Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.  (Read 2715049 times)

Elephant Lee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4786
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72290 on: August 07, 2009, 10:09:04 AM »
Guys, can we talk about John Hughes for a sec?  Do you think he was a coke addict?  Why did this rich guy die of a heart attack so young?  I'm actually very sad about this.

He was certainly young, but plenty of people seem to have heart attacks that young. Whether they're deadly or not seems like a crapshoot.

/talks out of ass.
This was my country
This frightful and this angry land

"I guess she was a hooker, that makes sense, those shorts didn't really look all that comfortable." -Dash

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72291 on: August 07, 2009, 01:24:17 PM »
I totes picked out my new laptop if I buy one.

/fantasizing about spending money
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72292 on: August 07, 2009, 03:37:21 PM »
Start billing hours!
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

hooloovoo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72293 on: August 07, 2009, 04:18:30 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72294 on: August 07, 2009, 04:23:42 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???
Quote from: Earthbound SNES
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
Quote from: dashrashi
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Quote from: Elephant Lee
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.

hooloovoo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72295 on: August 07, 2009, 04:36:24 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

because they're reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if".

i think.  i've only dealt with that particular exemption in a few instances, so i'm not that sure.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72296 on: August 07, 2009, 04:49:39 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

Exemption 7!  I recognize that.  Law enforcement is the slipperiest!  I don't know anything about 7(E) in particular, however, and may have to look it up now.  Curiosity killed the cat and all.  I'm sad I don't have Westlaw access anymore. :(

Meanwhile, do you have access to one of these?  I saw a very good presentation by a dude from an animal rights organization about FOIA and he said that it's indispensable.  I wonder if it's available on Westlaw if you don't have it handy.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72297 on: August 07, 2009, 04:52:36 PM »
Also Duckie. That's not a name, it's a major appliance!

Thank you for this.  One of my friends had a "Blaine" alter ego for a while, sort of the 80s + 90s version of popping collars and shooting finger guns.  Classic.

Guys, can we talk about John Hughes for a sec?  Do you think he was a coke addict?  Why did this rich guy die of a heart attack so young?  I'm actually very sad about this.

He was certainly young, but plenty of people seem to have heart attacks that young. Whether they're deadly or not seems like a crapshoot.

/talks out of ass.

I think your ass is probably right.  And he was a serious smoker, so there's that.  Still, I think of rich people as having such good health care. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72298 on: August 07, 2009, 05:01:21 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

because they're reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if".

i think.  i've only dealt with that particular exemption in a few instances, so i'm not that sure.

I think you're right. But the DOJ guidelines are very clear that they are different! But then no courts seem to treat them as such, or develop that distinction at all. Grumble!
Quote from: Earthbound SNES
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
Quote from: dashrashi
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Quote from: Elephant Lee
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.
« Reply #72299 on: August 07, 2009, 05:10:23 PM »
lethargic.  taking questions.

Why don't courts acknowledge the distinction between the requirements of the two separate clauses of FOIA Exemption 7(E)?  ???

because they're reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if".

i think.  i've only dealt with that particular exemption in a few instances, so i'm not that sure.

I think you're right. But the DOJ guidelines are very clear that they are different! But then no courts seem to treat them as such, or develop that distinction at all. Grumble!

Okay, I read 7(E) now.

If they were reading in a comma between "prosecutions" and "if," wouldn't both clauses/exemptions require a showing of risk?  Isn't that good if you're seeking information? 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.