Date: March 11th, 2024 1:55 PM Author: aquamarine 180 pozpig
They already know what happened because they read the briefs and their clerks prepared bench memos. Don't spend your first 90 seconds telling them the facts.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:23 PM Author: Racy disrespectful forum
Why does he admit in his opening sentence that the facts of the cast would be "entertaining" but for his client's eggshell skull? Client should kill him.
I am lmao just lmaoooooo at how the judges just completely destroy him. It seems like he was not prepared to answer even the most basic and obvious questions with any type of confidence...questions that should have been easily predictable. One thing is for sure though, SP really, really "appreciates" all of these questions; he is very, very "thankful" to his interlocutors.
My favorite part is where SP comes up with some frivolous argument steeped in state tort law and the judge basically asks if he would be "more comfortable" with his case being dismissed on federal law instead. And SP just helplessly sputters around.
Also, I don't do shitlaw, don't know shitlaw and torts at all, don't know what falls within the FTCA, but why the fuck didn't SP at least try to argue that the consequences of the act (injuries) weren't intended? Can't an intentional act with unintended consequences be negligence? And wouldn't that normally be a fact issue that would often survive a MTD? Something like these cases:
How did SP, who devoted dozens or hundreds of hours to this case and is a "specialist" in this field, not come up with an argument that took 3 seconds of thinking and 10 seconds of googling from someone with passing knowledge of torts?
Date: March 11th, 2024 5:16 PM Author: transparent odious hell
To be fair,
You used that term incorrectly here, but that's not surprising given that you're a total fucking retard who got blown the FUCK out in this oral argument.
Date: March 11th, 2024 1:57 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
Just saw this. More outting I guess.
First, the performance was fine. It was already played here and commented on here months ago as fine. Stop being ridiculous. It’s a Hail Mary pass on a point of law that could theoretically get some traction as it is OR open a door for a new plaintiffs cause of action in my state.
Second, I didn’t do the briefs, I didn’t do the pleadings or the arguments in lower court. I didn’t write the appeal. I was arguing an appeal for work done by another atty who took the case in and identified the potential grounds for appeal in his mind but was unable to argue it himself. So the hours and hours bit is a little unfair. I simply had the record and the appellate briefs to work with, and an open scheduling slot with the fourth circuit that had better be filled with one of us.
Third, the whole name of the game here was to find insurance. As an intentional act, the postman’s private car insurance wouldn’t cover it. So would the USA? As a “Negligent act” performed by its agent the postal service? There’s a federal statue that excludes US liability for acts sounding in battery. But Virginia law doesn’t recognize loud noises as battery. So why not consider it negligent horseplay on the part of the postman, which is what it was. Otherwise plaintiff is essentially remedyless. He’s deaf now and remedyless. All of this may explain why the appeal was pursued. My job is to try to help people in difficult situations, and sometimes that means pressing arguments for the expansion of the law on a point.
The oral argument was fine, and all the work done on the case including the appellate briefs, was also very good. Unfortunately, and in a move surprising no one, the fourth circuit didn’t agree.
(Did they create the possibility of a new tort in Virginia? Generally speaking, as a plaintiffs lawyer, that, at least, is a good thing.)
Date: March 11th, 2024 2:05 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
No! There’s no entity to pay him! And he’s now legitimately deaf in the one ear and lost hearing in the other ear as well. A deaf doctor. Because a postman was screwing around with him.
lol no it wasn't fine...a man went completely deaf and got nothing because u weren't able to give even the slightest pushback to the judges on the easiest questions. Again, why didn't you argue that even if sounding the horn was intentional, the consequences/injuries were not intended or forseeable?
I know nothing about shitlaw but I've learned that it apparently doesn't work because of the difference between general and specific intent torts. I am still lolling at SP's overall performance though. He was about as skillful as I would have expected of him, which is about the worst thing I could say about a lawyer here. Even tsinah would wreck him. All the judges and opposing counsel were literally LAUGHING after his argument.
Date: March 11th, 2024 2:20 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
I want you to think why one of these was not like the other.
In fact your point is so badly taken it was not even argued in lower federal court.
I should add that one of the allegations in lower court was that the postman had actually altered his horn to be much louder than standard, which was part of the “prank”.
did you consider suing the postman individually, or would that be a waste of time bc he's judgment proof? not a shitlawyer, so don't judge me for asking such a stupid question that a real lawyer wouldn't ask.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:13 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
It’s actually a proper question asked in good faith. To answer it, yeah it’s pointless. You’d have an uncollectible judgment
The thing about appeals judges in federal court is a lot of times they have better sense than to devote a large portions of their careers to PI plaintiff side work … so the intricacies of finding coverage are often minor considerations for them.
Isn’t the better argument that he was careless in doing the prank bc he didn’t check to make sure the horn wouldn’t damage someone’s ears? It is foreseeable that if you blow a loud noise in someone’s ears, it could damage them, so you have a duty to ensure if you’re going to do a prank, you don’t do it so as to blow out someone’s ears.
Date: March 11th, 2024 2:12 PM Author: Spectacular den
All of that can be true - and none of that is responsive to the fact that you have one of the worst verbal performance I’ve ever heard for oral argument.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:31 PM Author: soul-stirring mood
This is peak delusion. It was objectively terrible.
The fact that you think this was fine is really implicitly damning to any claim you make about being a good attorney. If you think this was fine, everything you touch must be absolute fucking garbage.
Date: March 11th, 2024 2:23 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
I wouldn’t characterize it like that. The atty who had the case and chose to appeal and drafted the appeal wasn’t around to argue it. The basis for appeal may be considered too precious by half, but that’s less my concern than trying to get some relief for a remedyless plaintiff. Also You get sanctioned if you mess around with the fourth circuits scheduling calendar.
I am trying to figure out why the prankster here would have to cut out a hole in the venetian blinds to watch this guy get soundbatteried. Couldn't you just lift one of the venetian blind slats?
See, this is important to me to invision this. Even if he had coworkers come in to watch, just gather around and either: lift the blinds a little to peek out; or move the blinds apart with your fingers. Regular blinds? Maybe you cut a hole. But venetians? Seems weird and WRONG.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:28 PM Author: Racy disrespectful forum
I had some snap off the end and make s little rectangle at the bottom that was perfect for a houseplant. People think I did it on purpose so I could put a plant of the shelf, close the blinds and still see the plant
Date: March 11th, 2024 2:59 PM Author: self-centered community account
Why would one bend down to examine the grill of an automobile that had honked its horn? It's very difficult to visualize this, because it's not at all what a person typically does when an automobile in a parking lot honks its horn.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:08 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
I agree.
Apparently there was a funny noise honk option which would draw the victim in and then he could let loose a blast after he got the attention of the victim.
Date: March 11th, 2024 3:30 PM Author: Very tactful tanning salon
Can you describe this postman? He sounds like Scumbag clique. Was the truck a lifted coal-roller? Did it have truck nuts? Did the poastman have a goatee?
I am literally at a semi-formal dinner party right now, playing this thing aloud from my phone which is centered on the table. There's a couple of noteworthy people here including a former senior VP at BOA and the previous CTO at Pinterest.
The crowd is on their fucking knees dying of laughter.
Date: March 11th, 2024 6:36 PM Author: boyish house
At the semi-formal dinner party I'm currently attending, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor are in full agreement that the Fed.R.App.P. should have an anti-clown provision. At least they were until they just started loudly yelling "HONK" at each other across the table while in fits of laughter.
Date: March 12th, 2024 1:24 AM Author: territorial kitchen gay wizard
Update:
Everyone and their wife was doing over-the-top "uuuhh" "ummm" "uhhh" impressions. One of the waitstaff (Latina) eeked something out in broken English, I didn't capture all of it but she was basically explaining that the burden of proof is on "Meester uuuhhh uuuummmm" to show why lasers are not comparable to sound waves. I legit lost it then and there.
Date: March 11th, 2024 9:57 PM Author: Domesticated turdskin
totally agree. if you're a plaintiff-side lawyer you have to step and take some massive rips at the ball even when the odds are long. so what if hour-billers snicker?
Date: March 11th, 2024 10:22 PM Author: brindle sexy hospital
I usually get warmed into the argument after 2-3 minutes. I wasn’t exactly rushing to get all my points across this time … You should listen to it in its entirety. Pretend it’s not me.
Date: March 18th, 2024 5:39 PM Author: gunneratttt (🦆)
fuck, what the chad us attorney steps up it's just so fucking sad. sp didn't even unmute his mic before he began his rebuttal. even though this is such a sps slam dunk appeal he was able to speak eloquently and confidently.
also, sp is probably blaming this on being a loser case. but you can still confidently answer and anticipate questions there. everyone here who has argued in court has probably had to argue some loser arguments. i'm sure sp would stammer about even if the sides were reversed.
Date: April 8th, 2024 12:06 AM Author: Arousing Deranged Sound Barrier Toaster
The court hanged spaceporn on "sound waves" and other minutia and he didn't come prepared to actually argue the case afaik. Ffs, he could've at least done something to argue that sovereign immunity is qualified and does not absolve the agency of liability under the FTCA. Iirc, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (2010) specifically holds that agencies are culpable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477 (1994).
In layman's terms, the USPS is negligent af and is managed terribly. The supervisor and others probably knew about the prank, as well as the Hole in the Blinds, and did nothing. If this were a private business, they could've sued the owner for sure, full stop, and been Indemnified. Discuss.
Date: April 8th, 2024 3:50 PM Author: Milky hyperventilating property
Why would anyone argue your first paragraph? OF course USPS was culpable. That was never at issue in the case. Your cites aren’t even remotely on point.
The question is whether an action could be brought. It doesn't do any good to argue "culpability" when the case was struck at the trial level on a sovereign immunity defense. What you are saying *sounds cool* to people who don't law, but it doesn't make any sense.