Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "LegalEagle"
channel.
-
228
-
26
-
8
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrismanuel9768 Definition of TYRANNY: "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power; e.g., People liberated from a brutal tyranny."
That could apply to Putin's Russia, the CCP, and Britain's autocratic colonialism in Hong Kong, Indian Subcontinent, China, and Africa.
Calling George III or any other constitutional monarchy a form a dictatorship, tyranny, or autocracy is a sign that you're not familiar with how parliamentary supremacy works.
You can't trace an tyrannical abuse of power back to the a constitutional monarch because the decisions were made in Parliament, by British East Indian Company, or on the advice of government ministers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it was a clever idea to insert humor in a legal brief, and it was genuinely funny. Maybe I'm getting too old and grumpy, but it just has no place in a legal document or part of the record.
It would be more appropriate to send it to the political branches; e.g., maybe bring attention to dark money, ethics, or special interests. Stephen Colbert's Super PAC and presidential campaign being registered with the Federal Elections Commission was a great example of using parody and humor to lobby politicians.
The Supreme Court's amicus curiae filings, opinions, and legal briefs are already confusing and time-consuming for legal research. IMO, that would be similar to The Onion publishing research and medical literature in the New England Journal of Medicine or CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
I might have an unpopular opinion, but if judicial economy and efficiency truly matter and the legal briefs are from "friends of the court," then The Onion shouldn't flood the court and case record with additional paper that doesn't contain a legal analysis, argument, or a relevant question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rawwrrob9395 I'm in total agreement with everything you've said. I made the mistake of replying to @nanoRat before completely watching the video and fully comprehending what was his point of commenting.
Your answer was very accurate and more complete than mine because I didn't take the time understand that he was referring to the "American Rule," fee-shifting statutes, and awards to recover attorney fees and court cost. I can only speak for myself, but I consider that a complicated legal question and analysis that's rare in Legal Eagle comments.
I didn't expect a non-lawyer would know that. I interpreted it as suggesting that recovering attorney fees and court cost ONLY existed in British law, and for for civil cases in the US, a new type of remedy or contractual provision was needed to make the losing party liable for all litigation-related costs.
Also, despite not being relevant to the post, your comment about ONLY pre-1789 English common law, case law, and equity principles being merged and restated into American jurisprudence is spot on. I agree with that as well.
As an Anglophile and forever student of history, I'm always eager to go off on a tangent just to make the point that, like our native language, our legal system was also "Made in England."
1