Seeing the kind of "law" this clown freak does it's a wonder he has the balls to call himself a lawyer at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483149)

He needs to cut down on his verbal pauses. He says "uh" and "um" far too often for an experienced lawyer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483198)

and it's all downhill from there for chris

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483228)

holy shit this guy sucks. he needs to be disbarred and thrown in prison for scamming "clients" out of money for his "legal services"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483231)

I've seen high school moot court students that would blow this guy out of the water

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483725)

LMAO

Chris, you child-raping pedo retard. JFC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484175)

My favorite part is where SP comes up with some frivolous argument steeped in state tort law and the judge basically asks if he would be "more comfortable" with his case being dismissed on federal law instead. And SP just helplessly sputters around.

Also, I don't do shitlaw, don't know shitlaw and torts at all, don't know what falls within the FTCA, but why the fuck didn't SP at least try to argue that the consequences of the act (injuries) weren't intended? Can't an intentional act with unintended consequences be negligence? And wouldn't that normally be a fact issue that would often survive a MTD? Something like these cases:

https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/accidents-and-intentional-conduct

How did SP, who devoted dozens or hundreds of hours to this case and is a "specialist" in this field, not come up with an argument that took 3 seconds of thinking and 10 seconds of googling from someone with passing knowledge of torts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483323)

I know because I've judged them lmfao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483727)

You used that term incorrectly here, but that's not surprising given that you're a total fucking retard who got blown the FUCK out in this oral argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484180)

First, the performance was fine. It was already played here and commented on here months ago as fine. Stop being ridiculous. It’s a Hail Mary pass on a point of law that could theoretically get some traction as it is OR open a door for a new plaintiffs cause of action in my state.

Second, I didn’t do the briefs, I didn’t do the pleadings or the arguments in lower court. I didn’t write the appeal. I was arguing an appeal for work done by another atty who took the case in and identified the potential grounds for appeal in his mind but was unable to argue it himself. So the hours and hours bit is a little unfair. I simply had the record and the appellate briefs to work with, and an open scheduling slot with the fourth circuit that had better be filled with one of us.

Third, the whole name of the game here was to find insurance. As an intentional act, the postman’s private car insurance wouldn’t cover it. So would the USA? As a “Negligent act” performed by its agent the postal service? There’s a federal statue that excludes US liability for acts sounding in battery. But Virginia law doesn’t recognize loud noises as battery. So why not consider it negligent horseplay on the part of the postman, which is what it was. Otherwise plaintiff is essentially remedyless. He’s deaf now and remedyless. All of this may explain why the appeal was pursued. My job is to try to help people in difficult situations, and sometimes that means pressing arguments for the expansion of the law on a point.

The oral argument was fine, and all the work done on the case including the appellate briefs, was also very good. Unfortunately, and in a move surprising no one, the fourth circuit didn’t agree.

(Did they create the possibility of a new tort in Virginia? Generally speaking, as a plaintiffs lawyer, that, at least, is a good thing.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483378)

Just as a heads up, these appeals aren’t like law school where you get two roughly equal opposing positions.

Read over the response I gave earlier. I’m not sure you read it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483928)

In fact your point is so badly taken it was not even argued in lower federal court.

I should add that one of the allegations in lower court was that the postman had actually altered his horn to be much louder than standard, which was part of the “prank”.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483461)

The thing about appeals judges in federal court is a lot of times they have better sense than to devote a large portions of their careers to PI plaintiff side work … so the intricacies of finding coverage are often minor considerations for them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483680)

Basically you were unconfident and got owned.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483418)

The fact that you think this was fine is really implicitly damning to any claim you make about being a good attorney. If you think this was fine, everything you touch must be absolute fucking garbage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483735)

Oh you don't even want to get into what else he "touches"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484188)

"I did great, I was just stymied in obtaining justice for my clients because the EVIL CONSERVATIVES ON THE 4TH CIRCUIT SUCK!"

Lol Chris, I can only hope you're as incompetent at actually sodomizing children as you are at every other facet of your gay and pathetic "life."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484186)

[LAUGH TRACK BLARES]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#48413966)

also he's a literal child rapist

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483223)

I am eager to see how spaceporn responds to these revelations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483392)

"Every poaster in this thread is Zappin."

"How many cases have you taken to court?" [ignoring his own incompetence]

"I handled that case better than any xo poaster would have."

"I'm too smart for you to follow what I was arguing."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483412)

Unfortunately for you, after listening to that pathetic "oral argument" the rest of us are absolutely certain that you don't either, bud.

And unlike Hegemon, you're a trained attorney who was hired to make good arguments to convince judges in a court of law.

Whoops.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484193)

You: purell at desk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483517)

Cf. https://media.istockphoto.com/id/671140426/photo/surveillance.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=8XCZ3tGqZFkWl-9eITaYEhebWhhB0PSucDLPQAh8Rlo=

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483579)

Apparently there was a funny noise honk option which would draw the victim in and then he could let loose a blast after he got the attention of the victim.

Candid camera style.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483662)

Terwilliger, same family name as Sideshow Bob

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483615)

J. Thackar, concurring:

I join the majority's opinion in its entirety. I write separately to express my concern that everyone involved in this case is a fucking retard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47483840)

The crowd is on their fucking knees dying of laughter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484224)

I am standing on the table, in the middle where the chocolate fondue fountain was, with my phone, which is playing this audio on repeat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484448)

Everyone and their wife was doing over-the-top "uuuhh" "ummm" "uhhh" impressions. One of the waitstaff (Latina) eeked something out in broken English, I didn't capture all of it but she was basically explaining that the burden of proof is on "Meester uuuhhh uuuummmm" to show why lasers are not comparable to sound waves. I legit lost it then and there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47485640)

-

Seems like they were having fun with it

-

But this sucks for the plaintiff. I'm happy SP took a swing at getting this guy some justice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47484835)

also, sp is probably blaming this on being a loser case. but you can still confidently answer and anticipate questions there. everyone here who has argued in court has probably had to argue some loser arguments. i'm sure sp would stammer about even if the sides were reversed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47504788)

In layman's terms, the USPS is negligent af and is managed terribly. The supervisor and others probably knew about the prank, as well as the Hole in the Blinds, and did nothing. If this were a private business, they could've sued the owner for sure, full stop, and been Indemnified. Discuss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47563933)

The question is whether an action could be brought. It doesn't do any good to argue "culpability" when the case was struck at the trial level on a sovereign immunity defense. What you are saying *sounds cool* to people who don't law, but it doesn't make any sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5502637&forum_id=2\u0026show=week#47565443)