Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

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

Messages - Miss P

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2108
41
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 08, 2009, 01:08:36 AM »
also, THANK GOD.

That you've escaped my wrath even though you've left the sanctity of the harpy-free zone?  Or did I miss something?

the game finally ended.

Oh.  I was watching another game.

...

::searches for even-more-crumpled Mr. Met avatar::

42
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:51:58 AM »
Okay, now, I need to see a replay of that.

ETA: And wtf with Frankie lately, seriously?  (I went to Tuesday's game, so I'm particularly sensitive about this.)

43
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:50:48 AM »
also, THANK GOD.

That you've escaped my wrath even though you've left the sanctity of the harpy-free zone?  Or did I miss something?

::hat tip to Stan::

He is good with the doomsday scenarios, indeed.

[redacted]

44
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Exile LSD: The Law School Years
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:43:13 AM »
That sucks, Tasha. ::sympathies::

Ditto.

We should do an LSD Fantasy Football leaue

LSD Fantasy failed last year, but judging by the response for the Nashville GTG I think we'd have some success with a league now

We did LSD fantasy baseball a couple of years ago, and it was a fun, competitive league.  And I'm not just saying that because I came in second, IRRC. 

::pimps::

45
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:38:19 AM »
But the DOJ guidelines are very clear that they are different!

but that's not law, so the courts don't care, right?

i mean, stating the obvious and all.

This is unhelpful. Given your recent 177 in the thread that shall not be named, however, I'll let it slip.

46
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 08, 2009, 12:37:13 AM »
i am beginning to feel quite distressed by all this, along with everything else that is going on  :P

::offers prurient hugs::


I just watched Desperately Seeking Susan.

The only thing worse than Madonna's acting in Desperately Seeking Susan is everyone else's acting in Desperately Seeking Susan.  And the character development.  And the plot.  And...yeah.

But - but - but!  Didn't you find it . . . important? Like all of the John Hughes movies we discussed last night, it was very serious beeswax in my yoofs.

[bad news bears]  :-\

Oh!  I didn't know!  I'm sorry, kiddo.  Let me know if it's anything a gang of internet-based thugs can do something about, okay?


47
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 07, 2009, 07:19:46 PM »
speaking of FOIA, i wish the department of energy would get back to me about the FOIA Officer job that i interviewed for TWO MONTHS AGO.

sigh.

i suspect they hired someone else and didnt bother to tell me....

Oh, you don't want to do that anyway, hiding lobbying junkets in the name of defending national security.  Eff them!

48
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 07, 2009, 05:39:19 PM »
Pish posh.  Your discretion is legendary!

49
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« on: August 07, 2009, 05:22:55 PM »
That is what the additional comma would mean. BUT, there isn't a comma there, and so the risk of harm is only supposed to apply to the second part (and DOJ guidelines make this clear). Courts, on the other hand, don't seem to have gotten the memo.

And yes, if you're seeking information, it would be better if the section were written or interpreted that way. But right now we're just trying to figure out we know exactly what caselaw has to say about 7(E), and caselaw is a bit muddled, to say the least. If it were consistently stated that the harm risk applied throughout, even though that's not what the text says, that would be good news. But of course no one ever really says. They just blunder around it.

I think we're on the same page.

Yours sounds like as good an answer as any: The exemption is written to require a risk showing only for the second ("guidelines for LE investigations and prosecutions") prong, and the DOJ guide makes this clear (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption7e.htm).  Nonetheless, courts have often muddled the distinction between the two prongs, so it's likely a good idea for advocates to discuss the (lack of) risk in any FOIA challenge under either prong.

Of course I don't know what you're writing, exactly.   :-\

50
General Off-Topic Board / Re: MAS: Welcomes Our New Socialist Overlord
« on: August 07, 2009, 05:14:19 PM »
Unless maybe Miss P. made another appearance.

Oh, come now.  That seems extremely unlikely, doesn't it? ;)

ETA: Actually, I have no desire to yell at poor, beleaguered Stan.  He can consider MAS a special harpy-free zone where he can speak his mind, unlike the rest of the board where we endeavor to break him down at every turn.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2108