Clearly you’re not much of a lawyer either 
/sarcasm/
9 Likes
“Beyond the shadow of a doubt” is not the criminal standard in the United States. The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is not the same. It would be reversible error for a prosecutor to analogize it to 98%. The criminal standard of proof doesn’t really lend itself to a mathematical number the way preponderance does.
I feel like this is the second time I’ve pointed that out on a thread you were participating on?
What on earth is an “interpersonal charge?” All criminal cases are brought by the government. A private party can’t bring a criminal case. Only the government can. So there aren’t criminal cases that are brought by anyone other than the government. If a case is brought by a private litigant it’s not a criminal case.
I also teach criminal law.
25 Likes
Interesting that there also seems to be a lack of understanding that top lawyers often consult with legal academics on all manner of topics. So, again, us folks who actually do this work don’t mock or belittle anyone who isn’t a BigLaw partner. We know it takes a cast of thousands to do the really big cases and deals and that cast includes lawyers (from first year to partner, from BigLaw to local counsel), solicitors, barristers, document production, scriveners, PAs, paralegals, clerks, academics, interns - hell, summer interns! - judges, bailiffs, stenographers, reporters, legal librarians, the fine on-call staff of WestLaw, etc.
13 Likes
Please share my (non existent) post where I stated “FitzE can’t be much of a lawyer bc she works on a team.” I’ll wait.
Till then, I’ll say this in the clearest possible manner. Your statement makes zero sense. When I have any exchange with my attorney (who is, in fact, a partner at top 5 global firm) in which materially relevant facts will be discussed, it is on a zoom or conference call with at least 8 other Sr level attorneys, 1-2 jr level attorneys and possibly (depending the severity of the subject matter) another 1-2 2nd or 3 rd year interns. That, in itself, is a TEAM . FitzE would likely work on a team if she were, in fact, employed by a world renowned firm. Or, any, for that matter.
Which level is hers, respectively, I’m sure I don’t know. What is definite, is, she is not a partner, or a Senior level anything. Anything below those maybe applicable. I’ve stated repeatedly that I am not a lawyer. When I stated “I will review this and get back to you,” I meant that. It wouldn’t take even the very worst of attorneys to comprehend that (given my own current SOA’s) there is more than likely an email exchange which those very “nuances of privilege,” have been discussed. If I were unable to locate such an email of thousands of emails, I would do exactly what I described. (Loudly now, for those in the back) - I’d SEND A SCREENSHOT OF HER’S AND YOUR POSTS, and provide you with the answers. FYI @Ghazzu- yes, I find you as equally hilarious as your adorable 
emoji’s find me! 
FTR- I will go with the answers of my own retained firm & the specific partner I chose (and his brilliant team) over the answers or information provided by the alleged “top 10 global firm employees,” who somehow have the time to post on Coth (haha) all day and night on various topics. Sorry… that’s not what the pro’s are doing at ANY point in their days or nights. In fact, they are probably so sick of reading briefings and typing letters- merely coming to this BB would be seen as torture for them. Not “fun.” So please, spare me your braggadocio. I’m not remotely impressed.
I will continue to wait with bated breath, for you to present evidence. By which, I mean the post where I allegedly stated “FitzE isn’t much of an attorney bc she works in a team.” Even tiny firms deploy “teams,” for cases considered “huge,” for their own establishments. They may not have Harvard Law grads to wheel out, but, hey, at least they passed the bar. FYI- no attorneys worth the retainer would ever make make a false claim such as yours, without having those words you claim I’ve stated, ready on hand to provide as fact.) I welcome you to prove me wrong. Post that post “counselor.”
2 Likes
I ask this sincerely. Are you ok? Because the way you act in this bulletin board is very strange and your posts can be really hard to understand due to your communication style. I understood you to be derisively questioning Fitz (an actual lawyer) because she was not the head of a privilege review team or a litigator herself but rather she was a transactional lawyer doing a primary screening for privilege. In other words, because she worked on a team and was not herself making the final decision on privilege she must not know what she’s talking about. Meanwhile you are posting definitions of privilege that are simply wrong and that are basic core knowledge that any barred lawyer, litigator or not, partner or not, big firm or not, SCOTUS experience or not, would know. The things you are saying are so wrong that anyone who has taken the MPRE would know you’re wrong. It’s that fundamental. You don’t need to be a litigation partner at a white shoe firm to know the definition of attorney client privilege.
You post things that are wrong and totally kooky and then you claim you’re going to get some lawyer you know to back you up when you get called out on it. Instead of saying “mea culpa, I was wrong.” Meanwhile multiple actual lawyers, experienced ones at that, are pointing out the inaccurate things you say. Rather than listen and accept that maybe you don’t know as much as you think you do, and all you can do is deflect rather than admit you don’t really know as much as you think you do and that you’re wrong. It’s classic Dunning Kruger. Have you ever admitted to being wrong, ever? If the answer is no, what seems more likely- that you’re truly infallible or that you’re blindly narcissistic?
You have an amazing ability to derail a thread and make it about YOU and I managed to get sucked into it despite knowing better. The way you behave on here is really bizarre and to the extent there’s a kernel of a good thought/idea/productive comment in your posts (and sometimes there is) you manage to obscure it with nonsense and drama. You’re pretty exhausting to deal with and if you’re truly bothering a partner at a Vault 100 firm because you feel like you need to score a point on a horse bulletin board then god bless that partner because he or she is earning every penny of what you’re paying him or her!
I refuse to let you bait me. Your own lawyer has to put up with your behavior but the rest of us don’t.
50 Likes
So, what you’re saying is, you cannot produce the post you claimed I posted? Perhaps, you should say “mea culpa,” I was wrong. If other lawyers are reading this, they may declare you “persona non grata,” should you ever seek employment at a different firm. I sure [edit] wouldn’t hire you.
1 Like
This is the post. Where you derisively argue that because Fitz is not the head of a privilege review team she worked on she must not know jack. When in reality, it’s clear (and not surprising) that she knows more about the law that a lay person (including you).
While we’re at it, lawyers don’t “decide” matters of law. Fact finders like judges and juries do. Even partners at DC firms even SCOTUS advocates.
I’m not losing sleep over the fact that you wouldn’t hire me. I’m not available to hire to the general public and I did my time at a big firm. I have no interest in going back.
24 Likes
Why put someone on ignore then go on and on about their comments?
Ignore if you are going ignore
6 Likes
Don’t police me. You and I have had private conversations and agreed we are more aligned than we might have thought. But, LK has no special victimhood status on a thread like this. She comes on here and sneers at and mocks people who know vastly more than she does, including me. I ignored her because she does not contribute anything of value or substance to the legal or SS discussion. ETA: I also ignore her b/c her mockery of me and others does not deserve my eyeballs. But, I also choose to engage with others who are directly engaging with me, whether they are engaging me about SS or the stupid mockery of other truly valuable posters.
I will ignore nonsense but not ignore people who respond directly to me (see the respond arrow above their posts with my user name) or ask me a direct question (see them quoting me or tagging me with a question in their post). Ignoring one problematic person does not mean I am obligated to ignore everyone else on the thread unless they talk about something you say is okay for me to respond to.
To that point, why is my responding to them discussing her comments something you felt the need to try to shame me about but not the posts I was responding to? Please put me on ignore if you must, but don’t come on here and finger wag at me when the person insulting and belittling others, while display profound ignorance of the subject matter, might benefit far more from your corrections.
27 Likes
Ok. I very clearly said the exact opposite of what you stated. Of course legal teams work in teams !! Re-read my most recent post addressed to VX. This time, read for comprehension. The more you write, each time with more condescending remarks, the more obvious it becomes that whatever firm with which you may or may or not work, is either not a “top 10,” or you’re the poor soul charged with tracking the “billable hours.” A partner- or a Sr level litigator, you are not.
If you’re attempting to bait me into disclosing my firm’s name, honey, you’ll be waiting a long, long time. Ain’t gonna happen.
trust me, there are days I certainly wonder!
8 Likes
Duh. That would be legislators. If we’re talking “stare decisis,” that would be SCOTUS. In either case, it is the attorney who argues the case put before them. If a legal team brought a civil suit against SafeSport - SafeSport is protected against such lawsuits. If taken to Congress, laws could in fact be changed. In the extreme case, (if accepted) SCOTUS would hear arguments and make a ruling. That ruling would then become the precedent, as no such case involving SafeSport has ever been heard by SCOTUS at this time.
Do I need to clarify that SCOTUS only hears & rules upon matters of constitutional rights & only when the matter has been first appealed & overturned by a lower appellate court? Or, are you good on the ins & outs of “how2 get case in front of SCOTUS?” Because, although not directly, but certainly indirectly, attorneys are quite responsible for changes in laws. Do you really wish to take the position they are not? Let’s go!
Perhaps next you can debate a thoracic surgeon on the proper way to perform a lobectomy.
28 Likes
What? What is this even about? I’m so confused.
10 Likes
Someone is pretending they know what they’re talking about. Nothing to see here.
14 Likes
What was the topic of this thread again?
10 Likes
Yet, FitzE clearly stated “there are so many nuances of privilege, it must go through FIVE levels of litigators to (paraphrased) “sort it all out.”
Which is it? “Nuances of privilege are so fundamental that anyone who has taken the MPRE would know them?”
Or, (according Fitz , herself,) “nuances of privilege are so complex, they go through five levels of litigators to be sure they are correct?
Pick one!!
Doesn’t matter. It’s about someone else now apparently. Surprise!!
18 Likes
People (person really) attempting to undermine the conversation about people attempting to undermine Safe Sport.
38 Likes
Yeah. You. As IM pointed out, “the desk clerk.” If you have a SafeSport matter you’d like to discuss, post it. Otherwise, this will not be a continuation of closed threads. As VirginiasM pointed out- that won’t end well for anyone.
If your goal is to get this thread closed, I doubt anyone here will give you brownie points. Go find attention elsewhere.
