You might want to look around for flea markets in your area
That's a good idea.
I'm a big girl. Just tell me.
Inara ,'Objects In Space'
Natter 34: Freak With No Name
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Gudanov - Apr 06, 2005 7:59:45 am PDT #3709 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
Lyra Jane - Apr 06, 2005 8:02:15 am PDT #3710 of 10001
Up with the sun
Thanks, Wolfram.
It really does boil down to "he's a wanker," doesn't it?
DXMachina - Apr 06, 2005 8:05:08 am PDT #3711 of 10001
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Don't judges have the right to kick plaintiffs in the butt for pulling crap like that?
Only in Australia. With the Boot.
tommyrot - Apr 06, 2005 8:05:47 am PDT #3712 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
You might want to look around for flea markets in your area, Gud.
Some stores specialize in selling used electronics, including parts like switches.
bon bon - Apr 06, 2005 8:09:11 am PDT #3713 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I see what you're saying, Wolfram, and it makes sense on equitable grounds. But I suspect the case law on either the property law issues or the res judicata issues will be rather inequitable.
I mean, taking the long view, I can see a rule like: regardless of what you believe the merits of an action to be, if you don't fight it and it doesn't go your way you takes your chances. It all seems to turn on your client's view that there's no lease to fight. I don't think you can adopt the rule that if your client thinks there's no issue, but the court thinks there is an issue, that ruling shouldn't be given binding effect.
I don't have a stake in this, I just think you should be careful.
Wolfram - Apr 06, 2005 8:19:51 am PDT #3714 of 10001
Visilurking
Yeah, that's what it really boils down to. Just because he had opportunity to fight, does that mean he had to fight? How much does the potential outcome matter?
Maybe Stephanie's notes will point me in the right direction. This issue/claim preclusion stuff is almost as bad as the rule against perpetuities.
Sorry to burden the board with boring law stuff.
-t - Apr 06, 2005 8:22:27 am PDT #3715 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Sorry to burden the board with boring law stuff.
I find this stuff fascinating, as long as I don't have to pass a test on it or have it directly affect me.
bon bon - Apr 06, 2005 8:22:48 am PDT #3716 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
This issue/claim preclusion stuff is almost as bad as the rule against perpetuities.
Ha! I'm actually working on conflict of laws cases and the procedural/substantive distinction. MAN there was a lot of fucking awful doctrines to learn and then forget in law school. I think conflict of laws was my least favorite thing ever.
JenP - Apr 06, 2005 8:24:31 am PDT #3717 of 10001
Exactly what -t said.
Also, happy birthday to Annabel and get better vibes to Rio.
Beautiful day here. Birds chirping, warm weather, sunny.
Topic!Cindy - Apr 06, 2005 8:26:14 am PDT #3718 of 10001
What is even happening?
I also find it interesting. I'm only not saying anything, because I don't know anything. And that's hard for me. I should get cookies.