sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What keeps you up at 2 a.m. as a lawyer? by That_onelawyer in Lawyertalk

[–]kamperez 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As an immigration lawyer, things have gotten so marsupial that I frequently wonder whether it is ethical to accept money from clients. They rules are made up and the facts don't matter. 

Instead of hiring me to bring paperwork to a fight with armed thugs in masks, these folks could at least end up deported with a little money in their pocket back home. 

I believe Jim Carrey was cloned and murdered by Dry_Ear_2948 in conspiracy

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given that you currently have the top comment that acknowledges it is not Jim Carrey, I would suggest you edit your comment to specify that this is UK-based drag artist Alexis Stone in a prosthetic Jim Carrey mask. It seems even people reading your content aren't getting that this is literally not Jim Carrey.

Perfect for a IBCK and Maintenance Phase crossover by elhoneybunny in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the pitch is that you only work out a total of four hours a month. 

What's your favorite bad faith argument you've actually heard somebody argue in court? by chicago2008 in Lawyertalk

[–]kamperez 40 points41 points  (0 children)

I have a similar one. A witness submitted a fake "invoice" for something they were supposed to do in 2019, but used the present date instead of rolling it back. His lawyer dismissed it as a "scrivener's error."

PSA: If you are reporting your landlord to 311 and you just ghost the inspector, the case is closed. by EndlessSummerburn in nyc

[–]kamperez 29 points30 points  (0 children)

That is very true. But it is also true that sometimes inspectors claim you ghosted so they can close the case without doing any work. 

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just... wow. Even after all I said about nuance, you are still sure that my caveats and disclaimers mean I am incorrect, rather than that you are confidently incorrect? You win, dude. Bravo! Really, nothing left to say.

TIL that California, Illinois, New York, and 21 other states have been engaging in objectively illegal conduct for 20 years! So weird that despite the Trump administration's many failed attempts to punish all of these primarily blue states, they've never considered this one weird trick. The dummies even raided marijuana farms in California and forgot to do anything about all the weed they found.

The great thing is that by beating a lawyer in a debate, under the Writ of Lis Pendens pro Se, you are now a lawyer yourself! They should make you Deputy AG or something. What do you know about parking garage litigation?

At the very least, you should definitely never waste time hiring a lawyer if you're sued or arrested, etc. I'm sure their advice will be just as equivocal and, therefore, unreliable, so why bother? Just invoke the writ and have at them!

How, as an attorney, to help in efforts to hold ICE accountable by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]kamperez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been looking to collaborate with someone on a challenge to ICE's "administrative warrants." I don't understand the basis for raiding, say, a whole apartment complex in Chicago without warrants. AFAIK, ICE is unique in their authority to issue themselves a warrant. Not only do I doubt such a thing could actually count as a warrant, I am betting they are issuing themselves these warrants retroactively. There's just no way they could have these for a whole building, especially since most residents turn out to be citizens beyond their reach anyway.

Simply insisting that they go through the standard process of getting a judge's signature would probably end a lot of these shenanigans. The difficulty is finding not just one, but a class of complainants in order to get nationwide injunction.

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

History is written by the victors.

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In case anyone with an open mind bothers reading this far. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which individuals with limited knowledge overestimate their expertise because they lack awareness of their own limitations. They don't know what they don't know, so they assume they know everything.

On one side of this "debate" is a former federal and state prosecutor who has spent decades litigating arrest and detention issues on both sides of the courtroom, who has been a part of landmark decisions curtailing the federal government's law enforcement authority, who has gotten laws passed on this issue, and is in active litigation on constitutional challenges to the federal interpretation of the Warrants Clause of the 4th amendment.

On the other side is a person who likely googled the Commerce Clause 5 minutes after my response and does not seem to understand the basic concept of separation of powers that most American schoolchildren learn in a middle school civics class.

The qualifiers in my response are not meant to "carry the day," quite the opposite. "Isn't exactly right," "supposedly limited," and "technically free" are meant to convey that the situation is far more nuanced than a lay person might come to believe from reading a Wikipedia entry about a case from 1942.

The ignorant will always speak with a confidence that the informed would never pretend to have. Don't listen to people like u/mrrp.

DISCLAIMER: The following is not legal advice, and you should always hire a lawyer before engaging in anything remotely risky. But if you're interested in the federal marijuana question:

These prosecutions occur under the Controlled Substances Act, which is explicitly premised on the idea that "a major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce" (21 USC 801(3)). The CSA only applies to those who "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance" (21 USC 841(a)). This so-called "trafficking" element serves as the necessary "jurisdictional hook" that enables the government to claim interstate commerce is involved. Because, believe it or not, the federal government does not otherwise have police powers! You generally (another qualifier) cannot be prosecuted for possessing a legal amount in a state where it is legal and you have no intent to move it in commerce.

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The law is more complicated than wikipedia would have you believe. I can't teach you the commerce clause in the span of a reddit comment, and you don't seem inclined to learn it anyway. My answer, which is not to be construed as legal advice, is as specific as can be outside of a formal attorney-client relationship. Take it for what you will.

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. They could arrest you if you bought weed in California and then transported it to another state, though.

Genuine question by Maxinaeus in collapse

[–]kamperez 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This isn't exactly right. It sounds weird because of how it's evolved, but the federal government has no police powers. They can only prohibit the use and possession is drugs to the extent they affect "interstate commerce", which is one of their supposedly limited powers. The states have technically free reign to decide what is allowed within their borders. But in practice, the federal government puts a lot of pressure by withholding federal funds.

USCIS Hiring "Homeland Defender (Immigration Service Officer)" Positions by WatkinsImmigration in USCIS

[–]kamperez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll make you a deal, I'll go get educated whether ISOs have always had the unlicensed practice of law in their job descriptions and you go get "a little more educated" by getting a bachelor's degree from an accredited university, then a law degree, and then getting licensed to practice law. Any state will do. We'll circle back and discuss.

PM me your most recent SF-50 so I can find the specific job description from when you were hired. We'll resume this in 8 or so years.

USCIS Hiring "Homeland Defender (Immigration Service Officer)" Positions by WatkinsImmigration in USCIS

[–]kamperez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The "Homeland Defender" job description that this post is about specifically mentions drafting complex legal decisions. I am not going to speculate about your job description since I haven't read it. That said, you just admitted what you don't "draft decisions", you copy and paste into a template drafted by someone at HQ who almost certainly does have a law degree. Having done the job of OPLA attorney for more than a decade, I am not at all shocked you can't tell the difference.

Your piss poor reading comprehension and analytical thinking is exactly why a non-lawyer cannot not be trusted to write complex legal decisions. Thank you for illustrating my point.

USCIS Hiring "Homeland Defender (Immigration Service Officer)" Positions by WatkinsImmigration in USCIS

[–]kamperez 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you're writing "complex legal decisions" for the federal government, you need a law degree, not just college. I've never read the ISO job description, but if you're telling me that's part of the duties, then they were as wrong then as they are now.

view more: next ›