Author Topic: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)  (Read 30598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2010, 12:02:13 AM »

Offline dlpin

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 842
  • Tommy Points: 183
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

In other words, that provision only applies in Europe and North America. The wording of things like that was done explicitly as to exclude any wars and disputes over territories from the deal. Remember, this was signed in 1949, and so most of those nations still had colonies, and most nations didn't want to be obligated to go to war over colonial squabbles and wars of independence.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2010, 08:55:18 PM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

In other words, that provision only applies in Europe and North America. The wording of things like that was done explicitly as to exclude any wars and disputes over territories from the deal. Remember, this was signed in 1949, and so most of those nations still had colonies, and most nations didn't want to be obligated to go to war over colonial squabbles and wars of independence.
Woah.  So Guam doesn't count? Is Hawaii North America?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2011, 04:08:49 PM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
I guess I have slightly mixed feelings on this one

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Teen-kicked-off-basketball-team-for-hairstyle?urn=highschool-304424

basically an 8th grader got kicked off the team because he wouldn't cut his hair....seems like it opens a can of worms.....seems equally as arbitrary as if they kicked kids off the team if they did cut their hair

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2011, 10:18:02 PM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Hey. In the event of war between the US and Iran does the player on the Grizzlies (Hammadi or something) have to go back to Iran?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2011, 10:17:25 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Roy and others. Please discuss when it's right to recuse yourself. Should Kagan and Thomas have to recuse themselves? Why? Why not? Because they have opinions? I'm not sure I understand this as well as I'd like.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2011, 10:31:49 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31354
  • Tommy Points: -28146
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Roy and others. Please discuss when it's right to recuse yourself. Should Kagan and Thomas have to recuse themselves? Why? Why not? Because they have opinions? I'm not sure I understand this as well as I'd like.

There are rules of judicial ethics that all judges are supposed to follow.  I haven't reviewed them in years (since the time I was a judicial law clerk).  Some of the big ones:  recusing yourself when a family member is involved in a case, or when you have a personal / financial interest in the outcome of a case.  This has led to a lot of judges divesting themselves of stock holdings, etc.

In the health care case, there are questions about Kagan because she was the Solicitor General during her time in the Obama Administration.  She's allowed to have an opinion on health care policy, but if she actually provided guidance on the legality of the bill itself, it's my understanding that she should have to recuse herself.  As soon as Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, she put up a "wall" between herself and any discussion of Obamacare.  However, there are emails floating around that suggest that she attended meetings regarding the legality of the bill, which would generally be a no-no.  Kagan has recused herself from something like 11 challenges to laws she worked on, but has not indicated that she feels any conflict here, and has said that she never substantively discussed health care law with the administration.  Conservatives are skeptical

Regarding Thomas, from what I understand, the ethics rules don't require recusal by him.  His wife is active in the Tea Party / anti-Obamacare movement, but her actions aren't imputed to him.  However, a lot of people think he should step down, due to the appearance of impropriety and the unlikelihood that he would rule directly against an issue his wife is so emotionally and financially involved in.  Here's some more background..

Most likely, neither recuses themselves, and a full nine Justice court hears the case.  It will be interesting seeing the political bomb-throwing on both sides, though.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2011, 10:35:32 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Leeeettttt's just say a judge like Kagan doesn't recuse themselves from a case like this and later on it can be proven she lied. What would happen?   If Thomas' wife is financially involved does that meet the criteria?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2011, 10:49:34 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31354
  • Tommy Points: -28146
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Leeeettttt's just say a judge like Kagan doesn't recuse themselves from a case like this and later on it can be proven she lied. What would happen?   If Thomas' wife is financially involved does that meet the criteria?

I'm not an expert, so I honestly don't really know.  From what I've read, Thomas' wife's financial interest isn't enough to force recusal, according to most experts.  As for Kagan, my guess would be that if she sat on the case, and it later came out that she should have recused herself, she would be censured in some manner, but that the results of the case would stand.  However, it may be appropriate in those circumstances for the Court to grant a re-hearing if Kagan's vote would have made a difference.

As an aside, recusal would be a mess.  A 4-4 decision in the Supreme Court would basically preserve the status quo of whatever the lower court's ruling was.  Here, there will be numerous cases in various Federal Circuits impacted by whatever the Court does.  If there was a 4-4 tie, that means that the status quo -- and the conflicts in interpretation -- in the different Circuits would be preserved, meaning that Obamacare could be Constitutional in certain states, but Unconstitutional in others, depending upon which Federal Circuit that state falls into.

It's doubtful that happens, but it would be crazy if it did.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2011, 02:43:24 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15667
  • Tommy Points: 750
I have a new one.  I couldn't find any case law exactly on point, so I thought I would ask other attorneys/law students, to get their take.  I have drafted the scenario in a neutral manner so as to indicate which party I represent.

There is a discovery dispute.  The answering party was asked to identify (in an interrogatory) all documents that support its argument that the requesting party's mortgage is invalid.  The answering party provided complete access to its clients project files (thousands of documents).  The requesting party contends that that response is not sufficient and has asked for the ieentity of just those documents that support the argument that the mortgage is invalid.  The answering party objected in part on the grounds of attorney work product.  The theory being that the actual selection of the 20 documents (or how many ever it is) that support its legal argument, is the attorneys opinion and thus covered by the work product doctrine.  All 20 of the documents are contained within the documents already produced so nothing was withheld.  Setting aside the overly broad/unduly burdensome argument, is that attorney work product?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 02:56:29 PM by Moranis »
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2011, 07:45:22 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Ok. The cat's outta the bag.  I'm a PSU alum (of course). See ya Saturday Faf.  I'm also a Roman Catholic.  All I need now is to find out I'm a distant relative of Michael Jackson so I can get the frickin trifecta.

For one very very brief moment the PSU scandal actually registered on the wanting to kill myself scale. Not very high, but when you have a very very strong identity attached to something and it becomes this nasty and you find out it was so long and you fear the next thing....your head does weird things.  I have a pic of Paterno in my 4 year old's room. I have another of him on the way down to the basement. I have another poster on the way down that brags I was at his 300th win. I am close to finishing my college scrap book and Joe is in there more than anyone.  I imagine there are other alumni who named their kid's middle names Paterno. In my yearbook there's a huge thing about Sandusky's retirement.

I heard these rumors months ago. Me. I'm just a guy. And I heard them. I never thought it involved this many people for so long.

I went to an interview yesterday and wanted to hide my face. In another interview on Monday a guy held my official PSU transcript in front of him to read every class I took.

My brand has been forever dented and this has definitely caused me some minor pain and suffering. (Obviously nothing compared to the victims, but you see what I'm saying). Every year the school raised my tuition and they did it again to my brother, all the while calling me to ask for more money while I was buying PSU memorabilia, like mugs and jackets (can't wear that for a while, and forget the hat).

I feel entitled to a partial refund. I clearly don't stand as good a chance in an interview now, which is something they advertised to me.....PSU...#1 with corporate recruiters.

The recruiters won't come to campus nearly as much now. I won't get as many interviews now.

I've been damaged.

Roy et all....what would be the chances of a successful class action lawsuit on behalf of students and alumni alleging damages and the need for settlement?  Pretty low, huh.  But seriously. A PSU diploma with Spanier's name on it is a little like saying "I went to KKK University".   I feel I should compensated for that.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2011, 07:53:39 AM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12926
  • Tommy Points: 806
I would think there could be a class action lawsuit, saying that the people that knew and covered up the scandal should have forseen the damages it could cause to their graduates.  I guess you just have to prove the actaul damages it causes.
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2011, 08:04:02 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
They don't have enough money. Maybe it could be like one of those cease and desist type things, where they have to do some things. I can't believe they have McQueery still around and haven't attempted to settle with victims immediately and offered to pay for their treatment and therapy

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2011, 08:46:21 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Also PSU definitely gets some fed funds. The FBi, the Secretary of Education, and the President of the US have to become involved. PSU is the educational equivalent of too big to fail. But the PSU administration can't possibly be left to their own devices. McQueery is still there. Sandusky was there last week.  Guys accused of perjury are being defended by the school.  The school is being run by mob bosses that are terrorists against justice.  This is beyond PSU and an incident.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2011, 09:03:03 AM »

Online eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16787
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
They need suicide watch type stuff at PSU right now. In other cultures those guys would get a pistol with one bullet. They better write everything down and email it to CNN, FoxNews etc first

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2011, 09:18:54 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14002
  • Tommy Points: 854
Money is something they do have, their endowment is like 6.5 billion.  You can bet lawyers will be setting up shop on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania

Already it is projected that this will cost them about 200 million in costs.  That is lawsuits, defense costs and reduced fund raising.

http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article/20111111/SPORTS/111119962/PSU-scandal-likely-to-cost-hundreds-of-millions&template=sports

No amount of money is going to fix what happened though.

p.s.  We didn't need to help Britain with Argentina, Eja117.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

But if you read that we supplied them with missles, air tanker support and supplies.  The French helped them too.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713025643AA4YjqI