of the jurors themselves inside of her comments? Don't stretch to get there -- use a common sense, plain reading of the statute. More generally, I would remind everyone that it is very, very difficult to disturb a verdict, either through a motion for a new trial, or on appeal. On appeal, the court will likely not be looking to the facts of the case (the facts is the facts, and unless there was something glaringly wrong going on, that's not a road to go down), but to the law. Where new trials frequently happen is when the jury instructions are faulty in some way -- the law was misstated, an element of a crime or cause of action is omitted, etc. These look like technicalities but the jury instructions must be legally correct or the defendant is not afforded his or her due process. Maxine Waters' statements, while unhelpful, don't mean squat, to use a very learned legal term.
  4. In Minnesota, second degree murder does not require intent to kill. An unintentional killing may be sufficient to support a charge of second degree murder if the homicide occurs as a result of the commission of a felony, i.e., pursuant to the felony murder rule. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1). The felony here was Chauvin's felony assault of Floyd. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.223 subd. 1 (third degree felony assault), which provides: "[w]hoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both." (Emphasis added.) The test for assault itself is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1: "[w]hoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another." So what the prosecutors had to prove was not an intent to kill, but rather the intent to commit an assault -- and a simple assault at that. Note that for third degree felony assault -- the predicate felony of the second degree murder charge -- there is no need to prove intent to inflict substantial bodily harm. Only intent to commit the simple assault itself must be proven. Putting it together, the prosecutors had to prove that Chauvin either intentionally committed an act (the knee on the neck) with an intent to cause fear in Floyd of immediate bodily harm or death, or intentionally inflicted (or attempted to inflict) bodily harm on Chauvin by applying a knee to Floyd's neck. If you think this is a low hurdle, hey, I'm with you. It surprised me, but the law is the law. If the jury instructions properly set forth all the elements of the charge, and there were sufficient facts presented by the prosecution to prove the elements were present, the jury reached the correct verdict. Now of course Chauvin will appeal -- his attorneys would be remiss if they did not. But it is highly unlikely that Maxine Waters' comments will be sufficient to disturb the verdict here. There is an excellent article in Slate today on this topic: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/maxine-waters-derek-chauvins-impartial-jury.html Think of Slate what you will, but in terms of its legal reporting, it often strikes an excellent midpoint between accessibility and wonkishnesss. (I like the wonkishness myself.) And in looking for "who thinks the author of that Maxine Waters article sucks biggie style" I came across this chap who writes regularly on the law, ethics and religion, and has had some pieces published at the Federalist. I don't think our politics coincide, but he has a brilliant rundown on the charges that is worth reading if you find a few nibbles at Slate too rich: https://www.jamesjheaney.com/2021/04/20/breaking-down-the-chauvin-charges/
  5. Exclusive video captures Matt Gaetz confessing to his predilection for underage girls:
  6. I feel sometimes like the central repository of Garyisms. Don't forget that he met her quite by accident in Prague when he had to help her with her bags. Also that she glides over cobblestones in her heels that go click-click-click. My top memory of Kip was when he told me how he would treat a lady on a classy night out. It involved a pickup truck, a bottle of Freixenet, and footprints on the inside of the windshield. Oh, that and the homophobia, that too. Alive and well and living with Ms. Squirrel in London. They have gorgeous cats and make delicious-looking food.
  7. Are you sure? Of course if I were married to a woman who was able to make an entire meal out of a potato, it would make me a figure of quite some envy as well. Please don't get me started on the heel condoms.
  8. Yes, Darren and Gretchen. Quite sad. I believe Gretchen had just given birth to her second child when Darren had a heart attack. I have just passed on to Rob that he was remembered. Rob and I are still real life best friends, going on 11 years. I'm his know-it-all older sister and he's my pain in the rear little brother. I also chat with Trompe Le Monde just about every day, same with mox, both of whom are also IRL friends. I feel like I must be eligible for some sort of VJ award: I have gone on vacation with multiple VJers (including a former mod!), shared a post-divorce apartment with one, and worked with another. And drunk with at least 20 of them. Pedroh and Ms. Squirrel. Still together last time I checked. And I regret not taking Marvin up on that invite to Hawaii to go to the wedding. So great to see so many old names in here. I also share many fine memories of the beaches of Ankara, but my favorite "ALRIGHTY THEN" Gary anecdote was of the time he sort of bragged about seeing his sister without her bikini top on. Good times, good times. I can't believe we've gotten this far without mentioning "I'm just a misunderstood racist" Boo-Yah.
  9. There's something very wrong here, and I think there's likely a large portion of the story missing. I don't say this to victim blame the true owners. I dug into this myself as I have been dealing with some COVID-related unlawful detainer issues myself at work recently, though on the commercial rather than residential end. First, there's no doubt these people own the house -- it wasn't hard for me to dig up their deed, and to identify the seller. The seller has been convicted on more than one occasion of fraud, however, and one wonders: where was the due diligence here? It took me a grand total of eight minutes last night to find the transaction, identify the parties, identify the investment vehicles that were used to buy and sell the property, note that the seller had been involved in past fraud, and appeared to use a variety of aliases. This is not rocket science even if it involves the use of proprietary databases that the real estate agent should have access to. My guess is that the problem lies with the backlog with the county court at the moment, and that these people are not represented in their unlawful detainer action, or weren't at the beginning. (I doubt Dennis Block is representing them, even though he appeared in that clip -- if he were, you'd know about it. The UD world is small and he's A Name.) This isn't a UD action, as they point out, but they have filed it as such. I get the rationale -- he's remaining on the property after the transaction was complete. But as far as I can tell, no tenancy has been created here. But filing as a UD means that they have to work within UD rules, and right now they're slowed down because of the eviction moratorium. Are UD cases getting heard right now? In LA County, they are; it stands to reason they are in Riverside County too. Let's loop back though to the existing problem -- this is not an unlawful detainer action. The guy is trespassing and should be kicked out, and the sheriff or cops are hiding behind the UD because tossing people out on the street sucks. In my opinion, the owners should have filed an action for declaratory relief. Essentially, this is a case that says, hey judge, this guy over here and I have a dispute over who has a right to be here. Who owns this place and has the right to live here, him or me? The great thing about this is that it's a general civil case and it's entitled to preference in terms of trial setting. Theoretically, the owners get a declaratory judgment saying "you own this place and he has no rights in it." You take that to the cops and say this guy isn't a tenant, he's a trespasser. Remove him. I'm keeping tabs on this case. It's not really an "only in California" case so much as it is someone (or someones) getting rather confused about how to kick this guy out. The eviction moratorium has kept roofs over people's heads in a time of national emergency. Have some people milked it? Sure. We're dealing with one now, and the client is furious. But we don't punish the many for the bad behavior of a few.
  10. In general, people owe a duty of care to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. You breach that duty when you act like a blithering idiot and your unreasonable conduct causes harm. But it is important to note that in American law, an affirmative duty of care only exists in certain cases. The mnemonic device is SCRAPS: *Statue *Contract *Rescue (once started, you must reasonably finish) *Assumption of duty (voluntarily) *Peril (you put someone in it) *Special relationship (parent/child, doctor/patient, etc.) The parents of an adult child owe no duty of care to ensure their child can't get his hands on a gun, unless some statute creates the duty. Siblings are never going to have that kind of duty, and friends likewise. On the other hand (and I saying this knowing exactly squat about Colorado law), it could be that a local governmental body responsible for issuing licenses does owe a duty of care to the public to ensure that only people who are eligible to own firearms are able to purchase them. Alternatively, one could merely rely on the "I blame society" defense, always popular.
  11. Apparently, yes. I would start researching decent First Amendment attorneys in your locality now. I jest. This is, of course, a delectable morsel of yummy "sock it to the Dems"-manship, cooked up for the delight of Republicans' rarefied palates, but alas lacking any nutritional value, or the ability to withstand judicial review. The government cannot* compel a private actor to speak in a particular manner any more than it can prevent a private actor from doing the same. Imagine if Gov. Abbott could force you, Prizm, to say, "I like Donald Trump. He was better than Biden. I want to vote for him again and again."** I presume that that is not something that would naturally come out of your mouth unless said with the utmost sarcasm. Of course Abbott can't make you say that without violating your First Amendment rights. Nor can he compel Facebook or Twitter or any private actor to publish matter of which it does not approve. Terms of service on these fora make clear that those posting therein may remove posts that violate those terms of service. If you don't like the deal, you don't need to enter into the agreement to abide by the terms. And if you don't enter into the agreement, you can't post. It's not that difficult to think about. Another way of looking at this bill is this: what does Abbott seek to do here but to replace the community standards of private communities with those of a state actor? What if we say the state is California, and now all social media platforms have to permit posts that mock people who support Trump? Do we really want Big Bad Gubmint in Sacramento stepping in and telling us here on VJ: Remove ye not the posts of liberals, for all are prized in the eyes of the Great and All Powerful Gavin Newsom? ~~ shivers ~~ We should be wary of any attempt by the government to restrict or compel speech, even if it makes us feel warm-n-fuzzy inside. This is a waste of money by a state that has some big problems that have been chucked its way in the past year. The law will not withstand judicial review at the first hurdle, and will fail again and again. Frivolous, feel-good nonsense that is, dare I say it, virtue-signalling to Abbott's base. *There are some really minor exceptions to this, and nothing recent that I have come across. The most well-known one involved a company town, completely owned by a corporation, which sought to restrict certain kinds of speech. The court stepped in and said, get lost, you may be a corporation but you run everything in this town as if you were a government. So the First Amendment applies here and you have to let this speech be published. **Name that SNL reference from the John Lovitz era!
  12. You stress you are a lawyer, even in the kittenface of evidence which appears to prove you are not.
  13. I covered the first time his team misspelled "United States." First time you get a pass. Second time... get a better proofreader.
  14. Happy to report that my beloved Mr U and I have tested negative after I was exposed at work. I don't go into work too frequently, but I did and met with a co-worker who has since tested positive. Negative PCR tests but we have to ride out another 9 days of isolation. Fun times. You might see me around more frequently. I might also post a lot of pictures of my cat, in consequence.
×
×
  • Create New...