elmcitymaven

Funny how the only Justice who would have blocked it is married to a person who has ...  problematic ties to the events of January 6th but hey, I guess he's ride or die so there's that. Gotta respect a man who loves his wife.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/trump-supreme-court-records-527421
 
Order here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21182369-order-21a272
 
I have no doubt some interesting tidbits shall reveal themselves in the coming weeks.

Question: in any or all of these 18 cases are you purporting to provide immigration law services? 
 
Quoth the great bard of our time, Ice Cube: check yo self before you wreck yo self.

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

Question: in any or all of these 18 cases are you purporting to provide immigration law services? 
 
Quoth the great bard of our time, Ice Cube: check yo self before you wreck yo self.

Question: in any or all of these 18 cases are you purporting to provide immigration law services? 
 
Quoth the great bard of our time, Ice Cube: check yo self before you wreck yo self.

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

Question: in any or all of these 18 cases are you purporting to provide immigration law services? 
 
Quoth the great bard of our time, Ice Cube: check yo self before you wreck yo self.

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

I'd rather not throw the champagne. More pertinently, have you been providing legal advice to others? I say this from a place of concern for any of your 76* pending or putative petitions for a US visa for yourself.
 
*estimated (2021)

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

Question: in any or all of these 18 cases are you purporting to provide immigration law services? 
 
Quoth the great bard of our time, Ice Cube: check yo self before you wreck yo self.

By all means, the OP should report this attorney to the appropriate bar, but bear in mind that complaints rarely go much of anywhere. Attorneys are allowed ample opportunities to respond to complaints, and the table is tilted in their favor. Fraud is something that is pursued aggressively, but poor calendaring and useless admin support is unlikely to result in no more clients suffering the same harms as the OP. 
 
This isn't to dissuade the OP from making a complaint -- he or she should! -- but it is said to dispel the myth that I see on VJ again and again that making complaints will actually result in suspension or disbarment without much, much more.

I'm old and on my second glass of champagne. Provide me with a link.

I hope you have enough champagne and popcorn to go through this back and forth between a very entitled OP and people genuinely trying to give advice. You’re welcome.
 

Do you even law, bro? 

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?
 
One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.
 
I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?
 
The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 
 
Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?
 
One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.
 
I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?
 
The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 
 
Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?
 
One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.
 
I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?
 
The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 
 
Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

Hi! Hello friends. Time again for another episode of Maven Teaches You About the Law: Chardonnay Edition. (Wine is the only way you will get me to write about the law pro bono on a Sunday night.)
 
So! First things first, conflict of interest disclosure: Alex Jones' attorney in this case is a family friend of mine, and my former employer. Shock! Connecticut is a very small world, and the legal community even smaller. Norm was a mentor and an inspiration, and I respect that he has represented some of the most difficult clients to defend in the state. I also know that his representation of problematic clients has changed him in ways many people have not been able to go along with. I pass no value judgment on that; it has been at least a decade since I saw him last.
 
Anyway, onto procedure, which is where the legal issue lies in this particular matter. Yes, this was a civil matter, so "liable" as opposed to "guilty" is appropriate. As I'm sure most of us (should) know, the burden of proof in a civil proceeding is on the preponderance of the evidence, i.e., ~50.01% that the defendant's conduct was such that the plaintiff could prove his case. Very different from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in criminal law. But, we all know that.
 
This was, as has been pointed out, a case that did not proceed to trial. Yes, the merits of the case were not heard before the judge entered default for flagrant abuse of the discovery process. But -- and I really, really stress this -- entering default for such abuse is extremely rare. Extremely. Terminating sanctions are the death penalty and courts are very hesitant to hand them out. Believe it or not, courts usually give the benefit of the doubt before killing a case.
 
Now, I have never practiced in CT, but I have worked in a law firm in CT (run by Alex Jones' lawyer, no less!) and have been working out here in CA in civil litigation for over a decade. I can tell you I have never once seen a default judgment entered for abuse of the discovery process. Why? Because the defendant's conduct must be in flagrant and willful violation of the jurisdiction's discovery act. It takes a LOT to push a judge to that limit. Judges hate-hate-hate discovery motions -- the mantra is: c'mon, man. Figure it out yourselves. Just hand it over unless there's a privilege, and if there is one, produce your privilege log. (Been there, done that.) 
 
I know Jones' attorney. He's an absolutely brilliant, talented, knock your socks off lawyer. I've known him since I was 16, so basically from when Moses was but a lad. My guess is that he tried to get all the relevant docs from Jones but his client sucked. (This is a legal term. I use it all the time.) I don't put this at his feet -- well, not completely. I don't really know what happened.
 
May I stress: it does not matter if you turn over thirteen shipping containers of document production, and appear for your deposition, if what you produce and what you say at deposition is not only irrelevant but also obstructive. If you do not do what you are supposed to, you can get sanctioned. We had a client get sanctioned monetarily the other month for refusing to turn over documents. It happens. Monetary sanctions are the usual outcome. Thousands of dollars for being an obstructive jerk tends to focus the mind. 
 
If you get to terminating sanctions, hooooooooooo boy. That judge is deeply perturbed. (I would have used a vulgar word starting in "p" and ending in "issed" but I believe that is in violation of the TOS and I am trying to make a point about the importance of procedure, so I shall not.) If terminating sanctions are imposed for abuse of the discovery process, man, you deserved it. Wear it like a goddamn crown because you're not likely to know anyone else who got them.
 
For the avoidance of doubt, failure to respond to a complaint is not the only way to get to a default judgment, despite what has been set forth above. It's just the more common route. Far more common route. If you get to default on some other road, man, that's all you, boo.
 
tl:dr -- Jones deserved it, I know his lawyer, this is way outside the realm of normal practice, and I like wine. 
 
Peace be with you all this holiday season; I shall return to my chardonnay.

Hi! Hello friends. Time again for another episode of Maven Teaches You About the Law: Chardonnay Edition. (Wine is the only way you will get me to write about the law pro bono on a Sunday night.)
 
So! First things first, conflict of interest disclosure: Alex Jones' attorney in this case is a family friend of mine, and my former employer. Shock! Connecticut is a very small world, and the legal community even smaller. Norm was a mentor and an inspiration, and I respect that he has represented some of the most difficult clients to defend in the state. I also know that his representation of problematic clients has changed him in ways many people have not been able to go along with. I pass no value judgment on that; it has been at least a decade since I saw him last.
 
Anyway, onto procedure, which is where the legal issue lies in this particular matter. Yes, this was a civil matter, so "liable" as opposed to "guilty" is appropriate. As I'm sure most of us (should) know, the burden of proof in a civil proceeding is on the preponderance of the evidence, i.e., ~50.01% that the defendant's conduct was such that the plaintiff could prove his case. Very different from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in criminal law. But, we all know that.
 
This was, as has been pointed out, a case that did not proceed to trial. Yes, the merits of the case were not heard before the judge entered default for flagrant abuse of the discovery process. But -- and I really, really stress this -- entering default for such abuse is extremely rare. Extremely. Terminating sanctions are the death penalty and courts are very hesitant to hand them out. Believe it or not, courts usually give the benefit of the doubt before killing a case.
 
Now, I have never practiced in CT, but I have worked in a law firm in CT (run by Alex Jones' lawyer, no less!) and have been working out here in CA in civil litigation for over a decade. I can tell you I have never once seen a default judgment entered for abuse of the discovery process. Why? Because the defendant's conduct must be in flagrant and willful violation of the jurisdiction's discovery act. It takes a LOT to push a judge to that limit. Judges hate-hate-hate discovery motions -- the mantra is: c'mon, man. Figure it out yourselves. Just hand it over unless there's a privilege, and if there is one, produce your privilege log. (Been there, done that.) 
 
I know Jones' attorney. He's an absolutely brilliant, talented, knock your socks off lawyer. I've known him since I was 16, so basically from when Moses was but a lad. My guess is that he tried to get all the relevant docs from Jones but his client sucked. (This is a legal term. I use it all the time.) I don't put this at his feet -- well, not completely. I don't really know what happened.
 
May I stress: it does not matter if you turn over thirteen shipping containers of document production, and appear for your deposition, if what you produce and what you say at deposition is not only irrelevant but also obstructive. If you do not do what you are supposed to, you can get sanctioned. We had a client get sanctioned monetarily the other month for refusing to turn over documents. It happens. Monetary sanctions are the usual outcome. Thousands of dollars for being an obstructive jerk tends to focus the mind. 
 
If you get to terminating sanctions, hooooooooooo boy. That judge is deeply perturbed. (I would have used a vulgar word starting in "p" and ending in "issed" but I believe that is in violation of the TOS and I am trying to make a point about the importance of procedure, so I shall not.) If terminating sanctions are imposed for abuse of the discovery process, man, you deserved it. Wear it like a goddamn crown because you're not likely to know anyone else who got them.
 
For the avoidance of doubt, failure to respond to a complaint is not the only way to get to a default judgment, despite what has been set forth above. It's just the more common route. Far more common route. If you get to default on some other road, man, that's all you, boo.
 
tl:dr -- Jones deserved it, I know his lawyer, this is way outside the realm of normal practice, and I like wine. 
 
Peace be with you all this holiday season; I shall return to my chardonnay.

Hi! Hello friends. Time again for another episode of Maven Teaches You About the Law: Chardonnay Edition. (Wine is the only way you will get me to write about the law pro bono on a Sunday night.)
 
So! First things first, conflict of interest disclosure: Alex Jones' attorney in this case is a family friend of mine, and my former employer. Shock! Connecticut is a very small world, and the legal community even smaller. Norm was a mentor and an inspiration, and I respect that he has represented some of the most difficult clients to defend in the state. I also know that his representation of problematic clients has changed him in ways many people have not been able to go along with. I pass no value judgment on that; it has been at least a decade since I saw him last.
 
Anyway, onto procedure, which is where the legal issue lies in this particular matter. Yes, this was a civil matter, so "liable" as opposed to "guilty" is appropriate. As I'm sure most of us (should) know, the burden of proof in a civil proceeding is on the preponderance of the evidence, i.e., ~50.01% that the defendant's conduct was such that the plaintiff could prove his case. Very different from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in criminal law. But, we all know that.
 
This was, as has been pointed out, a case that did not proceed to trial. Yes, the merits of the case were not heard before the judge entered default for flagrant abuse of the discovery process. But -- and I really, really stress this -- entering default for such abuse is extremely rare. Extremely. Terminating sanctions are the death penalty and courts are very hesitant to hand them out. Believe it or not, courts usually give the benefit of the doubt before killing a case.
 
Now, I have never practiced in CT, but I have worked in a law firm in CT (run by Alex Jones' lawyer, no less!) and have been working out here in CA in civil litigation for over a decade. I can tell you I have never once seen a default judgment entered for abuse of the discovery process. Why? Because the defendant's conduct must be in flagrant and willful violation of the jurisdiction's discovery act. It takes a LOT to push a judge to that limit. Judges hate-hate-hate discovery motions -- the mantra is: c'mon, man. Figure it out yourselves. Just hand it over unless there's a privilege, and if there is one, produce your privilege log. (Been there, done that.) 
 
I know Jones' attorney. He's an absolutely brilliant, talented, knock your socks off lawyer. I've known him since I was 16, so basically from when Moses was but a lad. My guess is that he tried to get all the relevant docs from Jones but his client sucked. (This is a legal term. I use it all the time.) I don't put this at his feet -- well, not completely. I don't really know what happened.
 
May I stress: it does not matter if you turn over thirteen shipping containers of document production, and appear for your deposition, if what you produce and what you say at deposition is not only irrelevant but also obstructive. If you do not do what you are supposed to, you can get sanctioned. We had a client get sanctioned monetarily the other month for refusing to turn over documents. It happens. Monetary sanctions are the usual outcome. Thousands of dollars for being an obstructive jerk tends to focus the mind. 
 
If you get to terminating sanctions, hooooooooooo boy. That judge is deeply perturbed. (I would have used a vulgar word starting in "p" and ending in "issed" but I believe that is in violation of the TOS and I am trying to make a point about the importance of procedure, so I shall not.) If terminating sanctions are imposed for abuse of the discovery process, man, you deserved it. Wear it like a goddamn crown because you're not likely to know anyone else who got them.
 
For the avoidance of doubt, failure to respond to a complaint is not the only way to get to a default judgment, despite what has been set forth above. It's just the more common route. Far more common route. If you get to default on some other road, man, that's all you, boo.
 
tl:dr -- Jones deserved it, I know his lawyer, this is way outside the realm of normal practice, and I like wine. 
 
Peace be with you all this holiday season; I shall return to my chardonnay.

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?
 
One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.
 
I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?
 
The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 
 
Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

Quite. If you have reached terminating sanctions for abuse of the discovery process, you have reached the apex of tortfeasin'.

Sounds like some major tortfeasin' goin' on.