Yesterday was Gay Wedding Cake day in the lawyer world. If you’re not really sure what I’m referring to, I’d like to congratulate you on finding a new home under that rock. I hopes it’s spacious and has great wifi reception. For the rest of us that live in the real world, like the poor bastard behind the keyboard at Lawyers & Liquor, the internet went nuts when the news of the Supreme Court’s ruling of the case of the baker who refuses to be a Marie Antoinette-esque figure to LGBTQ+ couples and demands that they not eat his cake set the world aflame as people tried to read into its meanings. It was so bad that mere moments after the opinion was released I was fielding a phone call from a senior partner at my office who wanted to talk about it – meaning he wanted me to read and summarize it for him.
Most of the talk, though, was people desperately trying to find meaning in an opinion that never once really touched on the primary issue before it. Instead of talking about whether the butcher, the baker, and the leather gear maker have a right to deny service to literally anyone in the world they want by screaming “But my Jesus” and locking the doors at the mere sight of a rainbow, SCOTUS punted the ball. The Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling that applied to only that one set of facts, said “Fuck all of you waiting to hear if we’re about to descend into madness,” and based their ruling off of the baker not getting themselves an impartial tribunal at the first level in this shit.
Continue reading “Come on Arlene’s – A second bite at the apple in the wake of Masterpiece Caskeshop”
Welcome back to Freaky Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where the crypt door to the unholy filing room has swung open and the little ghosties and ghoulies from all over have crept out to serve summons in the dead of night. I’m your ghost host, the BOO-zy Barrister, here to talk about the creepy, paranormal, and downright weird areas of law that others seem to forget exist. Or at least don’t mention, because as we learned about in the past, there’s a lot of stuff in law that we’re not going to tell you about when we’re taking on your case. Like the fact that lawyers are essentially modern day vampires who suck your blood, but we don’t wear capes (okay, everyone except that one legal aid guy, but he’s a little strange and nobody sits next to him at bar functions anymore.)
Is that really an issue, though? Not telling people shit? I mean, it’s like the biggest horror movie trope there is. You don’t tell someone that the amulet you left them in your will is haunted by a demon that comes out at night to anally assault you without lube. You fail to mention the cemetery that got paved over so your new house could be built on top of it. Maybe you leave off the part about the family of stalkers that’s been watching your house for the last several generations and sends you letters demanding that you feed the home “young blood.” It’s a trope, right?
You know, except for that last one.
That last one totally fucking happened in real life.
Continue reading “Freaky Friday: The Westfield Watcher Is Not A Material Defect”
Good morning you incorrigible idiots that seem to think this should be an educational site and welcome to Lawyers & Liquor! I’m your host, the Boozy Barrister.
So we’ve spent a lot of time over the past week or so working on educating you slobbering shitstains on the face of the legal system about the concept of intent,mens rea, the differences between the criminal and civil legal systems, and generally just all this shit that you should already fucking know if you have a license to practice law anywhere but in your mind. Of course, the issue is that a lot of you don’t have a license to practice law, and are, for all intent and purposes, the Muggles of the legal world. While the rest of us stand around shouting shit like “Ex post facto!” and “Res Ipsa!” you motherfuckers just sort of sit there pounding your puds and staring blankly into the sun. So, to those of you who have to make a conscious effort to both walk and inhale at the same time, this Bud’s for you as we move into the last part of our four part series on the concept of “intent” and shit: the negligence standard.
Let’s…let’s just get this shit over with quickly, okay? I want to go back to talking about other shit now.
Continue reading “Liable but not Culpable, Part 4: Lexplaining Negligence and the Reasonably Prudent Person”
Welcome to the third part of our interesting investigation of intent here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we strive to provide baby lawyers and law students with a profane purview of the legal profession. I’m your host with little to say and 1,500+ words to say it in, the Boozy Barrister.
So, like we’ve covered every other time, this guide isn’t really aimed at lawyers. I mean, at least not good lawyers who paid attention during their first year of law school and therefore have a semi-firm grasp on these basic fucking concepts. I mean, these are concepts so basic they get a latte from the same Starbucks every damn day. You should know this shit well before now if you’re an attorney and any where the day-to-day practice of lot and not busy being some in-house asshole who forms their furniture solely out of frightened interns and sales representatives. It’s basic and fundamental to the practice of law to understand the question of states of mind and intent in the civil and criminal law system, that’s what we’re getting at here.
And we’ve gone through it now. Last time and the time before that we looked at the basic differences between the criminal and civil justice system and the standards of proof used, and then at the question and definition of what “intent” and “mens rea” mean in regards to the criminal justice system alone. And that was some dense shit, man. This time, though, we’re going to go into the sort of law that most of the people out there are going to be experienced with at some point in their life, and that’s civil justice. Because life isn’t a fucking Law & Order episode where a random celebrity is going to show up and commit some horrible crime against us, no matter how many times Kevin Spacey tries to break into your bedroom at night.
So, without taking up any more of my precious intro space, let’s lead ourselves down the garden path of civil intent and its meaning in this, our penultimate installment in our multi-part series.
Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable, Part 3: Lexplaining The Reasonable Person and Civil Justice”
Hey you little neon-colored fauna of the world, it’s time for another Furry Friday on Lawyers & Liquor with the Boozy Badger nee Barrister. On Furry Friday we start talking about cases or legal principles and considerations that pertain to the furry fandom specifically, or at least those that are tangentially related to it. So, let’s fill up the dog bowls with some mac’n’cheese, slip on our giant deer heads, start queueing up the latest in music from an anthropomorphic animal, and get the ball rolling with the first of our multi-part series discussing the factors that govern the freaky, fun, friendly world of furry gatherings: the Factors of Convention Governance.
Today we’ll start by talking about the most maligned of mammals…or other groups of animals…the con chair. That’s right, the mean motherfucker that takes your badge, stresses about fucking everything, gives statements, and ends up talking to a room full of party penguins at opening and closing ceremonies. The bedraggled bastard that drags themselves through the convention space, desperately begging people to please for the love of whatever god they may believe in not leave a variety of “novelty silicone objects” in the lobby of the hotel. The public face of the convention and the person who catches the flak. The micro Mouse-o-lini that steals the joy of others while exerting massive control to make the trains run on time…and not the trains that go on at a “special” room party.
Fuck that guy, right? They just run everything the way they want it, and the hell with anything else. Why won’t they listen to the demands of the fandom? Why aren’t they reacting and changing the convention as people want? Why do they insist on doing shit their way?
Continue reading “Furry Friday: Con Chairs Aren’t God – The Factors of Convention Governance, Part 1”