ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Asher]

no

I think I may've just assumed too much and didn't connect the dots for you.

You quoted the wikipedia entry:

In some usages, a plaintiff's action may not be technically frivolous because it has sound legal grounds, but is colloquially referred to as frivolous for its perceived value

So you are using the colloquial usage, not the legal one, and are judging its perceived value and not its legal standing? After all, the same wikipedia entry defines it more stringently in legal terms, which you did not quote:

The typical definition in United States law is very different from its colloquial or political meaning. United States courts usually define "frivolous litigation" as a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.

The formal definition involves whether the claim or defense has merit, not its perceived value.

What was your point in quoting that excerpt if you are now going to claim it does not have anything to do with your position?

[Darius871]

It's about time you actually cited something relevant. I knew you had it in you. Thanks.

How are Desnick and American Transmission not relevant? Also, if you'd bothered to read the authorities I'd cited, you'd see that the "relevant" Medical Laboratory Management Consultants case is just the 9th Circuit's affirmance of the "irrelevant" Medical Laboratory Management Consultants case I cited earlier... how on earth does that work?

[Darius871]

I think I may've just assumed too much and didn't connect the dots for you.

You quoted the wikipedia entry:

In some usages, a plaintiff's action may not be technically frivolous because it has sound legal grounds, but is colloquially referred to as frivolous for its perceived value

So you are using the colloquial usage, not the legal one, and are judging its perceived value and not its legal standing? After all, the same wikipedia entry defines it more stringently in legal terms, which you did not quote:

The typical definition in United States law is very different from its colloquial or political meaning. United States courts usually define "frivolous litigation" as a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.

The formal definition involves whether the claim or defense has merit, not its perceived value.

What was your point in quoting that excerpt if you are now going to claim it does not have anything to do with your position?

Jesus, which part of "even supposing" don't you understand? It's called arguing in the alternative.

1) Under a broad colloqial definition (described in my cites), it's frivolous.
2) Even under a narrower definition (described in your own cite), it's still frivolous.

What could get simpler than that?

[Asher]

How are Desnick and American Transmission not relevant? Also, if you'd bothered to read the authorities I'd cited, you'd see that the "relevant" Medical Laboratory Management Consultants case is just the 9th Circuit's affirmance of the "irrelevant" Medical Laboratory Management Consultants case I cited earlier...

I never said that case was irrelevant earlier, I didn't see it because you quoted a ****ing spammy wall of text without proper formatting. It was never read.

[Darius871]

I didn't see it because you quoted a ****ing spammy wall of text without proper formatting.

And how are quotes with the courtesy of bolding not "proper formatting"?

It was never read.

And that's why this discussion is pointless. The legal authority is just about the only thing worth reading, and that's what you skip?

[Asher]

Jesus, which part of "even supposing" don't you understand? It's called arguing in the alternative.

1) Under a broad colloqial definition (described in my cites), it's frivolous.
2) Even under a narrower definition (described in your own cite), it's still frivolous.

What could get simpler than that?

It's simple, but it's wrong. The videotapes violated Maryland law, and thus there is a legal merit. So under the narrower definition (requiring legal merit), it's not frivolous. It's only frivolous in the colloquial usage, which is to say you see little perceived value

[Asher]

Then this discussion is pointless. The legal authority is just about the only thing worth reading, and that's what you skip?

If you want people to read something, you need to not spam mostly irrelevant **** and throw in the odd relevant thing. If the signal to noise ratio is bad, it's not read.

It had further strikes against it aside from your spammy nature in quoting ****:
1) It's in legalese, which is painful to read
2) It's extremely poorly formatted, it's a massive blob of text

I guarantee you not a single person read that, despite what I'm sure Drake will claim to stir the pot.

[Darius871]

The videotapes violated Maryland law, and thus there is a legal merit.

No. Now you're the one operating on a faulty assumption. "Maryland law" is not the statute, but how the statute is interpreted by courts in the particular factual circumstances, and absent such interpretation, how the court would interpret it in light of what other courts have done when facing the same factual circumstances. "Private conversation" is an absolutely ****ing meaningless phrase without a judicial gloss, so they did not "violate Maryland law."

[Darius871]

If you want people to read something, you need to not spam mostly irrelevant **** and throw in the odd relevant thing. If the signal to noise ratio is bad, it's not read.

It had further strikes against it aside from your spammy nature in quoting ****:
1) It's in legalese, which is painful to read
2) It's extremely poorly formatted, it's a massive blob of text

I guarantee you not a single person read that, despite what I'm sure Drake will claim to stir the pot.

How is a direct quote being a "blob" my problem? If I'd have trimmed it down to an essence with ellipses, your predictable response would have been that I was conveniently omitting things unfavorable to my point.

The bottom line is that the legal authority is what decides this argument, and if you completely ignore it, then you have no argument.

[Asher]

No. Now you're the one operating on a faulty assumption. "Maryland law" is not the statute, but how the statute is interpreted by courts in the particular factual circumstances, and absent such interpretation, how the court would interpret it in light of other courts facing the same factual circumstances. "Private conversation" is an absolutely ****ing meaningless phrase without a judicial gloss, so they did not "violate Maryland law."

And this is precisely what the defense attorney(s) will argue, I'm sure. Obviously at least some lawyers disagree.

This is why they go to court. Taking them to court isn't a summary judgment.

[Darius871]

And this is precisely what the defense attorney(s) will argue, I'm sure. Obviously at least some lawyers disagree.

This is why they go to court. Taking them to court isn't a summary judgment.

I can "go to court" for some Birther clients too, and "some lawyers" would find it worthwhile. So what?

[Asher]

How is a direct quote being a "blob" my problem? If I'd have trimmed it down to an essence with ellipses, your predictable response would have been that I was conveniently omitting things unfavorable to my point.

The bottom line is that the legal authority is what decides this argument, and if you completely ignore it, then you have no argument.

The word count of that post was astronomical. It was copy and pasted from a heavily formatted source whose format did not translate. It was unreadable to anyone who is not a masochist.

If you wanted to make a point, you cite a summary that's directly relevant and link to a properly formatted source for more detail.

This is pretty basic ****.

[Asher]

I can "go to court" for some Birther clients too, and "some lawyers" would find it worthwhile. So what?

So let them at it.

I'm not saying permit all frivolous lawsuits, I'm saying when it's not obviously a frivolous lawsuit (eg, someone being upset they were secretly recorded in a state which has laws against such things), it should be allowed to go the courts.

If there is a direct precedent with no major variables changed, then I can see no point to pursue this in a full trial, but if there's no direct precedent with sufficient changes in major factors, then it may very well be legally distinct from other precedents.

That's precisely why, by the way, you were able to find so many different "precedents" related to this. If they're sufficiently different, they go before the courts. If the courts worked as you are claiming they would, we'd only ever need 1 precedent for surreptitious recordings but demonstrably, there are many. All are different in their own ways.

[Darius871]

The word count of that post was astronomical. It was copy and pasted from a heavily formatted source whose format did not translate. It was unreadable to anyone who is not a masochist.

If you wanted to make a point, you cite a summary that's directly relevant and link to a properly formatted source for more detail.

This is pretty basic ****.

1) "Heavily formatted"? How? It's just textual sentences, with a citation of legal authority between each sentence. If it was riddled with "*$@^%&@*%!(&(!*" then you might have a point, but merely citing authorities within a text is usually a good thing.

2) Again, don't pretend like you wouldn't have pounced on ellipses.

3) It should be obvious by now that these sources are only available on private databases and can't be linked.

4) Words are words. Learn to read.

I can "go to court" for some Birther clients too, and "some lawyers" would find it worthwhile. So what?

So let them at it.

Sure. It's still completely irrelevant to whether their argument's frivolous.

[notyoueither]

I'm just asking the question. I don't pretend to know the law here.

If it indeed the case that you can simply record any conversation with anyone behind closed doors if you simply don't know them well ("member of the public"), then your country is very ****ed up.

There's a right to privacy that needs to be balanced with the right to free speech.

You have seen consumer advocate clips on local news in Canada, yes?

Gotcha journalism on CBC and CTV with hidden cams?