Man beeps horn at someone. SP: wastes federal court time over it

Reminds me of this thread: http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5311159&mc=12&forum_id=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gsYWxIRv34&t=7865s He needs to cut down on his verbal pauses. He says "uh" and "um" far too often for an experienced lawyer.

"It was a negligent act of horseplay"

"They were just horsing around, as men do with boys, and the horn made rhythmic slapping sounds that were too loud."

burst out laughing at "Mr. Spinelli, whenever you're ready" and it's all downhill from there for chris

UHHH, UHHHH, THEN UHHH, UMMM, UHHHH, THE TRUCK, UHHHHH, UMMM holy shit this guy sucks. he needs to be disbarred and thrown in prison for scamming "clients" out of money for his "legal services"

I am lmao just lmaoooooo at how the judges just completely destroy him. It seems like he was not prepared to answer even the most basic and obvious questions with any type of confidence...questions that should have been easily predictable. One thing is for sure though, SP really, really "appreciates" all of these questions; he is very, very "thankful" to his interlocutors. 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?

SP would lose Moot Court rounds to college students IMO

They already know what happened because they read the briefs and their clerks prepared bench memos. Don't spend your first 90 seconds telling them the facts.

Just saw this. More outting I guess. 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.)

Your honor, prove you aren’t Zappin before I answer your question (that I am thankful for)

So did the guy ever get paid for being subjected to the HONK?

No! There’s no entity to pay him! And he’s now legitimately deaf in the one ear and lost hearing in the other ear as well. A deaf doctor. Because a postman was screwing around with him.

You already know how spaceporn will respond. "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."

lol no it wasn't fine...a man went completely deaf and got nothing because u weren't able to give even the slightest pushback to the judges on the easiest questions. Again, why didn't you argue that even if sounding the horn was intentional, the consequences/injuries were not intended or forseeable?

All of that can be true - and none of that is responsive to the fact that you have one of the worst verbal performance I’ve ever heard for oral argument. Basically you were unconfident and got owned.

UPHELD!

It sounds like he "parachuted in" as a sort of elite federal appeals strike force and wasn't responsible for the mess in the ground

You'd want to be careful in arguing that the consequences were not foreseeable champ.

That argument does nothing to advance the case.

Well on the plus side at least he couldn’t hear that oral performance you gave

*SP Jr shudders upon hearing the phrase “oral performance”*

nor did yours

Nah. It was fine. Some appeals you just have to get thru.

He heard it and was satisfied.

I want you to think why one of these was not like the other. 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”.

Of course. If something went wrong, it wasn't his fault. For his part, he was brilliant.

I wouldn’t characterize it like that. The atty who had the case and chose to appeal and drafted the appeal wasn’t around to argue it. The basis for appeal may be considered too precious by half, but that’s less my concern than trying to get some relief for a remedyless plaintiff. Also You get sanctioned if you mess around with the fourth circuits scheduling calendar.

so you were lying about him being deaf?

Did you see what I wrote. … full hearing loss in one ear and limited hearing in the other.

He’d have his co-workers come into his office and watch the prank proceed along with him.

it took x posts

See, this is important to me to invision this. Even if he had coworkers come in to watch, just gather around and either: lift the blinds a little to peek out; or move the blinds apart with your fingers. Regular blinds? Maybe you cut a hole. But venetians? Seems weird and WRONG. Cf. https://media.istockphoto.com/id/671140426/photo/surveillance.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=8XCZ3tGqZFkWl-9eITaYEhebWhhB0PSucDLPQAh8Rlo=

they were trying to be cartoonish like a 80s sex comdey a la porky's

did you consider suing the postman individually, or would that be a waste of time bc he's judgment proof? not a shitlawyer, so don't judge me for asking such a stupid question that a real lawyer wouldn't ask.

did he position his "good" ear to the side of the room where u were talking

The whole fact set is weird.

plaintiff was an autistic retard like his lawyer

It was by zoom so

I agree. 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.

Good atty and did a great job obviously

It’s actually a proper question asked in good faith. To answer it, yeah it’s pointless. You’d have an uncollectible judgment 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.

I think he sounds eloquent, almost like an esteemed poet

Why does he admit in his opening sentence that the facts of the cast would be "entertaining" but for his client's eggshell skull? Client should kill him.

I had some snap off the end and make s little rectangle at the bottom that was perfect for a houseplant. People think I did it on purpose so I could put a plant of the shelf, close the blinds and still see the plant

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

Dude he would lose to a quarterfinals level high school student I know because I've judged them lmfao

Can you describe this postman? He sounds like Scumbag clique. Was the truck a lifted coal-roller? Did it have truck nuts? Did the poastman have a goatee?

This is peak delusion. It was objectively terrible. 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.

irl lol

Ashton Kutcher walks out in full USPS uniform

No idea. It really wasn’t my case except for the oral argument at the end.

The opinion says that the initial sound was a "loud horn blast"

I know nothing about shitlaw but I've learned that it apparently doesn't work because of the difference between general and specific intent torts. I am still lolling at SP's overall performance though. He was about as skillful as I would have expected of him, which is about the worst thing I could say about a lawyer here. Even tsinah would wreck him. All the judges and opposing counsel were literally LAUGHING after his argument.

It was fine. 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.

CLOWN SHOWDOWN

You creepily dunning Kruger every single thing I do on here. It would be funny except that it’s just obsessive and creepy.

I’m not sure you even understand the basic argument here dude.

Yeah. Maybe. I can’t remember what was in the original complaint.

That’s sort of boilerplate

horse cum blast

I am crying laughing.

To be fair, LMAO Chris, you child-raping pedo retard. JFC.

To be fair, 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.

To be fair, "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."

To be fair, Oh you don't even want to get into what else he "touches"

To be fair, 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.

I'm not lolling because you lost, I'm loolling because your performance was terrible.

At the semi-formal dinner party I'm currently attending, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor are in full agreement that the Fed.R.App.P. should have an anti-clown provision. At least they were until they just started loudly yelling "HONK" at each other across the table while in fits of laughter.

I assume you are using Pinterest CTO’s phone to post

No. 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.

Isn’t the better argument that he was careless in doing the prank bc he didn’t check to make sure the horn wouldn’t damage someone’s ears? It is foreseeable that if you blow a loud noise in someone’s ears, it could damage them, so you have a duty to ensure if you’re going to do a prank, you don’t do it so as to blow out someone’s ears.

Wouldn’t his personal car insurance apply since the incident arose out of the use of the auto?

lol I just got it

totally agree. if you're a plaintiff-side lawyer you have to step and take some massive rips at the ball even when the odds are long. so what if hour-billers snicker?

For a guy who works construction and lives out of his truck you sure do attend a lot of these semi formal dinner parties

Intentional acts are excluded.

Thanks brother. Sounds like you guys got it.

I usually get warmed into the argument after 2-3 minutes. I wasn’t exactly rushing to get all my points across this time … You should listen to it in its entirety. Pretend it’s not me.

You literally had your fucking laptop in front of you and you still fucked it up like this? This is a fucking incredible admission.

LOL I have friends who are upper-upper class that like having me in their social circle like a token scumbag

Update: 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.

Now imagine the stammering if TBF ever does cross SP on the witness stand in their defamation case.

would love to know if tbf is capable of belting out screeds irl

The speed with which he hammers out his written screeds is suggestive of that

Why is he suing the poast office for this

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9c96dda3.jpg

Why would anyone argue your first paragraph? OF course USPS was culpable. That was never at issue in the case. Your cites aren’t even remotely on point. 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.

"First, the performance was fine." [LAUGH TRACK BLARES]

We get it. You aren’t a lawyer.

as this thread proves, neither are you, really

amazing branch of sub-threads, 180 to everybody