This copy of the Constitution came in a box of cereal Welfare rancher and dipshit militia icon Cliven Bundy upped his legal game Tuesday, filing a lawsuit naming Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, the federal judge in his Nevada criminal case, as defendants. Among other things, Bundy wants immediate release from prison, all charges against him dropped, $50 million in damages, and perhaps a shrubbery. At the very least, Bundy wants to be represented by wingnut lawyer (and
That explains it! I was wondering why the papers always refer to Defendant HARRY REID and Defendant OBAMA. Why did they mention Reid's first name but not Obama's? Because Cliven can't remember what it is, because he's always called him Tyrant Obama.
1) I can't believe TTB approved that idiotic label.2) I'm even more appalled that, having approved that idiotic label, they get to change the name back to "Budweiser" when "Budweiser" is the name of a Czech beer from Budvar and therefore should only have been allowed as a grandfathered name, once the name was dropped it shouldn't have been allowed to be applied again.
In Bundy logic according to my research all the judge needs to do is grab a red pen and write "This is not me" on the papers that we're served. Cuz ya know the capitalized version of a persons name is not the same as the agent doing business as them :-\
Though it is true that legal writing and good writing are not the same thing, the "and/or" atrocity is not an example of legal writing.
The trouble with legal writing is that it is ridiculously verbose and utilizes strings of pat, boilerplate phrases that have already been interpreted by courts and which have very specific meanings that are enshrined in precedent and are therefore dependable. It's clumsy, it's wordy, it's full of "the party of the first part hereinbefore referenced" horrors.
But, as a one-time party guilty of legal writing, you don't draw up deeds and wills as literary documents. You go with what has worked before and try desperately to avoid any hint of ambiguity.
I'm not saying that you always get the desired effect and a lot of supposedly bulletproof prenups turn out to be porous. But getting to a document that is impossible to misinterpret, even by the dullest numbnut judge and/or jury member, is the idea. Legal writing is often awkward, tedious, loquacious and outdated but those very qualities serve a purpose.
As DutchS correctly notes, the "and/or" locution is inherently ambiguous. Stick it in a legal brief, and you practically beg the judge and/or jury to guess what you mean to say and to select the interpretation that is least favorable and/or fatal to your client's case.
Based on his use of "and/or" I have full confidence that Joel Hansen, Esq. is a legal representative for Cliven Bundy who is fully capable and/or an acceptable practitioner who attains the same high standards as Larry Klayman, hereinbefore referenced.
Oh man, Bruce Catton, that takes me back a few years. I don't think there was a day of his adult life when my father wasn't reading Bruce Catton and McKinley Cantor on the Civil War.
Here's some news for the Bundy branifarters: contrary to Sovereign Citizen lore, there is no special language, punctuation, capitalization or literary constructions that will invalidate Federal law and lots of people who have tried them are currently incarcerated for long periods of time. Navarro's refusal to allow Klaman to represent him may be a gift as calling Larry a crackpot is an insult to crackpots and his habit of pissing of judges may not end in your favor. You may wave that pocket Constitution around but that doesn't mean you can make up your own interpretation
This seems as good a place as any other to repost overandone's amazjng comment on washington posts recent trump article: overandone4:28 PM MSTThe GOP has discovered it’s not a TRUMP issue; it's a constituent issue. After giving shelter to the birthers, Obama's coming for you gun nuts, the kill black men cause I can cops, the confederate flag defeat deniers, the religious zealots and those disguised as same, the prolife clinic bombers, the Guberment get out of my life and don't touch my Medicare loonies, kill a boy cause he's wearing a hoodie sympathizers, Obamacare is the end of liberty naysayer’s, the voting fraud stole the election conspiracy crowd, the Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s, and Cliven Bundy’s. They find that those who are the republican party are not a flock of middleclass Mitt Romney’s but a hoard of malcontents with such little respect for our government our country our decades of, at least preached, moral integrity that they are eager to turn the handles of presidential power, to offer as Americas face to the world one Donald Trump. Rubio, Romney et al wonder how the GOP could be in such as state. They fail to mention the 2008 inaugural night pledge by republicans to do whatever they could to see Obama, hence America fail. They fail to regard as important the tacit acceptance of the birthers, chief among them the GOP presidential candidate in 2016, and by nearly all of the party faithful, and hate spouting talk show blowhards. They fail to understand how when the congress and senate put trying to deny Obama a the cooperation that would move our nation forward, rather than see the country succeed on a black man’s watch. When the party leaders disrespect the right of the American majority who selected president Obama to pick the replacements for vacancies on the supreme court, and the federal courts across the board, the disrespect for the will of the people stolen by the likes of Willie Gohmert and Mitch McConnell. Now they plot to deny Trump the victory he has earned from the voters in the party that they have created. This is what the republicans think will make America GREAT AGAIN.
Editrix plz offer this person a job at wonkette :)
Tyrion Lannister: "Don't associate me with these dumbshits!"
Can't the papers be rejected for using incorrect terminology? It's DEMOCRATIC, you limp-dicked, leathery-faced excuse for a sentient life form.
That explains it! I was wondering why the papers always refer to Defendant HARRY REID and Defendant OBAMA. Why did they mention Reid's first name but not Obama's? Because Cliven can't remember what it is, because he's always called him Tyrant Obama.
This could be the wine geek in me talking, but...
1) I can't believe TTB approved that idiotic label.2) I'm even more appalled that, having approved that idiotic label, they get to change the name back to "Budweiser" when "Budweiser" is the name of a Czech beer from Budvar and therefore should only have been allowed as a grandfathered name, once the name was dropped it shouldn't have been allowed to be applied again.
In Bundy logic according to my research all the judge needs to do is grab a red pen and write "This is not me" on the papers that we're served. Cuz ya know the capitalized version of a persons name is not the same as the agent doing business as them :-\
Case dismissed.
I'm guessing the brown acid.
liebrul elitist! Only single-wides in REAL america.
I see everything... uh... once. Never mind.
Though it is true that legal writing and good writing are not the same thing, the "and/or" atrocity is not an example of legal writing.
The trouble with legal writing is that it is ridiculously verbose and utilizes strings of pat, boilerplate phrases that have already been interpreted by courts and which have very specific meanings that are enshrined in precedent and are therefore dependable. It's clumsy, it's wordy, it's full of "the party of the first part hereinbefore referenced" horrors.
But, as a one-time party guilty of legal writing, you don't draw up deeds and wills as literary documents. You go with what has worked before and try desperately to avoid any hint of ambiguity.
I'm not saying that you always get the desired effect and a lot of supposedly bulletproof prenups turn out to be porous. But getting to a document that is impossible to misinterpret, even by the dullest numbnut judge and/or jury member, is the idea. Legal writing is often awkward, tedious, loquacious and outdated but those very qualities serve a purpose.
As DutchS correctly notes, the "and/or" locution is inherently ambiguous. Stick it in a legal brief, and you practically beg the judge and/or jury to guess what you mean to say and to select the interpretation that is least favorable and/or fatal to your client's case.
Based on his use of "and/or" I have full confidence that Joel Hansen, Esq. is a legal representative for Cliven Bundy who is fully capable and/or an acceptable practitioner who attains the same high standards as Larry Klayman, hereinbefore referenced.
It was a phase I went through.
Oh man, Bruce Catton, that takes me back a few years. I don't think there was a day of his adult life when my father wasn't reading Bruce Catton and McKinley Cantor on the Civil War.
Here's some news for the Bundy branifarters: contrary to Sovereign Citizen lore, there is no special language, punctuation, capitalization or literary constructions that will invalidate Federal law and lots of people who have tried them are currently incarcerated for long periods of time. Navarro's refusal to allow Klaman to represent him may be a gift as calling Larry a crackpot is an insult to crackpots and his habit of pissing of judges may not end in your favor. You may wave that pocket Constitution around but that doesn't mean you can make up your own interpretation
This seems as good a place as any other to repost overandone's amazjng comment on washington posts recent trump article: overandone4:28 PM MSTThe GOP has discovered it’s not a TRUMP issue; it's a constituent issue. After giving shelter to the birthers, Obama's coming for you gun nuts, the kill black men cause I can cops, the confederate flag defeat deniers, the religious zealots and those disguised as same, the prolife clinic bombers, the Guberment get out of my life and don't touch my Medicare loonies, kill a boy cause he's wearing a hoodie sympathizers, Obamacare is the end of liberty naysayer’s, the voting fraud stole the election conspiracy crowd, the Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s, and Cliven Bundy’s. They find that those who are the republican party are not a flock of middleclass Mitt Romney’s but a hoard of malcontents with such little respect for our government our country our decades of, at least preached, moral integrity that they are eager to turn the handles of presidential power, to offer as Americas face to the world one Donald Trump. Rubio, Romney et al wonder how the GOP could be in such as state. They fail to mention the 2008 inaugural night pledge by republicans to do whatever they could to see Obama, hence America fail. They fail to regard as important the tacit acceptance of the birthers, chief among them the GOP presidential candidate in 2016, and by nearly all of the party faithful, and hate spouting talk show blowhards. They fail to understand how when the congress and senate put trying to deny Obama a the cooperation that would move our nation forward, rather than see the country succeed on a black man’s watch. When the party leaders disrespect the right of the American majority who selected president Obama to pick the replacements for vacancies on the supreme court, and the federal courts across the board, the disrespect for the will of the people stolen by the likes of Willie Gohmert and Mitch McConnell. Now they plot to deny Trump the victory he has earned from the voters in the party that they have created. This is what the republicans think will make America GREAT AGAIN.
Editrix plz offer this person a job at wonkette :)
Dormammu would be a good Repub candidate this year. Check that, IS the Repub candidate
Their new lawyer:
"I just don't know what went wrong!"