Thread for legal discussion by non-lawyers

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12
  • Views: 193
  • Off-Topic 
S

superrific

Honored Member
Messages
976
If you would like to talk about law stuff, and court stuff, and you do not meet the criteria for the thread for lawyers, this thread is for you. I will check in from time to time if anyone cares, but this is a great place for people to engage in banter that is unconnected from actual legal principles.

Go for it
 
You are breaking my constitutional rights enshrined in the first amendment by suggesting I cannot post in the other thread for lawyers only. Can I sue you?
 
To be clear, the other thread is open for people genuinely interested in legal discussion. It's not for lawyers ONLY. It just has to be respectful and not full of people who know nothing pretending as if they are experts.
 
Understand. I was attempting to be humorous because people often seem to misunderstand what the first amendment means/does. I appreciate you attempting to cultivate good legal discussion as a non-lawyer. I am fascinated by it.
 
Rock said:
Understand. I was attempting to be humorous because people often seem to misunderstand what the first amendment means/does. I appreciate you attempting to cultivate good legal discussion as a non-lawyer. I am fascinated by it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got the joke. That particular misunderstanding is so mind-boggling to me. It's just not a hard concept to grasp, in my view. Your post also made me realize that my previous post wasn't fully inclusive of the conversations that would be welcome.
 
superrific said:
To be clear, the other thread is open for people genuinely interested in legal discussion. It's not for lawyers ONLY. It just has to be respectful and not full of people who know nothing pretending as if they are experts.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying some subset of people but essentially all of the magabots?

(I couldn’t resist )
 
Awinisawin said:
So you’re saying some subset of people but essentially all of the magabots?

(I couldn’t resist )
Click to expand...
I think he's saying you can either be a lawyer or a non lawyer that agrees with him if you would like to participate in the other thread. If you are a non lawyer with a different opinion or you would prefer to discuss legal matters without reading through multiple chapter posts, you get to use this thread.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think he's saying you can either be a lawyer or a non lawyer that agrees with him if you would like to participate in the other thread. If you are a non lawyer with a different opinion or you would prefer to discuss legal matters without reading through multiple chapter posts, you get to use this thread.
Click to expand...
I fully understand that.
 


Can I get comment on this case as it affects my hometown so I'm wondering if I'm about to lose trash service weekly. Joking of course.

Terrence Shannon was the Illinois star player that was falsely accused of rape and held out for a bit until he sued and was allowed to play again. It appears to have cost him a bit in the draft.
 
Rock said:


Can I get comment on this case as it affects my hometown so I'm wondering if I'm about to lose trash service weekly. Joking of course.

Terrence Shannon was the Illinois star player that was falsely accused of rape and held out for a bit until he sued and was allowed to play again. It appears to have cost him a bit in the draft.
Click to expand...

Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.
 
superrific said:
Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.
Click to expand...
Our district attorney is woefully incompetent and was just voted out as the incumbent only getting 9%. She has numerous complaints against her and has done a bunch of incredibly unethical things. There was a perception she pursued this to try and get headlines for her bid to save her job.

lawrencekstimes.com

Hearing panel recommends Douglas County DA receive censure in disciplinary complaint case

A panel of attorneys have released their final report on a complaint against the Douglas County district attorney, and they're recommending she receive a public censure.
lawrencekstimes.com lawrencekstimes.com

But, I don't know that being incompetent helps as you said.
 
superrific said:
Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.
Click to expand...
Hey! This is a thread for non-lawyers. Pipe down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top