“The Fed, the E.C.B., the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank agreed to reduce the interest rate on so-called dollar liquidity swap lines by 50 basis points, among other measures.”—The New York TImes’s news alert informing me that six central banks did… something. Look, NYT, I’m not saying you have to speak to me like I’m in third grade, but as someone who makes an effort to stay up on news and could actually tell you what collaterized debt obligations and credit default swaps are, I do not understand any of the words in the second half of that sentence. Part of journalism is speaking English. If this is relevant to the world economy, and thus to me, I’d appreciate it to not be total jargon.
“Advocates of the “p.c. egalitarianism” theory, such as Andrew, evidently believe that the notion that black people are dumber than whites is a cutting edge theory, as opposed to a long-held tenet of slave-holders and white supremacists.”—
“I don’t want to live in a fucking commune. I don’t want to blow shit up. I want to get stuff done.”—Max Berger, an Occupy Wall Street organizer, quoted in John Heilemann’s really phenomenal New York Magazine story explaining OWS. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
“The SEC gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger. The bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth.”—
Rakoff appears to have quite a bit of disdain for this neither-admit-nor-deny standard. He said: (1) that’s too low a settlement, (2) you can’t get away with not taking a position, Citi, and (3) get your asses ready for trial, because we’re having one. July 16, 2012. Go.
What happens when your CivPro prof worked at a defendants firm and then switched to a plaintiffs firm
The facts of this case are just a plaintiff's lawyer's dream - they're just beautiful - the guy had his grandkids in the back seat! Think about their emotional distress and the likelihood they'd be harmed!
Deposing kids, though - I had to depose a six-year-old once, and it was -
Oh relax. We gave him some candy. And they got a huge settlement.
I doubt any successful lawsuits will come out of this. Certainly not any private lawsuits. Problem is that for there to be a lawsuit there has to be injury. Stockholders who bought or owned stock during the time period have to prove that they were harmed because the bank executives lied, and they were actually probably helped by the lies. Usually the way you prove harm in securities fraud cases is by saying, “Hey, Bank Executive, you lied when said your bank was healthier than it was, and when everyone found out you were lying, the stock price plummeted and I lost a ton of money.” But in this case, no one found out what bad shape the banks were in, so the stock price never dropped as a result of the lies of executive about these secret fed loans.
I suppose if the stock for these banks dropped very precipitously tomorrow the stockholders would have a case, but I think that’s pretty unlikely - the banks are generally whole and solvent now, so there’s no reason for that to happen.
Maybe a criminal prosecution by DOJ or SEC is possible? Perhaps possible, but criminal fraud is incredibly hard to prove, and the SEC has been so starved of resources by this Congress, I rather doubt it.
“In Britain, even the satirical weekly Private Eye has weighed in, proposing last week that the answer was for Europe itself to leave the European Union.”—NYT. Well, you can mark it - this is the point where the unthinkable becomes the inevitable.
There’s a line in this really famous case (International Shoe v. Washington) where the court says that a court may take personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if defendant has “sufficient minimum contacts” with the state and if the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Okay, so a couple of things.
1. What the hell are “traditional notions of fair play”?
2. Even assuming you can define traditional notions of fair play, I feel pretty confident most women and black people would argue traditional notions of fair play have absolutely nothing to do with justice.
3. You only need “substantial” justice? What, so a suit is okay as long as its just-ish?
I’m going to go ahead and translate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” as court-speak for “feels like the suit should probably go ahead and you don’t want to knock it out on procedural grounds.”
“You really do need to wear makeup. Sorry. Keep your makeup understaed and neutral. Eye shadow is okay, but don’t wear too much. Many of us believe strongly in primer, especially on eyelids to prevent your makeup from creasing… Do not try new makeup the week before your interview. Observe how it wears throughout the day. Be realistic about your skin. Do you need full coverage or light coverage?”—
“I said to his physician assistant, I said, ‘That sounds foreign’—not that I had anything against foreign doctors—but it sounded too foreign. She said, ‘He’s from Lebanon.’ Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Cain, he’s a Christian from Lebanon.’”—Herman Cain, telling an audience at a Christian-themed amusement park about his battle with cancer and the concerns he had upon learning that his doctor’s name was “Dr. Abdallah.” (via officialssay)
Cain is just lucky I wasn’t that physicians assistant, because my “don’t worry” would have been followed with, “One, Lebanon is a very Christian country, idiot, and two, racist jerks have roughly the same cell structure re: cancer as everyone else. The doctor will still be able to adequately treat you.”
“President Obama consistently polls ahead of every Republican candidate for president, except for Mitt Romney, who he only leads most of the time. But according to an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, two pollsters who formerly worked for Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, respectively, Obama should do the right thing and “step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
Because, the authors insist, once Obama is no longer running for reelection, the partisan gridlock that plagues Congress would magically dissipate. Republicans would “come to the table and negotiate,” their fervent anti-taxation, anti-spending dogma suddenly nonexistent, for some reason. The authors claim to propose this detached-from-reality theory “for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country,” but we think a more plausible explanation for the op-ed is that they have simply run out of ideas for op-eds: They wrote essentially the same one last November for the Washington Post.”—
Jamelle Bouie calls Schoen and Caddell’s piece “The Worst Political Column of All Time,” and correctly points out that “Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen have built a name for themselves as ‘Fox News Democrats’ — the pundits [right-wingers] use to show the world that ‘even Democrats’ agree with their attacks on Barack Obama (he is a hyper-partisan socialist) and liberals as a whole. In fact, most of their work is centered on the premise that Democrats can only succeed if they jetison any semblence of liberalism from their agenda.”
Some of this is undoubtedly true. On the other hand, I’m a little confused as to how so many law students graduate without real world experience. Most law schools have clinics, where you basically practice law under the supervision of real attorneys, and pretty much everyone holds a legal job during the summer.
This is, though, one of the reasons I love that one of my professors just left practice about a year ago. He has an interesting/useful perspective.
“The enforcement action you are requesting raises serious First Amendment and other legal concerns… Under the guise of cleaning the Park you are threatening fundamental constitutional rights.”— A letter from the National Lawyers Guild representing the Occupy Wall Street Protestors to New York City counsel. The only problem is NLG isn’t quite sure how First Amendment applies to these public private spaces, nor whether these rules are content-agnostic. This is a fascinating legal issue, mixing first amendment with zoning regulations and these weird public/private parks rules. Don’t worry, folks - this is what lawsuits are for!
1. Are injured on Illinois government-owned property that is intended or permitted to be used recreationally, and willful and wanton conduct may be the proximate cause* of your injury, and you want to sue, but are concerned about the Tort Immunity Act,
2. You break into a city hall (or a handful of other government-buildings) to save homeless people from freezing to death in Massachusetts and need some help building your defense,
I AM YOUR GIRL.
*Or if you’re a third-restatement kind of person, scope of liability. I prefer the scope of liability term myself, given that proximate cause’s isn’t really about proximity or cause, but you know, restatement’s not official yet.
Hm. Maybe I’m way off here, but I think when you invite an AP reporter into your CIA unit and provide her with on-the-record interviews, the unit becomes not-so-secret. On the Media talked with the reporter about this, and sounds like (newly minted) CIA Director David Petraeus is pretty media-savvy. Pretty sure he knows exactly what he’s doing by providing access to this team.
Doesn’t it seem off that Perry’s campaign would be derailed by the fact that he forgot the name of one of three cabinet level offices he wants to get rid of rather than the fact that he wants to get rid of *three cabinet level offices*?
“I know, I agree with you about the distribution of wealth and all that - I’m in the lower reaches myself there. But you have to be realistic. What’s your plan? Who’s going to satisfy your goals?”—
An extremely elderly woman on the train is having an extremely earnest conversation with some Occupiers. They are perhaps not the best and brightest representatives of the movement but she is being very patient with them.
I like living in a place where it’s so acceptable to talk to strangers on transit. The Occupiers are sounding cringe-inducingly directionless though.
“Since so much has already been written by our sister circuits about the issues presented by this case–which will almost surely be decided by the Supreme Court–we shall be sparing in adding to the production of paper.”—
- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the government’s motion to dismiss a facial challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Pro-tip: if a court says it will be “sparing in adding to the production of paper” instead of saying it will “be brief,” it’s probably not going to be brief. And indeed, this opinion is ONE HUNDRED AND THREE pages. Unless you meant this opinion’s only going to be electronic, judges, that’s not “sparing in adding to the production of paper.”
The judges of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would not fare so well in my legal writing class.
“The ranks of America’s poorest poor have climbed to a record high - 1 in 15 people - spread widely across metropolitan areas as the housing bust pushed many inner-city poor into suburbs and other outlying places and shriveled jobs and income.”— The AP. It’s rough out there, folks.