ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Asher]

I'm not skirting around the word "frivolous" at all. You simply appear to use a very abnormal definition of that word.

I do? You're the one asserting it's frivolous even though you're working on the basic assumption that the conversation taken behind closed doors in a consultation with a person is a public conversation with no right to privacy.

Then you've also confused the situation by citing a legal precedent pertaining to trespass.

It's patently clear that there's a lot of avenues to attack here and it's not an open and shut case.

It's far from frivolous. If I'm using the incorrect form of the word ("not serious in content or attitude or behavior") which -- by the way, is not abnormal as it is the definition of the word -- then why don't you stop wasting time by whipping out your legal dick and just say so?

You get off on this ****, even when you're wrong. Then you dazzle people like Kuci and Drake with your big words and rigid 1) writing 2) personality. I think Drake just enjoys cheering you on so the show continues, to be honest. Kuci is just in his adolescent rebellion stage, trying to show up his mentor.

[Darius871]

Look, more red herrings. Maybe if you keep trying to dazzle Drake it'll distract everyone.

WTF are you on about? You argued that "public significance" is questionable here and that the case is therefore not frivolous, and in response I showed binding authority to the effect that "public significance" is very broadly construed and thus waste of tax dollars on criminal activity would absolutely fall under it without question. You can't dismiss anything that directly disproves your point as a "red herring."

You've admitted there's no direct precedent for this, which would imply it's not a frivolous lawsuit. Do you want to just come out and say it now, so we can be done with this?

Dude, are you too lost to even comprehend that 1) the First Amendment impediment and 2) the court's likely interpretation of the Maryland Wiretap Act are two completely independent issues? Even supposing there's no "direct precedent" on #2 (which is inaccurate anyway; there's simply non-Maryland precedent combined with a Maryland precedent showing willingness to adopt non-Maryland precedent, the latter of which I posted and you ignored), Florida Star was directly relevant to your "public significance" argument on #1.

Are you serious? Really?

About what? Read your own ****ing posts I'd quoted and see for yourself what I directly responded to. Your amnesia is not under my control.

[Darius871]

1) That blogger whom I've never heard of is not my "source"; the case he cited is.

2) You apparently didn't bother to read my post, because I did not say that Malpas supports the proposition that "inviting a total stranger into a publicly open workplace for conversation is the same as 'knowingly exposed to the public.'" That was the idiot blogger's assumption, not mine. What I took out of Malpas, rather, was that "the court...would interpret the Maryland Wiretap Act's use of the phrase 'private conversation' in accordance with other courts' test for objectively 'reasonable expectation of privacy' as opposed to mere subjective belief in privacy," i.e. "that other court's general interpretation of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' will be more instructive than the Maryland Wiretap Act which is completely silent on its definition" (emphasis added). Read those 60 words several times over and then tell me where I make the "assumption" you claim. Instead of making that assumption, I was arguing that Malpas demonstrated the court's propensity to adopt outside jurisprudence on "reasonable expectation of privacy," which was a segue to that outside jurisprudence which is quoted above and itself supports the conclusion that "inviting a total stranger into a publicly open workplace for conversation is the same as 'knowingly exposed to the public.'" The blogger assumed, while I found an avenue to a real conclusion.



Oh lord, is that what this is going to boil down to for you? An issue is automatically not frivolous until the Maryland Court of Appealslays the hammer down on a case with precisely identical facts? I hate to be the first to break this to you, but that's not how the common law works in practice. In the absence of absolutely binding, factually on-point precedent, lower courts always look to the approaches of those few outside jurisdictions that did deal with similar facts and, where those jurisdictions are nearly unanimous on one approach, almost invariably adopt that approach. That is why the above excerpts that you conveniently (and predictably) ignored are not only relevant but decisive.

Example: suppose the Alaska Supreme Court has never had occasion to decide whether farmers are "merchants" under the Uniform Commercial Code, but a lower Alaskan court gets a brief showing that the other 49 states' highest courts have said they are not. Are you seriously telling me that arguing "farmers are UCC merchants" would not be "frivolous"?

Admirable attempts, but obscenely lacking. I don't think cases need to have the exact same facts to serve as precedents, of course (are your strawmen a sign of desperation or are you deciding it's time to start trying to be fun for once?), but they need to have a couple of common threads to make it such a slam-dunk waste of time to even bring it to court to be classified as "frivolous".

This is far from a frivolous lawsuit. ...

There's really no reason for you to continue arguing this. You don't want to back down from your claim, so you keep skirting around the word "frivolous" in our subsequent discussion. This is the problem with lawyers -- you lack humour and you squirm way too much once you've been nailed.

I'm not skirting around the word "frivolous" at all. You simply appear to use a very abnormal definition of that word. I've shown a number of reasons why the plaintiffs here are highly, highly unlikely to succeed on the merits, and your counterargument isn't even about probability but rather that there's no "direct precedent." Sorry, but there can be, and have been, frivolous cases in the total absence of factually on-point precedent from a binding authority. The UCC scenario above is one of many examples.

FFS, look at the Birthers - is there any "direct precedent" that Obama's legal team can hang its hat on? No. Are their claims nonetheless frivolous? Yes.

As our thread has indicated, there's plenty of issues that can be addressed in court.

Sorry, but the fact that I needed to explain all of this to you does not mean a court case between experienced attorneys would go the same way.

[Darius871]

nm

[Asher]

WTF are you on about? You argued that "public significance" is questionable here and that the case is therefore not frivolous, and in response I showed binding authority to the effect that "public significance" is very broadly construed and thus waste of tax dollars on criminal activity would absolutely fall under it without question. You can't dismiss anything that directly disproves your point as a "red herring."



Dude, are you too lost to even comprehend that 1) the First Amendment impediment and 2) the court's likely interpretation of the Maryland Wiretap Act are two completely independent issues? Even supposing there's no "direct precedent" on #2 (which is inaccurate anyway; there's simply non-Maryland precedent combined with a Maryland precedent showing willingness to adopt non-Maryland precedent, the latter of which I posted and you ignored), Florida Star was directly relevant to your "public significance" argument on #1.

Are you serious? Really?

[Darius871]

Look, more red herrings. Maybe if you keep trying to dazzle Drake it'll distract everyone.

WTF are you on about? You argued that "public significance" is questionable here and that the case is therefore not frivolous, and in response I showed binding authority to the effect that "public significance" is very broadly construed and thus waste of tax dollars on criminal activity would absolutely fall under it without question. You can't dismiss anything that directly disproves your point as a "red herring."

You've admitted there's no direct precedent for this, which would imply it's not a frivolous lawsuit. Do you want to just come out and say it now, so we can be done with this?

Dude, are you too lost to even comprehend that 1) the First Amendment impediment and 2) the court's likely interpretation of the Maryland Wiretap Act are two completely independent issues? Even supposing there's no "direct precedent" on #2 (which is inaccurate anyway; there's simply non-Maryland precedent combined with a Maryland precedent showing willingness to adopt non-Maryland precedent, the latter of which I posted and you ignored), Florida Star was directly relevant to your "public significance" argument on #1.

[Drake Tungsten]

Kathleen Parker is a conservative (sort of) and does not speak for the Washington Post.

[The Mad Monk]

No, it's mostly Darius at this point. ACORN has been pissed dry.

Not really. If the Washington Post (of all papers) is opening fire on SEIU, the fun's only just begun.

[Asher]

Wow, Asher is turning into Ben.

1/10, but unoriginal as it's been used before on many people. I originated that one.

Darius: Admirable attempts, but obscenely lacking. I don't think cases need to have the exact same facts to serve as precedents, of course (are your strawmen a sign of desperation or are you deciding it's time to start trying to be fun for once?), but they need to have a couple of common threads to make it such a slam-dunk waste of time to even bring it to court to be classified as "frivolous".

This is far from a frivolous lawsuit. As our thread has indicated, there's plenty of issues that can be addressed in court.

There's really no reason for you to continue arguing this. You don't want to back down from your claim, so you keep skirting around the word "frivolous" in our subsequent discussion. This is the problem with lawyers -- you lack humour and you squirm way too much once you've been nailed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wow, Asher is turning into Ben.

I didn't even think of that, but you're totally right.

[Darius871]

All of this is stemming from a precedent which Darius and his source (a very right-wing blogger) are hamfistedly trying to assure us is relevant. The key words in that ruling, however, was "knowingly exposed to the public".

1) That blogger whom I've never heard of is not my "source"; the case he cited is.

2) You apparently didn't bother to read my post, because I did not say that Malpas supports the proposition that "inviting a total stranger into a publicly open workplace for conversation is the same as 'knowingly exposed to the public.'" That was the idiot blogger's assumption, not mine. What I took out of Malpas, rather, was that "the court...would interpret the Maryland Wiretap Act's use of the phrase 'private conversation' in accordance with other courts' test for objectively 'reasonable expectation of privacy' as opposed to mere subjective belief in privacy," i.e. "that other court's general interpretation of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' will be more instructive than the Maryland Wiretap Act which is completely silent on its definition" (emphasis added). Read those 60 words several times over and then tell me where I make the "assumption" you claim. Instead of making that assumption, I was arguing that Malpas demonstrated the court's propensity to adopt outside jurisprudence on "reasonable expectation of privacy," which was a segue to that outside jurisprudence which is quoted above and itself supports the conclusion that "inviting a total stranger into a publicly open workplace for conversation is the same as 'knowingly exposed to the public.'" The blogger assumed, while I found an avenue to a real conclusion.

which is unsurprising given that Maryland's a small state which hasn't presented a fact pattern just yet that's precisely on-point.

Which is precisely why it's not a frivolous case. It has no sure-fire precedent.

Oh lord, is that what this is going to boil down to for you? An issue is automatically not frivolous until the Maryland Court of Appealslays the hammer down on a case with precisely identical facts? I hate to be the first to break this to you, but that's not how the common law works in practice. In the absence of absolutely binding, factually on-point precedent, lower courts always look to the approaches of those few outside jurisdictions that did deal with similar facts and, where those jurisdictions are nearly unanimous on one approach, almost invariably adopt that approach. That is why the above excerpts that you conveniently (and predictably) ignored are not only relevant but decisive.

Example: suppose the Alaska Supreme Court has never had occasion to decide whether farmers are "merchants" under the Uniform Commercial Code, but a lower Alaskan court gets a brief showing that the other 49 states' highest courts have said they are not. Are you seriously telling me that arguing "farmers are UCC merchants" would not be "frivolous"?

[Kuciwalker]

Wow, Asher is turning into Ben.

[Asher]

One could also note that there is also a public concern in criminal activity. Consider for example The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), in which a state statute specifically prohibited invading rape victim's privacy by publishing her name, and when the SCOTUS struck down the statute on First Amendment grounds the subissue of "a matter of public significance" was a slam-dunk because the occurrence of a crime is categorically of public concern.

Essentially it's a very broad standard applying to anything newsworthy, and waste of public funds, occurrence or assistance of crime, or especially a combination of the two is newsworthy whether you care or not.

Look, more red herrings. Maybe if you keep trying to dazzle Drake it'll distract everyone.

You've admitted there's no direct precedent for this, which would imply it's not a frivolous lawsuit. Do you want to just come out and say it now, so we can be done with this?

Sidenote: "newsworthy" is not synonymous with "public significance". Eg: Britney Spears shaving her head is newsworthy but not of "public significance".

[Darius871]

The public concern is the use to which those funds are put. Don't be ridiculous.

One could also note that there is also a public concern in criminal activity. Consider for example The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), in which a state statute specifically prohibited invading rape victim's privacy by publishing her name, and when the SCOTUS struck down the statute on First Amendment grounds the subissue of "a matter of public significance" was a slam-dunk because the occurrence of a crime is categorically of public concern.

Essentially it's a very broad standard applying to anything newsworthy, and waste of public funds, occurrence or assistance of crime, or especially a combination of the two is newsworthy whether you care or not.

[Asher]

Darius needs to stop while he's ahead. He's already delivered the pimp-slap; continuing now will only make Asher look like a successful troll.

He's done no such thing but cited some false assumption and tried to get into your pants by impressing you with legalese. It's all silly considering anyone with a half-way competent brain can see the faulty assumption.

All of this is stemming from a precedent which Darius and his source (a very right-wing blogger) are hamfistedly trying to assure us is relevant. The key words in that ruling, however, was "knowingly exposed to the public".

It's pretty clear that in a private room, in a consultation environment, this is not exposing the information to the public. Why would they close the door if they intended for everyone to hear?

I agree Darius should have stopped, because the more we dig into it the more complex the situation appears to be. Which is precisely the point: it's not frivolous.