Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sprry75

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 69
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:57 AM »
What a boner  ::)

Who was behind the Smith & Wesson lawsuits?  Oh, that's right: Republican[/b] James Brady.  You know, Assistant and Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan?  He's the "lib er, left leaning politician."  Significantly, it was only after the settlement of the primary case (which involved multiple governmental and municipal entities--not private parties--as plaintiffs)  that individual plaintiffs began utilizing the cause of action as a private right of relief.  Additionally, the case settled between the parties, it wasn't a judicial verdict.  The trial judge's political persuasion--who cares?  He or she had nothing to do with the outcome of that case.

Columbine...uh...okay.  Michael Moore's a judge?  Hm.  News to me.  Was Wal-Mart sued over Columbine?  Yeah...didn't think so.  What was your point again?

Maybe you got your anecdotes confused.  Were you thinking of the North Carolina case where police responded to a scene of domestic abuse?  The one where the husband had fled, saying he was going to go buy bullets to kill himself?  The police contacted the two Wal-Marts and told them not to sell the guy bullets.  The managers said okay (thereby undertaking a legal duty; see above), but forgot to tell their gun department clerks.  The guy showed up, bought bullets, and killed himself.  Wal-Mart settled that case for $130,000 based on its exposure under a well known theory of liability called "negligent undertaking."  Again, it was a settlement between the parties; no judge involved.

I don't know anything about that Rhode Island case, other than that Rhode Island is one of several states that have a strict statutory scheme imposing liability on rental car companies for torts caused by their drivers.  Thus, regardless of whether a judge is a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, he applies the laws as enacted by the state legislature.  That has nothing to do with the judge's political persuasion.  Indeed, I believe that if a judge were to act in opposition to majoritarian legislation, your ilk would call him or her an "activist."

So am I missing something, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: To Catch a Predator
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:19 AM »
I've spotted this show on several times, but this week's was the only one where I actually sat and watched it for the whole hour.  I say keep it up; the law of averages indicates that the freaks that Dateline catches are just the tip of the iceberg.  Any assistance that law enforcement can get in locking these pigs up should be welcome.

In most cases, I'm against the death penalty, but as a father to two little kids, I think any conviction for anything involving kids should be a capital offense.  And not just lethal injection, but a good old fashioned hangin'.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:08 AM »
This is the dumbest thing I think I have ever read:

America is divided 50-50 along the 2 major party lines, and that judges assigned to positions have either an "R" or a "D" after their name.  One of those is going to blame, the other is going to blame the moron who actually committed the rape.

Dressel, despite what you've been programmed to believe and regurgitate, cases like this have little, if anything, to do with political persuasion or idealogical bents.  Tort cases are, by and large, decided upon the factual and legal merits of the case (there are some exceptions pertaining to peripheral issues, like damage caps and statutory immunity, etc., but this case is so far from those peripheral issues that discussing them in the same context would be premature).  So I wasn't just baiting you, I was genuinely curious as to why you think "judicial philosophy" has anything to do with a case like this?

To come back with the suggestion that Democrats would make an inane decision and Republicans would make a good one is absurd for several reasons, but I'll list just a couple:  1) it presumes a connection between "judicial philosophy" and declared political allegiance.  Despite the conservatives' best efforts, the judiciary is an apolitical branch of government.  With some notable exceptions impertinent to this discussion, liberalism and conservatism are vastly different notions in the courts than on the beltway; 2) it completely ignores the procedural and substantive aspects of the law that have far more influence on the outcome of cases like this than the political persuasions, or judicial philosophies, for that matter, of trial court judges.

There's a procedural mechanism in place that provides for dismissal of cases that fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  Depending on the parties' various arguments on the nature of the plaintiffs' claims, this case will likely be decided (and my prediction, disposed of) at that juncture.  Whether the trial court judge is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Socialist will have no bearing on the procedural posture and disposition of the case.

The plaintiffs' tort claims do not invoke any constitutional rights, therefore the various judicial approaches to constitutional interpretation won't become an issue.  It's not like this is a habeas corpus petition challenging Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, or a civil rights claim raising issues about the nature of fundamental rights.  It's simply a question of whether MySpace owed a legal duty to protect its users from offline encounters, and if so, whether that duty was breached--all in all, a fairly objective inquiry that has nothing to do with the trial judge's "judicial philosophy."

So what does it have to do with this case, other than your kneejerk tendency to blame everything you don't like or think is stupid on liberals and/or Democrats?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:26 PM »
That doesn't matter; I find you in contempt.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:22 PM »
By the way, what does this case really have to do with anyone's judicial philosophy?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:14 PM »
Jeez, I'm about as shyster as they come, and I wouldn't touch this case with a ten foot pole.

Adam Loewy, the plaintiffs' attorney, is a real estate and corporate attorney who dabbles in a little bit of bankruptcy.  He's no "trial lawyer," as we're called by the media.  My guess is he's doing this case strictly for the PR.

I'd love to get a copy of that complaint to see what theories are alleged.  But according to Loewy, the web site is being sued for its "failure to protect her online when they knew sexual predators were on that site."

Let's break it down:

When distilled, there are only so many reasons you can sue--they're called "causes of action."  If you don't have a cause of action, a court can't grant you relief, and the other side is entitled to dismissal of the case.

Unless there's some sort of statutory cause of action with which I'm unfamiliar, these plaintiffs have no cause of action.

To state a claim in tort, you (generally) either have to have an intentional tort (which the girl undeniably has against the perpetrator), or negligence.  To establish negligence, you have to show 1) the existence of a duty of care; 2) the defendant breached the duty; 3) the defendant's breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries; and 4) damages.

She isn't even close to being able to show the existence of a duty--MySpace does not, and indeed, cannot, owe its users a duty of care "to protect [users] online when [MySpace] knew sexual predators were on that site."

(Sidenote: that obviously presupposes MySpace knew, or should have known, that sexual predators were on the site.  It's a long shot, but I can see why a lawyer would at least attempt to make that argument).

Even if it did owe such a duty, it's obligation to reasonably perform that duty goes away the instant the user voluntarily enters false information in accessing the site and its contents.

Furthermore, even if MySpace did owe such a duty, it has no duty to affirmatively protect the users from voluntarily meeting each other out in the real world.  What the claim amounts to is that if MySpace is going to run the way it runs, it should appoint a full-time babysitter to each user to monitor their offline behavior.


I suppose there are other theories out there, but I have a tough time conjuring them up.  For instance, MySpace's user agreement does not include a contractual obligation to protect its users from online predators, much less the actions of online predators with whom users voluntarily choose to meet up with in the real world.  Thus, there's no claim in contract, i.e., no cause of action.

Even if you can establish a cause of action, i.e., state a claim for which relief can be granted, there are so many defenses to this (subsequent intervening cause; failure to join an indespensible party (the molestor), etc.), it's not even funny.

This lawyer's capitalizing on his clients because he doesn't want to shell out for Yellow Pages ads.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Top 5 Hotties
« on: June 14, 2006, 11:26 PM »
How many of you guys actually jerk off while "reading" this thread?

Are you really curious?  Or are you just kind of turning to your colleagues for approval?


Mostly just wondering if anyone wastes their time in here when there are hot pictures of the Endor wave all over the place...mmmmm.

I'm not worried about you, though, Dressel.  I know you just spank it to your Fantasy Baseball shenaniganzz.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Pink Floyd
« on: June 14, 2006, 11:23 PM »
My favorite whole album is either Animals or Wish You Were Here, but my favorite song is Sex Dwarf.

Wait, that's my favorite Soft Cell song.

My favorite Pink Floyd song is The Gunner's Dream.  It's a little maudlin, but it still makes me bawl every time I hear it.

Floating Down
Through the Clouds
Memories come rushing
Up to meet me now

But in the space between the heavens
and the corner of some foreign field
I had a dream...
I had a dream

Goodbye Max,
Goodbye Ma
After the service
When you're walking slowly to the car

And the silver in her hair
Shines in the cold November air
You'll hear the tolling bell
And touch the silk in your lapel

And as the teardrops rise
to meet the comfort of the band

You take her frail hand...

And hold on to the dream

(kickass sax solo...yes I said ******* sax solo)

A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street

Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more

No one ever disappears,
You never hear their standard issues kicking in your door

You can relax
On both sides of the tracks
And maniacs
Don't blow holes
In bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law

And no one kills the children anymore.

No one kills the children anymore.

Night after night,
Going 'round and 'round my brain
This dream is driving me insane

In the corner of some foreign field
The gunner sleeps tonight
What's done is done

We cannot just write off his final scene
Take heed of the dream

Take heed.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Top 5 Hotties
« on: June 14, 2006, 11:04 PM »
How many of you guys actually jerk off while "reading" this thread?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Rebelscum
« on: June 14, 2006, 10:53 PM »

What the hell is your malfunction?

Uncle Owwenn!  This Deanpaul unit has a bad motivator.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: 10,000 Days
« on: June 5, 2006, 05:10 AM »
It's a mindblower, all right.  I don't think it's all around as cohesive as either Aenima or Lateralus, but it's a very rich record that gets better with repeat listens.  I think Lateralus is an entirely perfect record, so it's pretty tough to top, but 10,000 Days is better than anything else I've heard since Lateralus came out.

Definite favorites are Wings 1 & 2, Jambi, and Right in Two.

There are parts of the album, though (e.g., various verses from "Vicarious"), that sound a lot more "A Perfect Circle" than Tool, and I don't mean that in a good way.  The music's obviously better, but Maynard seems to be playing similar vocal tricks.  I can't really put my finger on it, but do you know what I mean?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: What's spinning?
« on: June 5, 2006, 04:49 AM »
Blade Runner Soundtrack - Esper Edition

What's the Esper Edition?  I've got both the orchestral rip-off type version that originally came out, plus the official Vangelis release that came out ten years ago or so, but I've never heard o' this....what is it?

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Gas Prices
« on: April 25, 2006, 02:38 PM »
[totally sarcastic; don't ban me] Way to go Dressel, you ****, you've obviously scared Force Guy off.


Plus these ****** gas prices are Bush's fault.  **** Bush.[/totally sarcastic; don't ban me]

Not cool, dude, not cool.
Only $3.61 for regular in tha' SLC.

That's what you get for punching my munchkin!

Look Dressel.  You crossed the line.  Although I lost the bet about a Kerry '04 victory, you agreed you'd keep the spoils of your victory a secret.  Now every closeted right winger is going to be bugging me for handjobs.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Infidelity.....what say you?
« on: April 25, 2006, 02:36 PM »
Buddy, that sucks.  I'd like to say it will take time, but my guess is you'll never really get over it.  Just cherish your daughter, and then get your hot ass to Utah for some Sprry75 lovin'.

Mrs. Sprry75 isn't violent; in fact, she'll probably be running the camera.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Infidelity.....what say you?
« on: April 25, 2006, 11:32 AM »
I finally see another post of a different color in here.

Slothus, it's against my better judgment to say this, but get off you high horse of 20:1 statistics and reread page one. Namely, my reply there.

What makes Ryan's post really interesting is the fact that he once practiced divorce law and heard more cases with intimate details than most of us could imagine.

"I'm not only the I Hate Sprry75 Club president, I'm also a client"

Welcome to the official "I hate Sprry75" fan club, guys.

I've been a member for years. >:(

I hate Sprry75, too.  

Boy, it feels good to finally get that off my chest.

I can say that of the hundreds of divorce cases I worked on, easily more than 50% of them involved pornography, which was then a gateway to infidelity.

There were a couple of cases where marriages broke up because of infidelities where husbands started banging their secretaries or old high school sweethearts or whatever, but the vast majority were dudes who were looking at internet porn and then got into random sex swinging type sites.

Crazy.  Man, I had this one client...whoa.  If it weren't for the attorney client privilege, and the fact that I finally gave him his hard-drive back when the case ended, I'd tell you all a story.  The dude, we'll call him "ScottMattyRob," was into the freakiest **** I have ever seen.  Whoa.

Come to think of it, a big part of the reason I hate Sprry75 so bad is because he chose a profession where I would be exposed to pictures of flabby, pasty dudes dressed up in sundresses sticking their fingers...well, nevermind.

Suffice to say, there's a lot to hate.  A lot.

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 69