#How Civil Litigation Works?

[miichaelbelll]

What Is Civil Litigation and How Does It Work?

It is the procedure through which parties settle legal disputes before the courts of law. It usually involves the plaintiff who initiates the lawsuit as well as the defendant who responds to the suit. The parties go through the process of discovery, in which they collect evidence and details relevant to the dispute. The case is then brought to trial, in which the jury or judge hears the evidence and then makes a decision of the liability and damages in the event of they are. If either side is dissatisfied with the result it is possible to exercise the option of appealing the decision to the higher court.

Common Types of Civil Litigation

There are many kinds of civil lawsuits, but some of the most well-known are:

Contract disputes: This happens when one party claims the other party has failed perform their obligations as stipulated in an agreement.

Personal injuries: These include allegations that someone was injured due to the negligence of another or a wrongful act.

Conflicts over property: They are disputes about ownership or possession of real estate or other properties.

The business disputes are disputes between businesses or between a business with its shareholders, or clients.

Conflicts between employees: are disputes between employers and employees including accusations of discrimination, or unjust termination.

Cases involving consumer protection: They include disputes between business and consumers for instance, accusations of deceptive advertisements or products that are defective.

Intellectual property dispute: They are dispute over trademarks, patents copiesrights, trade secrets.

The torts are the legal wrongs committed by a person against the other, such as defamation, negligence, or the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This isn't an exhaustive list. New kinds of civil litigation might be created as technology and society develop.

Common Steps in a Civil Law Case

The steps involved in a civil lawsuit will vary based on the jurisdiction and kind of case, but most civil lawsuits have a general procedure:

Making a complaint: The plaintiff files a complaint to the court, detailing the details of the case as well as the remedy they seek.

Service of procedure The defendant is informed of the lawsuit and provided the opportunity to reply.

The filing of an answer Answer: The defendant file an answer to the lawsuit, denial or admitting to the allegations and arguing any defenses.

The discovery process involves both parties to collect information and share evidence like witnesses' statements and documents during the process of discovery.

Motions: Parties can make motions in front of the court asking the judge to make specific decisions or decide on certain issues prior to trial.

Arbitration or mediation Parties can try to settle the dispute through arbitration or mediation, alternative to trial.

Trial In the event that the dispute isn't resolved, it goes to trial, in which jurors or judges hear the evidence and decides of damages and liability, in the event of they exist.

Appeal: If any party is not satisfied with the outcome in the case, both parties might be entitled to appeal the verdict to the higher court.

It's important to remember that not every case will follow all these steps Certain cases could be settled prior to trial. Furthermore, certain jurisdictions could have different names for certain of these steps, however all of the steps are similar.

Understanding the Statute of Limitations

An statute of limitation is law that imposes the time frame for the time a person or business entity must pursue legal action. The length of time is contingent on the legal action taken, and begins with the date when the particular incident occurred, or the the discovery of the event. When the statute of limitations is over and the individual or business is generally prohibited from taking legal actions. The types of legal actions with statutes of limitations are the filing of a personal injury lawsuit and bringing criminal charges and bringing a lawsuit against a the breach of contract.

What Is a Lawyer's Role?

Lawyers' job is to offer legal guidance and representation to clients on a range of legal concerns. This could include considering litigation useful information, drafting of legal documents and representing clients in courts, negotiating settlements and offering advice on legal matters. Lawyers are able to specialize in various fields of law including civil law, criminal law, corporate law or tax law. They might also be specialized in specific areas or industries.

If there is a time limit, the lawyer's responsibility is to inform clients of the applicable deadlines to take legal action, and assist them in understanding the way that this statute might impact their case. They also ensure that they file all legal documents and begin any legal action within the deadline that is stipulated by statute of limitations.

Lawyers also assist clients understand the different aspects of the law and how it can be applied to their particular situation. Lawyers also represent those they serve in the courts and strive to get the best outcome possible for them.

[marveltrumpshate]

The Marvel Trumps Hate 2024 auction has officially begun! View auctions and place bids at marveltrumpshate.com.

Remember, we have 180 creators and 293 auctions offering all types of works and all types of universes, fandoms, ships, and characters. Follow the suggestions below to find the perfect auction(s) for you and figure out your bidding strategy:

See all of the auctions on our website

Filter auctions through several different ways (work type, rating, universe, character, ship, and gen relationship), using the tags on our tag list and our tips on finding specific auctions such as auctions offering "teen-rated 616 Steve/Tony" or "all ships in the GotG fandom" on our search guide. You can also look at special auction categories we spotlighted here

Check out our list of creators

Read our bidding guide and Bidders FAQ

Consider matchmaking if you can't find what you're looking for or pod bids if you have a tight budget but still want to bid

If you're on our MTH offerings Tumblr, click the auction link on a creator’s post to bid on that specific auction on our site

The auction will close at 11:59:59 PM ET on Saturday, October 26 (what time is that for me?). Check out the countdown here.

For more information, check out our About | FAQ | Schedule | How to Participate | Supported Organizations pages, or get in touch with us!

See our charity spotlights here:

Current Events

Environment & Natural Disasters

Health

LGBTQ+

Civil Rights Advocacy & Litigation

Women's Rights

Education

Immigration & Refuge

Equity & Access

Best of luck, everyone! Have fun and most importantly, remember that all winning bids will be going directly to great nonprofit organizations that work tirelessly to make the world a better place.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Elizabeth Warren for Time Magazine:

To everyone who feels like their heart has been ripped out of their chest, I feel the same. To everyone who is afraid of what happens next, I share your fears. But what we do next is important, and I need you in this fight with me. As we confront a second Donald Trump presidency, we have two tasks ahead. First, try to learn from what happened. And then, make a plan.

Many political experts and D.C. insiders are already blaming President Joe Biden’s economic agenda for Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Even though the Biden economy produced strong economic growth while reining in inflation, incumbent parties across the globe have been tossed out by voters after the pandemic. American voters also showed support for Democratic economic policies, for example, approving ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Alaska and to guarantee paid sick leave in Missouri.

[...] What comes next? Trump won the election, but more than 67 million people voted for Democrats and they don’t expect us to roll over and play dead. We will have a peaceful transition of power, followed by a vigorous challenge from the party out of power, because that’s how democracy works. Here’s a path forward.

First, fight every fight in Congress.

We won’t always win, but we can slow or sometimes limit Trump’s destruction. With every fight, we can build political power to put more checks on his administration and build the foundation for future wins. Remember that during the first Trump term, mass mobilization—including some of the largest peaceful protests in world history—was the battery that charged the resistance. There is power in solidarity, and we can’t win if we don’t get in the fight. During the Trump years, Congress stepped up its oversight of his unprecedented corruption and abuses of power. In the Senate, Democrats gave no quarter to radical Trump nominees; we asked tough questions and held the Senate floor for hours to slow down confirmation and expose Republican extremism. These tactics doomed some nominations entirely, laid the groundwork for other cabinet officials to later resign in disgrace, and brought scrutiny that somewhat constrained Trump’s efforts.

When all this work came together, we won some of the toughest fights. Remember Republicans’ attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Democrats did not have the votes to stop the repeal. Nevertheless, we fought on. Patients kept up a relentless rotation of meetings in Congress, activists in wheelchairs performed civil disobedience, and lawmakers used every tactic possible—late night speeches, forums highlighting patient stories, committee reports, and procedural tactics—to draw attention to the Republican repeal effort. This sustained resistance ultimately shifted the politics of health care repeal. The final vote was a squeaker, but Republicans lost and the ACA survived.

Democrats should also acknowledge that seeking a middle ground with a man who calls immigrants “animals” and says he will “protect” women “whether the women like it or not” is unlikely to land in a good place. Uniting against Trump’s legislative agenda is good politics because it is good policy. It was Democratic opposition to Trump’s tax bill that drove Trump’s approval ratings to what was then the lowest levels of his administration, forcing Republicans to scrap all mention of the law ahead of the 2018 midterm election and helping spark one of the largest blue waves in recent history.

Second, fight Trump in the courts.

Yes, extremist courts, including a Supreme Court stocked with MAGA loyalists, are poised to rubber-stamp Trump’s lawlessness. But litigation can slow Trump down, give us time to prepare and help the vulnerable, and deliver some victories.

Third, focus on what each of us can do.

I understand my assignment in the Senate, but we all have a part to play. During the first Trump administration, Democrats vigorously contested every special election and laid the groundwork to take back the House in the 2018 midterms, creating a powerful check on Trump and breaking the Republican trifecta. Whether it’s stepping up to run for office, supporting a neighbor’s campaign, or getting involved in an organization taking action, we all have to continue to make investments in our democracy—including in states that are passed over as “too red.” The political position we’re in is not permanent, and we have the power to make change if we fight for it.

Finally, Democrats currently in office must work with urgency.

While still in charge of the Senate and the White House, we must do all we can to safeguard our democracy. To resist Trump’s threats to abuse state power against what he calls “the enemy within,” Pentagon leaders should issue a directive now reiterating that the military’s oath is to the Constitution. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer must use every minute of the end-of-year legislative session to confirm federal judges and key regulators—none of whom can be removed by the next President. To those feeling despair: I understand. But remember, every step toward progress in American history came after the darkness of defeat. Abolitionists, suffragettes, Dreamers, and marchers for civil rights and marriage equality all faced impossible odds, but they persisted. Now it is our turn to pull up our socks and get back in the fight.

Elizabeth Warren wrote a well-written op-ed in Time encouraging Senate Democrats to confirm loads of judges and other jobs requiring Senate confirmation while we still have the majority and also fight back against the Trump tyranny.

[lucky1013]

Cancelling, Public Accusations, and Manipulation of Fans

Good Person/Bad Person Labels

Are you better off knowing if a celebrity has hurt someone? Done something objectionable? Do you write off an artist who is "problematic?" How bad does behaviour have to be to repulse you? 9/10? 6/10? 4/10? Do you sort celebrities into "good guy" and "bad guy" buckets?

Think of the people you know in real life. Are they sorted? Have any of them ever said something stupid or racist? Have any been hated by an ex? Have any hurt or mistreated someone? Have any gotten drunk and had sloppy one-night stands that everyone regrets? Have any of them been accused of anything? Have you ever done anything shameful, hurtful, regrettable? Now honestly -- do you label these people from your life as entirely good or bad?

I don't, and I bet you don't either. And there is a reason for that. These are people you know. We all have opinions of the people we know, but it's rarely yes or no, pure love or pure hate. It's a nuanced opinion because people are nuanced. And life and relationships are difficult. And we know that everyone grows and changes for better or worse. We accept flaws. In real life, we tolerate far more bad behavior than we admit we do or think we do. Come down from morality mountain and take an honest look.

My brother-in-law is both a verbally abusive jerk and a good husband, albeit never both at once. He's at times an awful father and at times a great father. He is a far better man than he was ten years ago. I loathe some things about him and ultimately accept and love him. And I support my sister like a warrior. I accept that humans are complicated. So does she.

So do you -- in real life.

There is a different standard for famous people. Why don't we accept that they have faults, mess up, are works in progress, and do both shitty and great things - just like our real life friends?

Accusation by Public Announcement

What does an accuser get from airing grievances publicly instead of privately?

Me Too was about men in positions of power using that power as a form of coercion over artists or underlings whose careers depended on them. The power imbalance and public stature of the accused person was a factor in their ability to coerce. I think most people would agree that part of the calculation in whether a public accusation was appropriate in these instances was the boss/power/public figure aspect of the abuse itself. Women did not accuse publicly because the men were famous -- they did it because these men used the power and celebrity status as an instrument of the abuse.

Shelby and Wilbur are a different situation. Her accusation is against an ex-boyfriend about private conduct and relationship dynamics and is wholly unrelated to their celebrity status. They are both semi-public figures, but that is not an instrument of abuse here. It just means she has an avenue for reaching fans and he has fans to lose.

Let's set aside the question of whether the term "abuse" is fair for Wilbur's conduct. It's an important question about which we viscerally disagree, but we don't need to litigate it. It’s not relevant to the point.

This should have been about HER and about HIM. They should have fought this out in real life in any manner that would meet Shelby's needs. With support from real friends. With private demands for apologies. With private debates about harms, intentions, consent, etc. It could have been civil or embattled - doesn’t matter - but it certainly did not need to be public.

If you had and experience like Shelby's, and you came to the same conclusions after your breakup, what would you do? Would you go to his employer and get him fired? Would you tell all of his friends and neighbors? Put signs in front of his house? Make sure the school, the town, any future customers and future employers had every detail? You wouldn't. You would think it was a bridge too far and worry there would be legal or civil reppurcussions. After all, you would think, since he hasn't been legally convicted of anything, doing something that messes with his livelihood and reputation is for sure not allowed.

Who is Manipulating Who?

When Wilbur poked his head up to say "I'm back" and said he did not want to speak further about the matter for now, Shelby said he was doubling down and manipulating you. Does she know what that means? He looked dreadful, asked for nothing, and stated he was not going to speak on it. That was the full extent of it. (Her petty response solidified my distrust of her ability to correctly characterize Wilbur’s actions. But that’s a tangent.)

From Webster's Dictionary: Manipulate: "to control or play upon by artful or insidious means especially to one's own advantage." Use: "to carry out a purpose or action by means of"

What did Shelby want in February 2024? She said she found her peace and wanted to end his. Did she end his peace? No, YOU DID. And then some. You did it for her, like an offering. His own fans disrupted his reputation, his friendships, his Minecraft legacy, and his festival summer. One of the most vibrant, effusive fan communities was annihilated because she didn't think he deserved to have it.

Do you feel used? Do you feel manipulated? Look at those definitions. She didn’t have to end his peace because you did it for her.

There are so many CCs (and MCYTs in partular) accused of something, often by a person who is at least marginally part of the community. They've dumped their messy, personal grievances with varying levels of merit on the public to adjudicate. THIS IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. You are being inappropriately involved. You are being USED. How dare they place the burden of their problems upon the fans, and look to the fans to end someone's peace on their behalf.

Everyone has problems and personal life drama. Everyone has been mistreated, to varying degrees of course. Some of us have endured terrible things. The only difference here is that YOU are being made to address their problems. They are using you to achieve personal objectives.

You've likely heard the story floating around the internet about the 12-year-old Melanie Martinez fan who purportedly killed herself amidst blowback from the "support victims" shame police. The veracity of the story is unknown to me and totally irrelevant. I've chosen to regard it as a parable because to find out that it's true would make my heart explode. IT WAS A PERSONAL MATTER. That young fan did not need to bear the burden.

Some of you will say that fans "need to know the truth about who their beloved artist really is." Public accusations do not accomplish that. Truth and fact are a mess in these cases and "who someone really is" is a changing, subjective, complex thing.

Next time someone calls on the public to deplatform someone on their behalf-- DON'T ACCEPT THE JOB. Remember that believing and supporting women doesn't require participating in public shaming. They are manipulating the fanbase, even if not maliciously. They are capable of handling it in real life with support of family and friends, just as you would. Respectfully decline to participate. Don't let them disrupt your fandom; don't let them disrupt your peace.

____

[Fun fact - just found out that it's spelled "cancelling" in British English and "canceling" in American English. I'm going with the Brits on this one :)]

[contemplatingoutlander]

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]

[centrally-unplanned]

Some thoughts on this graph posted by Alec Stapp on US overlegalization:

The US absolutely has way more lawyers than we need!

Something that comes up a lot is how much richer the US is than (most) other developed countries when you look at GDP per capita. This is certainly true, and GDP per capita is the best "single" figure to use for these kind of stats. But it is still a loose metric, and finer grain analysis does reveal chinks. Healthcare is the biggest one - the US spends at least ~6% more of its GDP on healthcare than peer countries and has worse or similar health outcomes, that GDP does not translate into more wealth. Legal services are another category one can look at; the US spends 1-2% of its GDP on legal services; clearly some of that is needed, but the waste there is likely substantial. (Before anyone takes this as to be some US-specific critique, other countries *also* have large chunks of their GDP that doesn't generate much value, you can't shave off points in one column and leave the other untouched)

This chart is revealing but you don't want to go off halfcocked; law is not like mining ingots, its an embedded social system, and how many lawyers you 'need' is often more about who does what kind of job. You can see this easily in the Poland example - Poland does not have 1 'lawyer' for every 3700 residents, it has a different system where legal advisors do most of the work lawyers would do in the US. But more complexly, take, France. France has way less lawyers than the US or Italy; but France has a good deal more civil servants (its hard to estimate, since teachers and police are lumped into these categories so often, but it seems consistent). What is really happening here is that in France, the government is self-empowered to decide on legal matters; the relevant bureaucracies determine their remit, regulate business, handle appeals, and so on. In the US that system is outsourced to lawyers, and litigation is used more extensively as an axis of policy. The two different job-titles are actually doing the same work in both countries, so of course the US has more lawyers and France more civil servants, they do more. So this graph is way less revealing than you might think. (I think the US system is awful for doing this, but that is a separate topic)

Wtf is up with Italy??

[coochiequeens]

A man who served time for domestic violence wants to wedge himself into a community where the women would not want to be alone with him for religious reasons.

By Anna Slatz June 25, 2024

The City of New York has agreed to pay out a $350,000 settlement to a man who identifies as a Muslim woman for keeping him in the men’s section of Rikers Island while he was awaiting trial on domestic violence charges. Ali Miles, formerly known as Dylan Miles, had initially demanded over $22,000,000 in compensation.

As previously reported by Reduxx, Miles was incarcerated at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island from June to July of 2022. He had been arrested on a warrant out of Arizona.

Following his brief detention on Rikers Island, he was transferred back to Arizona and placed in Yavapai County Jail. He was ultimately tried and found guilty of two counts of aggravated harassment per domestic violence, a Class 5 felony, for instances dated in November 2021 and February 2022. 

He was also found guilty of disorderly conduct, harassment, threatening or intimidating, and false reporting to a law enforcement agency, which are all Class 1 misdemeanors.

Dylan Miles.

In October of 2022, he was placed on supervised probation for a period of three years and sentenced to 312 days in jail, with credit added for the 132 days he had already been held there. Miles was also subject to a domestic violence assessment.

But in August of 2023, Miles filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, seeking damages related to “gender identity discrimination” for having been detained in the men’s section of Rikers Island. The suit argued that Miles had informed the court that he was transgender and required special detention accommodations.

The judge had reportedly agreed, and orders were then marked to notify the prison and Intake Personnel that Miles was to be housed at the female-only Rose M. Singer facility on Riskers Island, but he was not.

Miles claimed that he suffered discrimination, including being subjected to “transphobic” remarks from prison staff, while incarcerated in the men’s facility. He also claimed to have been the victim of sexual assaults, in particular emphasizing his “sexual victimization” by multiple “African American male” inmates.

Miles alleged that a prison staff member said “we don’t do the trans thing here” after he demanded to be moved to the women’s section. He was then strip-searched by a male guard he alleged told him that he had “nice tits” and “one hell of a pussy.” This is despite Miles not having had any known genital surgeries.

While the City of New York rejected and refuted Miles’ claims, on June 21, they offered to settle the case for $350,000.

The settlement agreement stipulated that they were not admitting guilt in the situation, and that Miles would no longer be able to take legal action against them for this matter in the future.

Miles is a prolific litigant, and, as previously reported by Reduxx, has filed a number of suits alleging discrimination by various businesses.

In May of 2023, Miles filed a lawsuit against a New York yoga studio seeking compensation of $5,000,000 after employees reportedly asked him to use the men’s restroom instead of the women’s.

In the suit, Miles alleged that the personnel at Chelsea Yoga “deprived [him] of his civil rights because he is gay, undergoing a gender transition, and because Miles does not conform to … gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes about how a man/woman should dress and conduct himself/herself.”

But shortly after that suit was launched, Reduxx learned that Miles had filed at least four other lawsuits, making similar claims of transphobic victimization in each.

In February of 2022, Miles filed a civil action for $75,000 in compensation against Sedona Soul Adventures, an Arizona-based business he had previously worked for. Miles alleged that the tourism company had wrongfully terminated his employment shortly after he was hired after subjecting him to “gender identity-based harassment and discrimination.” The suit was dismissed after an out-of-court agreement was reached.

One month later, Miles filed two separate civil actions — one against Planet Fitness and one against Bagel Point, both, again, on the basis of “gender identity-based harassment and discrimination.” In both, Miles represented himself, and failed to use consistent pronouns, often calling himself “Mr. Miles.” 

In his poorly-written civil action, Miles alleged that staff at a Planet Fitness threatened to sound the “lunk alarm” on him for entering the women’s facilities, and used a slur when referring to him. The “lunk alarm” is a fixture seen at most Planet Fitness gyms intended to provide a humorous “warning” to those being too loud or obnoxious in the gym.

Miles demanded compensation of $10,000,000 from Planet Fitness, but the suit was ultimately dismissed after he failed to file the appropriate paperwork and pay $402 in filing fees as requested by the court.

In his action against Bagel Point, a cafe in Brooklyn, Miles sought $75,000 in damages alleging he had been wrongfully terminated and subjected to verbal abuse on the basis of his gender identity.

Miles had been an employee of Bagel Point for a short period of time, during which he claimed the owner, a Muslim woman, had referred to him using slurs and mocked his gender identity, as well as crafting “unsubstantiated” complaints about his performance. The action, which was rife with spelling errors, was dismissed by the court once again after Miles failed to file the appropriate paperwork and pay $402 in filing fees.

In yet another suit, Miles sought compensation from New York Presbyterian Hospital, once again claiming to have faced discrimination on the basis of his gender identity. The suit was dismissed and an appeal was not filed.

[kilometresrufflefuck]

Hi, fellow law person here (not a lawyer, a Trial Office Functionary that is a court clerk but not quite and practicing notaio in Italy, it's not the same as a notary public if you want I can explain in pvt)...you guys have to try and mediate ANY civil controversy before actually filing a civil lawsuit?! How does it work? We have that in Italy for an handful of matters and most don't even show up. Thank you so much and congratulations!

lol hello to you! thank you very much!!

im hesitant to really try and provide information on real law haha but very broadly and vaguely yes, in australia we have so-called 'genuine steps' obligations which require parties to take genuine steps to resolve civil disputes before commencing proceedings in the federal courts. (to be clear this is federal law im not talking about state law)

i don't think it applies with 100% strictness to literally every kind of civil dispute (there are exceptions but i dont recall precisely what they all are), and the interpretation can be flexible (so what constitutes a genuine step can vary, it's up to the court's discretion), but often you need to file a statement about what steps you've taken to try and resolve your dispute before proceeding to litigation. eg mediation or just reaching out to the other party like 'hey can we talk' etc can count depending on circumstances

[renewedmotionforjudgment]

Chasing Abs Jade, Chapters 13-20

This novel is so far giving me 1993 Avon Stephanie Laurens romance vibes. Honestly, if you tell me the ML is actually a Cynster, I would be like “ok checks out.”

Highlights (aka why this is a 1993 Avon romance):

ML is actually a marquis (the audience knows this right from the start), except FL doesn’t know his identity and he’s pretending to be dead for *plot reasons* hence his falcon of Plot Significance. He has an Evil Uncle that wants him dead.

The author does not shy away from telling us that he is in fact, very hot. But also he has COLD EYES. Stephanie Laurens would described this ML as having ice cold blue eyes, a cruel mouth, and glistening abs. There would be a black stallion somewhere.

FL has questionable relatives who want her property and hence her proposed marriage of convenience to ML. But she is also a woman who Gets Shit Done.

But also ML is beginning to … thaw? I mean, FL literally saved his life. Although I’m dubious about the whole “wooing your wife by teaching her your country’s civil code.”

Xie Zheng explained, “No matter how biased the court ruling might be, they still have to base it on the Great Yin Dynasty Law. Their ability to award part of your property to your Big Uncle after your marriage arrangement only comes from exploiting certain legal loopholes. We have three days—I’ll break down all the relevant sections of the Great Yin Dynasty Law and explain them to you thoroughly. When you face the court, you won’t need a litigation master; you can handle it yourself.”

Fan Changyu was shocked both by his knowledge of the law and concerned about the feasibility of his plan. “Will… will that work?”

Xie Zheng’s icy gaze swept over her, showing no mercy as he asked, “Better than begging your former fiancé?

There is no rizz in that family line.

The artistic fight scene! Of course there has to be some perfectly splattered blood on his jaw. 🤣

The sky was gray and overcast, with goose feather-like snowflakes fluttering down. The accumulated snow on the pine needles occasionally shook off some snowpowder.

The front of Xie Zheng’s clothes was completely soaked with fresh blood. Behind him in the dense forest, crows were startled into flight. The chaotic footsteps treading on snow were closing in like a net, but he seemed oblivious. Leaning against a pine tree, his bloodied long sword thrust three inches into the snow at an angle, he was bandaging his hand wound with a torn strip of cloth.

There were a few spots of blood on his pale jaw, and the corners of his mouth were turned down as if his mood was terrible.

But I legit loved this. FL saving them (also, I do appreciate that the novel didn’t shy away from the fact that her day job is a Pig Butcher.)

As another shower of snow fell from the tree, she had no time for further thought. Using the same technique, she quickly closed in and stabbed several men in succession with her pig-slaughtering method, while Xie Zheng slit throats with a single sword stroke.

[thealogie]

Out of curiosity since you practice both ,criminal and entertainment law does that mean you had to umm qualify isn't exactly the word, but did you have to study twice, sit exams for both etc? (I think qualify might be the word actually)

No that’s not how it works (at least in the U.S. and UK). In the U.S. specifically, you go to law school, your first year you take certain classes that everyone has to take to graduate (these are core classes like criminal law, civil procedure etc), then you get to choose your classes for the next two years, then everyone in your state sits for the exact same exam (called the bar exam) that tests you on core subjects like constitutional law, contracts, criminal law etc.

after you pass that exam (called the bar exam) you are qualified to practice any kind of law you want. As a practical matter, almost everyone starts to specialize in something. I do litigation (which means I do the type of law associated with cases filed in court - I don’t buy and sell companies or negotiate contracts for actors etc) and I do all kinds of it. But within that I tend to do entertainment cases and criminal stuff and civil rights stuff but I can and have done other types of law. I’ve even done some patent litigation. Basically the only thing I can’t do is tax - you really have to study and specialize to be able to do that.

[marveltrumpshate]

The Marvel Trumps Hate 2023 auction has officially begun! View auctions and place bids at marveltrumpshate.com.

Remember, we have 152 creators and 264 auctions offering all types of works and all types of universes, fandoms, ships, and characters. Follow the suggestions below to find the perfect auction(s) for you and figure out your bidding strategy:

See all of the auctions on our website

Filter auctions through several different ways (work type, rating, universe, character, ship, and gen relationship), using the tags on our tag list and our tips on finding specific auctions such as auctions offering "teen-rated 616 Steve/Tony" or "all ships in the GotG fandom" on our search guide. You can also look at special auction categories we spotlighted here

Check out our list of creators

Read our bidding guide and Bidders FAQ

Consider matchmaking if you can't find what you're looking for or pod bids if you have a tight budget but still want to bid

If you're on our MTH offerings Tumblr, click the auction link on a creator’s post to bid on that specific auction on our site

The auction will close at 11:59:59 PM ET on Saturday, October 28 (what time is that for me?). Check out the countdown here.

For more information, check out our About | FAQ | Schedule | How to Participate | Supported Organizations pages, or get in touch with us!

See our charity spotlights here:

Current Events

Environment & Natural Disasters

Health

LGBTQ+

Civil Rights Advocacy & Litigation

Women's Rights

Education

Immigration & Refuge

Equity & Access

Best of luck, everyone! Have fun and most importantly, remember that all winning bids will be going directly to great nonprofit organizations that work tirelessly to make the world a better place.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

NYT: Harris Campaign’s Legal Team Takes Shape as Election Battles Heat Up

Nick Corasantini at NYT:

Amid threats of certification battles and mass voter challenges, Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has assembled an expansive senior legal team that will oversee hundreds of lawyers and thousands of volunteers in a sprawling operation designed to be a bulwark against what Democrats expect to be an aggressive Republican effort to challenge voters, rules and, possibly, the results of the 2024 election.

The legal apparatus within the Harris campaign will oversee multiple aspects of the election program, including voter protection, recounts and general election litigation, and it is adding Marc Elias, one of the party’s top election lawyers, to focus on potential recounts. The legal group is headed by Bob Bauer, who served as personal counsel to President Biden for years, and Dana Remus, the general counsel to the 2020 Biden campaign, and also includes Maury Riggan, the general counsel for the Harris campaign. Josh Hsu, formerly from the vice president’s office, will join the team, and Vanita Gupta, a former director of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a top Biden Justice Department official, is an informal adviser. The campaign will also lean on the top lawyers at three prominent law firms — Seth Waxman, Donald Verrilli and John Devaney — to handle litigation, and deploy local counsel to eight battleground states and four other states of interest.

Mr. Elias, who has had tensions with Mr. Bauer and other Democratic lawyers in the past, will also bring lawyers from his growing firm, Elias Law Group. He has also previously worked for Ms. Harris, serving as general counsel for her primary campaign in 2020. Ms. Remus said in a statement that the legal team had been working “uninterrupted over the last four years, building strategic plans in key states, adding more talent and capacity, and preparing for all possible scenarios.” “This year, like in 2020, we have the nation’s finest lawyers at the table, ready to work together tirelessly to ensure our election will be free, fair and secure — and to ensure that all eligible voters will be able to cast their ballots, knowing their votes will be counted,” Ms. Remus said.

The origins of the effort date back to July 2020, when Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general, called top officials on Mr. Biden’s legal team saying they needed to create “something we’ve never created before,” because the Trump campaign and its allies were beginning to bring cases and lay the groundwork for litigation. With the lessons of 2020 still fresh in Democrats’ minds, Harris advisers claim that the legal team is about 10 times the size of the 2020 operation. The expansive new Democratic legal team, and the opposing group at the Republican National Committee, is a reflection of the legal arms race that is the new reality of American elections since Mr. Trump’s election victory in 2016. The battle over whose votes count — not just how many votes are counted — has become central to modern presidential campaigns.

[...] Democrats have been highlighting recent wins in many of the court battles as part of their effort to get ahead of voting issues. In Nevada, a judge dismissed a lawsuit in July filed by Republicans challenging a state law that allows ballots arriving up to four days after Election Day to be counted. In Mississippi, a judge rejected a similar challenge from Republicans that ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive five days later should not be counted. And in June, a federal judge rejected an argument from Republicans that voter rolls in Nevada had significant inconsistencies, finding that the R.N.C. and the voter who filed the lawsuit did not have legal standing. Core to the Democratic legal effort is the party’s voter protection program, which operates as both a traditional assistance program to voters as well as the eyes and ears of the legal team to help counter any false claims of fraud or malfeasance.

Helmed by Meredith Horton, the program is focused on eight battleground states (Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire) as well as four states of interest (Florida, Virginia, Minnesota and Maine). The program has more than 100 staff members across those 12 states, they said, buttressed by hundreds more volunteers and thousands of poll monitors recruited by the party. “This program is one that we are building to meet this moment,” Ms. Horton said in an interview, calling it the largest of its kind in Democratic presidential campaign history.

The New York Times reports that the Kamala Harris campaign’s legal team has begun to form in anticipation for post-Election Day battles akin to 2020.

[dojae-huh]

Why SM "doesn't protect" its idols. An explanation from a corporate lawyer. Google translate again. (source)

Why "SM does nothing" or how to find the guilty in the real world.

From the point of view of a fan and fan feelings, of course, you want justice for Seunghan, because he did not deserve all the wave of hatred towards himself and "friends" who are ready to leak personal correspondence for the sake of profit, so you can always help and report hateful comments or support the guy who is being bullied for literally living a normal teenage life.

From another point of view, in situations like this, I always find it very funny to watch the wave of fan hatred towards agencies that allegedly "do nothing". Just today, I have come across several comments indignant at why SM does not punish haters/sasaengs/choose the right one. And as a corporate lawyer with a focus on litigation in a company from a related field, I also want to make my contribution. So, why do agencies "do nothing"?

Let's start with the basic legal concepts, the cornerstones, which everyone somehow forgets at such moments. An idol is an ordinary citizen of his country, the same individual with equal rights before the law, like his sasaeng or hater, like an ordinary office worker of the agency. SM is a legal entity. An ephemeral concept created by capitalism for the purpose of carrying out activities for the purpose of making a profit. Any entertainment agency is equal in its rights with an ordinary grocery store on your street, a restaurant or an entire dental clinic, which are also legal entities. Got it?

Now let's delve a little deeper into the boring story of how this situation actually looks. A hypothetical hater leaks personal photos and private correspondence of an idol on a social network. Who does this harm first of all? An individual. From a legal point of view, in this case alone, several completely different types of offense can be distinguished (which are provided for by the provisions of the Korean Law on the Protection of Personal Information, the Law on the Promotion of the Use of Information and Telecommunication Networks and the Protection of Information, articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea): violation of the secrecy of correspondence, violation of privacy, dissemination of information defaming the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen, causing moral harm, causing damages. And any citizen has the right to protect their rights under the law in two ways: within the framework of civil and within the framework of criminal proceedings.

How does it work?

Within the framework of civil proceedings, a citizen can apply to the court with a claim for recovery of damages that were caused to him in connection with the dissemination of information defaming his honor, dignity and business reputation. For example, now the whole country is discussing the personal life of an idol and his public image has fallen so low that advertisers have terminated contracts, demanding a penalty, because now their product is being boycotted because of this idol. These are the idol's losses. The idol can also demand moral damages for the moral suffering caused, because he was worried, did not sleep at night and generally fell ill due to the disclosure of personal information. And the idol also has the right to demand a public refutation of information that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. It is unlikely to prove this when videos and photos of the idol are posted online, right? After the idol makes these demands, the court, taking into account the evidence in the case file, in accordance with the principles of reasonableness, adversarial proceedings, and based solely on its own conviction, will make a decision indicating whether the case file really contains evidence that confirms that the idol has suffered moral harm and material damage, and how much money the idol will receive from the hater as compensation.

What are the pitfalls here? There are many. The idol must first find out who is distributing this information. It is unlikely that anyone can file a lawsuit in court where the defendant will be listed as "Naver account owner *". Even if the idol sends a request to the office that owns the social network with a request to tell who the owner of the account is, no one will tell him anything, because this is personal data that is protected by law. What if the idol magically finds out the hater's personal data, but it turns out that he is a citizen of another country, permanently residing there? Well, good luck to a South Korean idol suing a hater from Brazil. This is just one hypothetical example, but when there are ten, a hundred, a thousand such haters? Litigation becomes impractical. If the hater does live in Korea, and miraculously the idol finds out his personal information in order to sue him, then a long process begins that cannot be resolved in one hearing. The number of hearings increases and the gap between their dates increases too, because the parties need to prepare documents that will prove their position, and the court has a schedule of hearings

review of cases, because there are thousands of court cases, an idol is not the only one: today there is a divorce, and tomorrow a dispute over construction. Therefore, when once a year some idol or entertainment company issues a press release that “the hater was punished in accordance with the court’s decision,” no one notices how the statements contain no information about the essence of the case or the date when it happened. Because the hater could have written a controversial comment a year, two, or three years ago.

Another option is criminal proceedings. Under South Korean law, such cases are considered exclusively at the request of a citizen, because this is a private law charge. That is, no one except an idol can go to the police and think that their statement will be accepted for consideration and a criminal case will be opened. The idol attaches to the statement all the information he has about the unidentified person - here they are, the blessed screenshots with insults that are sent to Kwanya 119 - and then… That's it. The idol can no longer do anything, because now only the police have the powers established by law: they will find out the personal data of the owners of social networks upon official requests (here, by the way, the idol will be able to get acquainted with the case materials, find out the details of the account owner and also go to court with a civil lawsuit!) and if suddenly this turns out to be a resident of Korea, then the investigators can quite happily initiate a criminal case, go and have a conversation with this person, offer to apologize to the idol in order to try to resolve the issue peacefully. Or otherwise, transfer the case to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will look at the materials collected by the investigators and decide whether there is enough evidence to charge in court. Insufficient - the case will be returned for further investigation and the consideration period will be delayed; sufficient - the prosecutor will go to court with the charges, where the situation will repeat itself. The court will again look at the case materials, listen to the parties and decide whether there is any violation in the person's actions and to what extent.

Notice how there is no agency anywhere in these chains? But it is all very simple. Because legally they are not a party to any of the above relationships. Yes, the artist who has a contract with the label is harmed and this affects the artist's image, because the idol on stage and the person behind him are inextricably linked, and this also directly affects the group, namely, what is legally called business reputation. But within the framework of legal concepts and the evidentiary process, there is a distinction between causing damage to the business reputation of a group, all rights to which belong to the agency, and damage to the honor, dignity and business reputation of an idol, that is, an ordinary citizen who, by law, must protect his rights himself, just as a sasaeng or hater, or an ordinary office worker would protect his rights… Therefore, most often agencies, understanding this entire chain that directly affects their profits, and also taking into account the incompetence of idols, whom the label raised almost from childhood, taking all the responsibilities of their independent life upon itself, create things like e-mail boxes or Kwanya 119, where they can send documents, which will then be reviewed through lawyers for the advisability of working with them. An agreement is concluded between the idols and the agencies or a power of attorney is issued, according to which agency representatives can file lawsuits on behalf of the idols, find out about the progress of the police case on their behalf. And agencies also write letters to social networks, forums or news portals demanding that they remove articles or comments that violate the law, but they do this in a claim procedure that does not oblige anyone, so a social network may well refuse a label if the article or comment complies with their site usage policy and does not violate the law. No entertainment agency has the right or authority to punish anyone, demand money outside of court, and even more so to find commentators from the Internet and threaten them with reprisals. Because here a completely different process of close attention from government agencies to the company itself and their activities, and not to their idols, begins. This is a labor-intensive process that most often does not bring any benefit, because it is impossible to disclose specific data about the case and the personal data of haters, and template statements that the agency will take measures in accordance with the law or that someone has already been punished will not benefit anyone, because they do not contain specifics and any confirmation for the public. Otherwise, every entertainment agency in Korea could issue statements every Saturday stating that five or six haters were punished in the previous week. Would there be any level of trust in such statements? Not to mention that no legal entity is required to disclose such information or report on their legal cases, and fans demand statements from labels simply… because they think everyone owes them something. Of course, some agencies issue such statements once in a while.

per quarter. But for people who understand the whole process, such statements are just empty replies.

I could provide links to the provisions of the law and Korean law textbooks for each action I described, and even translate them from Korean, but then this post would look more like a thesis on Korean procedural law, and I'm too lazy, so here's a short conclusion: are entertainment agencies obliged to do anything in such situations? According to the law, no, but they will do it anyway, because it affects their profits and the image of their artists, whom they want to keep for many years. How effective are the methods for solving these problems? Well, not as effectively as we would like, but this is a problem of the law and its enforcement, not entertainment agencies. Should fans report all this? The expression "a bad result is also a result" does not work here, so no, there is no point in this. But why agencies (don't) issue statements regarding scandals at a certain time and in certain wording is a question that needs to be decided not only by lawyers, but also by PR people and public relations specialists. However… this is a completely different story.

[tanadrin]

OK, so this post is going to probably look like I’m critcizing @jadagul quite directly, and I am, but only because he is a proximate example of something I find worth commenting on generally. This does not change the fact that I generally like and respect him, and find him pleasant to interact with.

There is a style of political thinking which seems to have an intuition that the law should work like mathematical formalism or computer programming, with a very close and literal relationship between any act of government (an executive action or an act of a legislature) and the constitutional or statutory text which enables that action. That even if the law is a messy and organic human institution, it shouldn’t be, and in ideal circumstances the whole system would be fairly mechanistic, with little room for human discretion. This line of thinking seems to work itself out in ideas like, “OK, discrimination is bad; but so is the government interfering in private actions; so anti-discrimination legislation is bad, too, in a different way.” Or “democracy is important, but part of democracy is free expression; and how you spend your money is a kind of expression, so limits on how you spend your money when it comes to politics is antithetical to democracy.” Or, in the anarcho-capitalist form I most strongly associate this line of thinking with, “OK, people seem to want a lot of freedom, low taxes, and the government not to tell them what to do; so we can (and should) construct a society where the government does very little--ideally nothing at all--and everything that can be is transferred to the private sphere, to be a matter of contract law and civil litigation. Since government power is very little or nonexistent, and all oppression comes from the government, everyone will be very free.”

This isn’t just wrong in the sense that the law is actually an irretrievably messy and organic institution because all human institutions are irretrievably messy and organic and we’re stuck with them; this is wrong because it is good that human institutions are messy and organic, and it would be bad if they were all purely mechanistic. I know this probably seems like a self-evidently silly thing to say if your intuition is toward the mechanistic and formalistic (and believe me, I share that aesthetic preference a lot of the time!) but it really is true. It is simply not possible for a legal system to reduce all potential coordination problems, political disputes, and breaches of social order to a set of general principles, and trying to would result in either monstrously cruel outcomes, like the ancient law codes that just killed everybody who broke them, or total structural collapse, like that town that got taken over by libertarians and then bears (because the libertarians didn’t understand the specific governance needs of the town, like how regular trash collection kept the bears away).

In particular, trying for this kind of metaphysical purity in your legal system often seems to cause people’s aesthetic preferences to short-circuit their moral ones; and because no legal system actually is metaphysically pure in this way, ultimately neither is satisfied. The thinking seems to go, we want a free and equal society without oppression; but government action is frequently oppressive, especially when it interferes with private business, so we don’t want to have anti-discrimination legislation. So what they get is a society without anti-discrimination legislation, that is also markedly unequal, because it turns out that bigotry just doesn’t go away by people saying “bigotry is bad, people shouldn’t do that.” Or, people want democracy; but they also want people to be able to spend their money how they want (that’s key to the liberal part of liberal democracy), so they don’t want to impose limits on spending around political campaigns. As a consequence, wealth inequalities distort politics by making the only viable candidates the ones who appeal to wealthy donors, putting a whole class of policies that poll really well outside the political pale--i.e., a profoundly undemocratic system where very popular legislation stands no chance of getting passed. Or, people want property rights and healthy markets; commensurate with that, they resist any effort to impose limits on those property rights or redistribute wealth. They get, as a result (and often hand-in-hand with the distortions of democracy that stem from the previous example), a system with a lot of rent-seeking and corruption where fair competition is almost impossible and there are a lot of monopolies that are bad for both businesses and consumers, far from the libertarian utopia of their laissez-faire dreams.

This isn’t meant to be a Chestertonian set of counterintuitive gotchas, where I try to argue that the real democracy was monarchy all along or something, just an observation that you have to look at, and argue from, actual outcomes, and not just what is conceptually appealing, even if you want to further quite lofty and abstract political ideals. Much the same way that abolishing your military does not keep you out of conflicts, if it results in you suddenly getting invaded by your neighbor, or abolishing anti-discrimination law would not result in a freer society, if you have a bunch of racists itching to discriminate against the minorities they don’t like.

I remember a post of Scott Alexander’s once expressing confusion at the idea banks would just decide not lend to black people in the midcentury US, because surely they would stand to make more money if they had more customers, and if they had more customers the banks run by non-racists would outcompete the banks run by racists, and I remember thinking, like, come on dude. There is a whole complex social ecology surrounding race and racial discrimination, which is going to drown out any possible weak effect that you are pointing to here. And he simply could not see it because it was not part of the world he knew, and he lacked the imagination to understand it.

Everything the law touches is like this. Law is not actually, nor can it be, a separate domain from politics, or economics, or private business, or religion, or any other aspect of human life. It is a loose category of thing we have drawn a fuzzy border around, like so much else. And because of the complexity inherent in the problems it presents, trying to decide which policies are best without reference to actual outcomes at best makes you prone to a kind of head-in-the-clouds idealism. But much more often, I think it means people support things actually corrosive to the principles they claim to espouse.

[houseofbrat]

Democratic party civil war, you say?

Matt Stoller on Kamala Harris:

There's a fair critique here of Kamala Harris skeptics. What basis do we have for skepticism? I'll lay out my views, which are largely policy-centered. I realize no one cares about what kind of leader Harris will be as President, but if there's one lesson we should take away from this moment, it's that we as a party should try to think more than five minutes ahead instead of panicking ourselves into a rushed decision. I started paying attention to Harris when she became California AG in 2010, because some friends worked to get her elected. It was in the middle of the financial crisis, Bush's and Obama's handling of which eventually led to the emergence of Trump. While AG, she had her most important test as an executive presiding over a big political economy decision - what to do about foreclosure crisis in California. Her position was unusual, because California is a big state, so the AG office is, staffed with many lawyers who can do complex finance analysis. Most states don't. There are only a few places - Texas, NY, Illinois, California - who have the capacity to truly wage independent litigation against powerful institutions like big banks. Harris pledged to do so. [Harris] pledged take on the banks and get something genuinely meaningful for homeowners for a mass legal violation called foreclosure fraud that put them on the hook for trillions. The details aren't important but if you want to know them read Dave Dayen's Chain of Title. It's something I was involved in. After two years where it became obvious Obama was on the wrong side, it was exciting to see a Democrat finally stand up.

Only, she didn't. Harris signed a sham settlement with a big fake fine number, that mostly let the banks do whatever they want, and I believe even get a tax deduction for the fines they did pay. As a result, a lot of people lost their homes who shouldn't have. That was a tragedy. But then when she was running for President in 2020, she *bragged* about what she did. It was rancid, similar to the worst of Obama. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis… Later it came out that her staff had given her memos on how she should have prosecuted (later) Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, but just chose not to. It's not hard to see that, had Obama (and Harris) actually put the bad guys away, a whole slew of Trump officials would have been in jail rather than in the cabinet. https://politico.com/news/2019/10/22/kamala-harris-attorney-general-california-housing-053716…

I didn't pay as much attention to her big tech work or her time in the Senate, but she's quite close to a whole slew of people in the industry, top execs at Google and Facebook like Sheryl Sandberg. While AG, which was when these companies cemented their dominance in America, Harris's office saw Facebook as "a good actor." She took no actions against big firms as AG, opposed important legislation, and even started a privacy-related "monthly working group that included representatives from Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Kleiner Perkins. In internal documents, Harris' office referred to the companies as "partners."' Again, standard operating Obamacrat stuff. https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-silicon-valley-big-tech-facebook-attorney-general-2021-11…… Harris's circle of friends and family are biglaw Obamacrats. Her brother-in-law Tony West was a high-level Obama official, and now GC of Uber. Her niece worked at Uber, Slack, and FB, and her husband was a biglaw partner at Venable and DLA Piper. His clients included Walmart, Merck, and an arms dealer, and there were ethics questions since DLA Piper had a long list of foreign clients. https://nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/elections/doug-emhoff-kamala-harriss-husband-takes-a-leave-of-absence-from-his-law-firm.html…

How does this differ from Biden's track record? As a Senator, you could read him like Harris. Biden did whatever the credit card companies wanted, was in on bad trade deals, and was VP when Obama mishandled the financial crisis. But Biden always had a tinge of populism. In the 1990s, he went after Stephen Breyer in his hearing for the Supreme Court, calling him an elitist for instance. He was a foreign policy guy, and never liked the Silicon Valley and Wall Street execs, he always thought they looked down on him. As President, he delegated and ignored most domestic policy, and so some of it went to populists and union people while most of it went to neoliberals like Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden. The net result of Biden's choices is a mix - good policy in a few areas, and rank incompetence across a host of them, as well as fantastically incompetent messaging. What was Harris's role? As VP, she's largely been absent from most policy areas I follow, so I don't know how to think about her views on Biden's economic agenda. She's certainly never talked about or been involved in anything competition or regulatory minded that I can see. She does not seem to be a player in any of the big money areas. That said, Harris has proven incapable of managing important tasks like addressing or even explaining the obviously dysfunctional asylum process at the border, so it's hard to know how much she *can* actually do in terms of competence. There's also a lot of inertia here, it's not like she can change everything on a dime. She will inherit Biden's legacy and officeholders, and she hasn't done much as VP to thwart economic policy, for good or ill.

So how will she be as President? I don't want to overstate my read, it's just a guess. But since we're all just guessing, what I suspect is she'll lead to a total wipeout of Dems in 2026 and 2028 as the party turns wholly against working people, and a more complete Trump-y style realignment. And that's if she wins. So that's the optimistic scenario.

Dem Civil War commencing...

[oscarpiastriwdc]

(if you are comfy ofc) can you speak a little bit about why you choose law school and how you ended up in your current practice area? i'm seriously considering applying next year (i've taken the lsat, done research, talked to people, even written essays lol) and i feel like a jd would be a natural extension of my current work but i've never taken any legal-esque courses and I'm afraid i'll hate it. i also think i would most like govt work but im not sure if that's what i actually will like. did you go in with legal experience? how did you find the adjustment? what made you want to go into your current practice area? anything u can share is very helpful and i wish u luck with ur new job! <3

Hi! Of course! Sorry this is very rambly, I wanted to write down all my thoughts so I'll put it under the cut.

I went straight from undergrad to law school. My sophomore year of college was when I first started considering law school as a post-graduation option. I started doing jobs and internships in the immigration law arena (immigration casework for a senator, refugee resettlement, asylum stuff), but didn't really do anything touching other areas of law. One of my undergrad majors was humanitarian studies, so I knew from the start my focus would be on non-profit/public interest/policy/ngo work. If I remember right I took maybe one "law" class? My senior year, I was deciding between law school, doing a masters in something else like public policy, or going straight into work for an ngo, and decided law school made the most sense for me. Some of the factors that I weighed were the versatility of a law degree against the non-versatility of a masters, availability of law school scholarships compared to financial aid for other masters programs, low salaries for ngo work, and job market security.

Going into 1L year I thought I wanted to do public policy work. I had liked the immigration work I'd been doing but was hesitant about doing it on a firm level and thought immigration policy would be a good fit. I did a policy fellowship the summer after my 1L year and hated it. In retrospect, some of that probably had more to do with the fact it was summer 2020 and I was miserable for other reasons, but all together it left me in a place where I was a bit panicked about what I would actually do after graduation. I ended up taking a job doing public defender work the summer after my 2L year on a "why not try it out" whim and absolutely loved it. I found the work exciting and engaging and realized I actually love being in court.

That set me up to do more criminal defense work my 3L year; I did criminal appeals stuff, federal pd work, and a bunch of other things where I was trying to get as much defense experience as possible. I also did some asylum work my 3L year, which was my first foray back into immigration related work since I had started law school.

When I was job searching, I only looked at public interest or PD work. The law firm life is not for me, so I completely steered clear. I ended up accepting a job with legal aid, where I've been the last two years. I've been doing civil rights work with an emphasis on Native American rights, which has combined elements of policy work, civil litigation, criminal law, and more. My biggest take away from this job is that I fucking despise civil litigation. I like the in court stuff but civil discovery makes me want to die. Besides that, I've enjoyed the criminal stuff and policy stuff I've done at this job, but the amount of civil litigation in my caseload has been killing me.

I wanted to find a new job for the sake of my blood pressure and to get away from civil litigation and for other personal reasons (geography lol) so when I started tentatively looking, I was set on doing pure PD work or doing something more specialized that wouldn't include general civil lit. Throughout the application and interview process I remembered how much I had loved doing immigration law and why that was what put me on the path towards law school in the first place. My new job is going to be doing asylum law with a non-profit, and I'm so excited.

All of that to say, I tried out different practice areas and have loved some and hated others, and everyone I know is still figuring it out, too. Two years out of law school, more than half of the people I know from law school have changed jobs or switched practice areas because it's so hard to know what it will actually be like when you're in the thick of it. One of the advantages of a law degree, in my opinion, is that it does provide that flexibility of a strong academic base that you can use to jump around and try out different things without having to get another degree or certificate. You can easily go in thinking you'll like one type of work, try it out your 1L summer, and then try something else out if you hate it, or find new paths you didn't even know were a thing until you're in that legal network.

Law school is nothing like the practice of law, especially not the first year. There are people who hate law school but excel in actual legal practice, or who enjoyed the intellectual exercise of law school but don't like the day-to-day minutia of being a lawyer. It can be overwhelming in the beginning, but once you're past the first year and you can actually pick your classes it's so much more interesting (I despised the 1L classes but genuinely enjoyed almost every class I took as a 2L and 3L). 1L year is not at all comparable to anything in undergrad, so as far as that transition goes, it can be a trial by fire, but you bond with your peers quickly because everyone else is also wondering what the fuck is going on.

One other thing I will say about deciding whether or not to go to law school is to seriously weigh the financials. I'm really lucky and don't have any law school debt. That's allowed me more freedom and alleviates some of the pressure. Friends and people I know who do have law school debt are in a position where they feel pressured into going towards big law or are more tied to staying at jobs they don't like, compared to people I know who are also debt-free or lower debt and are more willing to take risks. Unfortunately, the debt cloud really does completely change what post-grad life looks like.

Ahh sorry this is so long but I am happy to talk in more specifics about any questions you might have! Feel free to message me!