- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:15 am to AggieHank86
The usage is pretty obvious in light of this discussion. Wander into a courtroom and you will hear lawyers using continuation during oral arguments all the time. Nobody is ever confused by what they are referring to.
A PI guy. No wonder you are so impressed with yourself.
quote:
silicosis
A PI guy. No wonder you are so impressed with yourself.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:16 am to BBONDS25
quote:Among other things, the repeated insistence that the continuance motion or ruling were based upon the Defendants’ discovery requests.quote:Such as? Thank God for you coming to correct everyone.
Inaccurate premises
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:19 am to BBONDS25
quote:In almost thirty years, I have never heard anyone say this. It sounds like a Louisiana thing. Nothing wrong with that.
The usage is pretty obvious in light of this discussion. Wander into a courtroom and you will hear lawyers using continuation during oral arguments all the time. Nobody is ever confused by what they are referring to.
quote:My firm took over all the defense work for a group of insurance companies in about a dozen states. Most of the Louisiana work was silicosis. Our clients were peripheral players. Basically, I attended a bunch of depositions that established our blasting sand was not used, then settled the cases cheap.
A PI guy. No wonder you are so impressed with yourself.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 10:22 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
Well you are a PI guy. Doesn't require a lot of court to settle for limits.
I've heard it from a judge in tax court. I am perplexed how it could confuse you. Especially in light of this discussion.
Now that I think of it, that judge is now in jail....maybe not the best example.
I've heard it from a judge in tax court. I am perplexed how it could confuse you. Especially in light of this discussion.
Now that I think of it, that judge is now in jail....maybe not the best example.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 10:27 am to BBONDS25
Why are you wrapped around the axle about this continuance/continuation thing? I asked an innocuous question:
Yes, I handled some insurance defense work in my youth, more than twenty years ago. Some of it was very interesting, and some of it was rather boring. The silicosis cases fell into the latter category, but they did fly me into New Orleans five or six times per month (pre-Katrina).
The food at night tended to compensate for the boredom of the depositions. I liked to stay at the Fairmont off Canal, so I could walk to good chow ... especially the Gumbo Shop.
quote:I know you guys use some different terminology, and it is interesting to learn it.
I am assuming that “continuation” is Louisiana-speak for “continuance.”. Is this correct?
Yes, I handled some insurance defense work in my youth, more than twenty years ago. Some of it was very interesting, and some of it was rather boring. The silicosis cases fell into the latter category, but they did fly me into New Orleans five or six times per month (pre-Katrina).
The food at night tended to compensate for the boredom of the depositions. I liked to stay at the Fairmont off Canal, so I could walk to good chow ... especially the Gumbo Shop.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 11:10 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:22 am to BBONDS25
quote:Looks like you may be right about the value of upvotes. You make an argument in reference to a different hearing, in a different court, with differenct lawyers, and you get upvotes.
Did you read the transcript of the hearing? How many oral arguments have you been in where the judge outright mocked you? I'm guessing you don't spend much time in court.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:28 am to AggieHank86
Didn't you already respond to that post? Are you obsessing a little bit? You made a blanket statement about denial of a common motion meaning nothing. That was an incorrect statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry if that was a hit to your ego. For someone so impressed with himself, you come across as a little bit fragile.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You make an argument in reference to a different hearing, in a different court, with differenct lawyers, and you get upvotes.
Tribalism often trumps persuasion in these parts. Welcome to the PB. Appreciate your perspective.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:29 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Tribalism often trumps persuasion in these parts. Welcome to the PB. Appreciate your perspective
Et tu Doc?
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:34 am to BBONDS25
Morning, Bonds. He's arguing in good faith. You should try it sometimes.
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:35 am to TigerDoc
quote:
You should try it sometimes.
How dare you! How long did I try to tell you about FBI investigations and proceedings and obstruction?
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:35 am to TigerDoc
quote:Thanks.
Welcome to the PB. Appreciate your perspective.
Believe it or not, this place is actually more pleasant than its counterpart at TexAgs. That place has been overrun by “White Nationalists,” who are coddled by the mods like kids in a special education class.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 11:44 am
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:39 am to flyAU
quote:
Seriously, how the frick is this a crime? If so then they need to build a bigger prison.
Especially if they add TD to the list of places shitposting is not allowed.
Im looking at you Fox Moulder
Posted on 5/9/18 at 11:46 am to BBONDS25
quote:
How dare you! How long did I try to tell you about FBI investigations and proceedings and obstruction?
Multiple times and not just to me - to anyone who would hear it.
Nevertheless, the legal community continued to see the investigation as valid and actually ongoing. You could easily find interviews with multiple legal experts to say as much. The reporting since June 2017 has been that Mueller is investigating obstruction. Look at Mueller's questions Sekulow wrote out for Trump last week. Based on those questions, obstruction still seems to be among the things Mueller's investigating, right?
Posted on 5/9/18 at 2:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The arraignment took place today as scheduled, and Concord pleaded “not guilty.”
Per the Washington Examiner, Eric Dubelier (who represents Concord) again said his client had not been “properly served" by Mueller's office, which seems to “keep open” the questions asserted by the OSC in its briefing last week.
OSC attorney Jeannie Rhee also told the judge that it is likely the federal government will need new summonses against the other two Russian companies charged: Concord Catering, a company owned by Concord Management and Consulting, and the Internet Research Agency., ... probably because service thru the Russian government has been ineffective. (The Russians refuse to effect service).
Judge Harvey set a status hearing to determine if a new summons is necessary for May 16. Apparently, the parties will brief those issues in the next week.
I look forward to seeing the transcript.
Per the Washington Examiner, Eric Dubelier (who represents Concord) again said his client had not been “properly served" by Mueller's office, which seems to “keep open” the questions asserted by the OSC in its briefing last week.
OSC attorney Jeannie Rhee also told the judge that it is likely the federal government will need new summonses against the other two Russian companies charged: Concord Catering, a company owned by Concord Management and Consulting, and the Internet Research Agency., ... probably because service thru the Russian government has been ineffective. (The Russians refuse to effect service).
Judge Harvey set a status hearing to determine if a new summons is necessary for May 16. Apparently, the parties will brief those issues in the next week.
I look forward to seeing the transcript.
This post was edited on 5/9/18 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 5/9/18 at 3:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Per the Washington Examiner, Eric Dubelier (who represents Concord) again said his client had not been “properly served" by Mueller's office, which seems to “keep open” the questions asserted by the OSC.
OSC attorney Jeannie Rhee also told the judge that it is likely the federal government will need new summonses against the other two Russian companies charged: Concord Catering, a company owned by Concord Management and Consulting, and the Internet Research Agency.
Judge Harvey set a status hearing to determine if a new summons is necessary for May 16. Apparently, the parties will brief those issues in the next week.
I look forward to seeing the transcript.
This reads like the most brutal legal defeat EVER. /s
Posted on 5/9/18 at 3:03 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
ased on those questions, obstruction still seems to be among the things Mueller's investigating, right?
Nope. Trump could get on live TV and say "yep I fired James Comey cuz he wouldn't drop the Russian collusion bullshite" and that's not obstruction. POTUS can fire the Director of the FBI at his pleasure, for any reason. He could fire him for having a hair cut he didn't like PERIOD.
And Mueller knows this. His goal is impeachment not criminal .
Posted on 5/9/18 at 3:05 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:He did
Trump could get on live TV and say "yep I fired James Comey cuz he wouldn't drop the Russian collusion bullshite"
Posted on 5/9/18 at 3:05 pm to TigerDoc
Obstruction is a loser and Mueller knows this....the fat tat Trump never tried to shut down the investigation or fire Mueller says it all
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News