eadler

NAL but generally familiar with law.

Medical (and especially therapy) notes, attorney/client communications, and a few other have privilege [1] and you would not /required/ to submit this. If the opposing side requested something that turned them up, and they were responsive, you'd include a response and include a reference in a "privilege log" [0]

What is privileged is subtle and often overstated. You can't just put "attorney/client privilege" and CC a lawyer — you need to be asking a genuine legal question. Google almost got in trouble for something like this [2].

Private notes, including diaries, are not privileged. I'd like to see some serious proposals for "diary privilege" but no state has such a rule.

[0] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/creating-privilege-logs-a-... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileged_communication [2] https://www.proskauer.com/blog/the-sound-of-silent-attorneys... — although they won later appeals. My point here is that its complicated.

You may enjoy https://forrt.org/ and in particular https://forrt.org/replication-hub/

I never knew the name of that device.

Thanks

This is such a shame. It was the single best code pairing tool for the longest time and did not rely on mere screen sharing.

I've read this before. The first time you posted this.

Your obsession with Obama and ignorance of current events are well known to me and everyone else who reads this site regularly.

Please make an effort to apply your purported critical thinking sklls and claimed integrity rather than reposting one article repeatedly.

Being unwilling to differentiate between two obiously different forms of badness—both in kind and in quantity—is intentional ignorance and is antithetical to the curious conversation expected of this community.

... and if you can't differentiate between the badness of Obama and the badness of Trump you have neither integrity nor critical thinking skills.

I appreciated several of these quotes and added them to my own personal tracker. Thanks for linking this.

You're reading research that says they're geniuses?

I didn't say this

...

Re the rest. Thanks. I had implicitly assumed we were talking about financial or white collar crimes rather than all crimes. In other words the types of crimes people generally assume that richer people commit (insider training, tax evasion, wage theft, etc.)

I think you are correct in the most general sense of "all crime"

The reason criminals commit crimes is that criminals are dumb and have poor impulse control.

What makes you believe this? Any data to support this claim?

It's inconsistent with the majority of research I've read on the topic but I'm no expert.

1. You called the judge an "activist" which I don't agree with. Further if there were legitimate concerns about bias they could have requested that the judge recuse herself. It also ignores the, rightfully, failed appeals which were not ruled by McCormick

2. This is covered extensively in the document I linked

3. This is covered extensively in the document I linked

4. I regret commenting on musk's politics. I have no idea if he actually voted for democrats previously and if so he he actually ever supported small-state libertarian values. They aren't relevant to the case.

5. 6. I'm not commenting on conspiracy theories

You might enjoy this video:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=D-XXZilkAXU

* A single activist judge overruled shareholders

false

* A high-achieving CEO was left with with zero compensation for a ten year period

false

* Musk's compensation was agreed by a majority of shareholders both before and after the judge annulled it.

not usefully true because the voters didn't have complete information and the board was captured.

* Musk has a conservative political worldview

false, but I'll admit that many people would call it "conservative"

* The judge that annulled Musk's compensation was Democrat-appointed

no idea. Irrelevant

* A man's political worldview should have no bearing on the compensation owed to him by his employer

true. Irrelevant. Musk's political worldview had no bearing on the court case of which you seem to have heard of but not understand.

You appear to be reacting to a simulacrum of reality rather than what actually happened.

I suggest reading https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=359340

Yeah. Hearsay is an out of court statement provided to show the proof a matter. It has little to do with oral vs non oral. There are also exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions and so on.

Is this actually the case? what about people who were promoted or moved positions?

Is this the case for all federal jobs or can it be longer for some roles?

What do you believe "probationary employees" means?

What is their average tenure at the department?

The article states that the lawsuit was rejected merely on procedural grounds (specifically the doctrine of administrative exhaustion) . It does not come close to stating that the action was legal.

The actual court decison (which I have also read) is consistent with the article.

This is starting to happen. I had to do this for NIH recently.

Or it would be happening absent the recent chaos.

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes APA review amongst other relief (since it precludes district court jurisdiction entirely). That being said, this "termination" is likely invalid under the CSRA.

Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic?

I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.

Relevant Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103

Good explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-...

Another distinction here is that a store is offering a contract. It isn't a debt until the contracted is accepted.

This isn't true for the majority of operating systems.

Not commenting on any other part but a slight correction:

The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. While there are different types most (like Levonorgestrel) are antiovulatarory or anti fertilisation.

Related: some fascinating history about the origin of the dreidel.

Stephen Winick. (2022, December 13). The Truth Behind the Hanukkah Dreidel: Metafolklore, Play, and Spin | Folklife Today. The Library of Congress. https://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2022/12/the-truth-behind-the-...

Community notes was designed, implemented and released before the acquisition. Only the name is new. Previously it was called birdwatch.

You also inspired me to go looking at this one [3]. I have not yet read it in full so please excuse any errors of understanding. (I have a backlog of 263 items at the moment).

These points represent at best pure speculation, which a fair reading of the legislative history quickly undercuts. As Professor Schwartz has pointed out, language in the bill concerning contracts involving commerce was amended at the request of Senator Walsh, who wanted to narrow the effect of the Act, not expand it.178 Prior to amendment in 1924,179 the bill which became the FAA provided coverage of three categories: “any contract or maritime transaction or transaction involving commerce.”180 The application of the FAA to “any contract” would have included contracts not in interstate commerce.181 At the time, contracts not considered in interstate commerce included most employment contracts and insurance contracts.182 Senator Walsh’s amendment limited contracts covered by the Act to any “contract evidencing a . . . transaction involving commerce.”183 His clear intent was to prevent the application of the FAA to contracts such as those of insurance and employment, which he considered adhesion contracts.184 Thus, by limiting the scope of the FAA to contracts which were actually considered in interstate commerce, Congress was reducing the reach of the bill, not expanding it to apply in state courts.

It is possible I misremember or misstated the conflict comment I made above too. I do know that for example: train and airline employees have explicit statues for their contracts. I am also certain that I read at least one article about this conflict between the FAA and other statutes. I am having some trouble locating it at the moment (I've read 198 articles on the topic) though.

[I actually made https://arbitrationinformation.org/ originally as my own personal notes since my memory isn't great. It only turned into a website once I realised that my notes would be useful for other people.]

[3] Margaret L Moses. (2006). Statutory Miconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a Federal Arbitration Law Never Enacted by Congress. Florida State University Law Review, 34(1). https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol34/iss1/3

Bear in mind this was written in 1928 in a very different legal context. In particular it was written before the Erie double-reversal [0].

Personally, I think it was poorly drafted by modern standards. Today, this particular exclusion would be something like adding an additional paragraph with text that says "nothing herein shall affect any provision of any other statue" (please excuse my imprecision)

Julius Henry Cohen, one of the key authors of the law, wrote the following (ellipse and elision for emphasis. Please see the full source for full text):

... which commands an unusually widespread support in the business world because the reform is directed primarily toward settlement of commercial disputes...

A written provision for arbitration contained in any contract which involves maritime transactions ... or interstate commerce as generally defined, is made "valid, enforceable and irrevocable,"

It must be read in the light of the situation which it was devised to correct and of the history of arbitration anid of similar statutes in the recent past.

The evils which arbitration is intended to correct are three in number: (1) The long delay usuallv incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars. nce. (2) The expense of litigation. (3) The failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world.

Arbitration under the Federal and similar statutes is simply a new procedural remedy, particularly adapted to the settlement of commercial dispute

'Information collected by the Department of Commerce over the past several years' hie said, 'clearly showed that the substantial element of the American business public is overwhelmingly in favor of arbitration in the settlement of *commercial disputes* in both domestic and foreign trade

While I don't quote it here, there is also interesting rules around jurisdictions which the law was trying to dance around.

Please also see [2]

58 See Leslie, supranote 57, at 309 ("Congress did not intend the FAA to facilitate firms imposing arbitration clauses on consumers through contracts of adhesion.... For example, in colloquy, when senators raised the issue of contracts of adhesion, the bill's supporters testified that the FAA would not apply to such situations."); id. at 310-11 ("During the earliest hearings for the FAA, concerns were expressed that the Act could cover employment . .. . The Act's text was amended [to exclude] 'contracts of employment of ... any ... class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' . . . [T]he amendment appeased labor interests, who removed their opposition to the bill." (footnote omitted) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1 (2012))); Margaret L. Moses, Statutory Misconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a FederalArbitrationLaw Never Enacted by Congress, 34 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 99, 147 (2006) ("[N]o one in 1925-not the drafters, the Secretary of Commerce, organ ized labor, nor members of Congress-believed that the FAA applied to employment contracts.").

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/erie_doctrine

[1] Cohen, J. H., & Dayton, K. (1926). The New Federal Arbitration Law. Virginia Law Review, 12(4), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1065471 pp 265

[2] Fitzpatrick, B. T. (2017). Justice Scalia and Class Actions. Notre Dame Law Review, 92, 1977. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/... pp 1986 note 58 (via citation)

I used the ellipse for emphasis rather than dishonesty. The full quote was above. (If HN supported formatting I'd perhaps have used bold instead of ellipse+elision.)

And yes. I read the full text of Circuit City including every footnote. I've also read multiple analysis of the opinion by different scholars. I've also read multiple articles by the original author of the text as well as transcripts of the Congressional debate at the time it passed.

The reasoning for specifically mentioning transportation workers is that there are separate statues for arbitration or worker-contract for those workers and Congress did not want to conflict.

Circuit City was an error.

You're correctly understanding the mistake the court made. The principle does not normally apply in this context under ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.

I even gave you a source from the author of the law itself.

You are correct that congress can fix the issue. Due to deadlock and a lack of care they have not.

"but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers ...." was specifically intended to exclude all employment contract.

It was the Court, in Circuit City v. Adams, incorrectly, claimed that ejusdem generis applied here.

Please see for further details:

Sternlight, J. R. (2005). Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is It Just? Scholarly Works, 57(280), 1631–1676. pp 1631

Cain, R. M. (1988). Commercial Disputes and Compulsory Arbitration. The Business Lawyer, pp 65

Cohen, J. H., & Dayton, K. (1926). The New Federal Arbitration Law. Virginia Law Review, 12(4), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1065471 pp 265

Stone, K. V. W. (2018). Rustic Justice: Community and Coercion under the Federal Arbitration Act [Preprint]. LawArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/6g7e3 §IV.F pp 987-991

For all references: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

The Court, not Congress, favoured arbitration over court in consumer contracts.

Arbitration, when passed, was designed for contract disputes between merchants, not statutory claims or between entities of unequal bargaining power. In fact members of Congress expressly disavowed touching either consumer or employment contracts - and even went so far as to make that explicit with respect to employment.