Crtcl Rice Theory

Well, I flew in October and nothing seemed wrong with the flight, even though I bet over half of us on the plane were fully vaxxed with Bill Gates 5G nanochips floating in our bloodstreams. 

Whether he was guilty or not I was pretty disgusted by how the left (including prominent people) intimidated and threatened the jury. Kind of like the Rittenhouse case. Why does the left have to be constantly trying to subvert our justice system?

..Little rocket man...

Thought TOS said weren't suppose to impeach sources we deemed unreliable.

Do you even law, bro? 

Update:


https://www.axios.com/derek-chauvin-guilty-plea-federal-charges-df7ad975-32cb-4047-8790-48a15ffc6df1.html

We don't need to pay for CNN Plus, just have @laylalex   share her CNN Plus  login details.

Sorry, I'm reducing my intake of cable news so no. I don't get anything out of it except feeling irritated, and I have a husband at home who is actually not too bad at doing that on his own sometimes.
 
I jest, my husband is nearly perfect except for the jet engine snoring.

I wasn't doubting your MOR assessment,  it is a meme from Cicely  Strongs SNL bit where she portrays Pirro
 

We don't need to pay for CNN Plus, just have @laylalex   share her CNN Plus  login details.

I wasn't doubting your MOR assessment,  it is a meme from Cicely  Strongs SNL bit where she portrays Pirro
 

What data are you looking for? Specifically?

So you are sure the long-term effects are hidden in these reams of data and that the FDA has hidden the known long term effects.  This is just more political hay to make.

What data are you looking for? Specifically?

So you are sure the long-term effects are hidden in these reams of data and that the FDA has hidden the known long term effects.  This is just more political hay to make.

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.

Are you an attorney or paralegal?

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.

Not to mansplain it to you, but if they can do pretty much any job then they should receive pretty much similar pay, which is not the case. 

The professor  is "demonizing" or at least demeaning women who have a STEM career.
In real life ?
and a radical feminist is what again? I have never heard anyone, feminist or no suggest that consensual sex with a married couple is rape. That would be radical and so rare, that I don't know where you possibly heard it.

Tucker Carlson Is Completing the Work That Trump Began
 
There was a time when someone like Alex Jones would have been too toxic to embrace.
By Peter Wehner
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/why-tucker-carlson-defending-alex-jones/620906/

Da ja vu 

Well after being injected for the third time with the devil's serum, I can say I'm still quite alive - a worrying side effect, as I was assured I'd be dead by now. 48hrs in my side effects are all the same as last (which did not kick in until the 14hr mark). Thankfully I've got the husband to look after me during moments I'm feeling especially cruddy and that included him saying "I will get you something from the store what do you want?" and me saying "all the things.." in a daze, and him coming home with a giant bag filled with cheetos, ice cream, tea, and wine gums.
 
I highly recommend the experience. It's trippy.

Here is the regular reminder about what VAERS is and is not:
 
https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html
 
Science Magazine has a good article about this too -- Science is the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an institution that has been around for nearly 150 years. Science (the magazine) itself has been around for a century and is considered one of the top academic, peer-reviewed journals in the world. 
https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public

When did Trump  concede?