Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
No one here hates anyone. We are just one big happy family and we can be very nice and pleasant except when a stranger comes and mentions cheap seats. You do know you're not making any friends for Renner don't you?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
No one here hates anyone. We are just one big happy family and we can be very nice and pleasant except when a stranger comes and mentions cheap seats. You do know you're not making any friends for Renner don't you?

Judged:

1

1

1

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
But listen, a little tip for you: go track down a Black's Law Dictionary. "Camera-ed" means removed from view or reserved for the view of a public authority, including a tribunal, but not made a part of the public record. In legal parlance IT EXACTLY applies to black markings on records released by - technically speaking - a district attorney, who is an officer of the court. So, way to unearth some ancient authority there, but you missed some relevant authorities too.

Judged:

1

1

1

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. There is no such word or phrase used in the way you describe.
Here is a link to the 4th, 5th and 9th editions of Black's Law Dictionary: http://moorishamericannationalrepublic.com/vi... I cannot copy the text there and am not going to spend time retyping it, but you all can check out the definitions of "camera" and "in camera," including "in camera inspection" - none of these terms apply to redacting text. The word "uncamera-ed" is not in Black's, Merriam Webster, or actually anywhere on the internet - it is not a word.
A quote that highlights how these words are actually used, from U. S. Legal site (although you can do a search for "in camera inspection" and "redact" and find lots of other references):
"In Camera inspection happens when a judge reviews evidence (depositions, documents, photos and the like) to determine whether it should be provided to other parties. This usually occurs when both sides in a case disagree about whether a certain, usually crucial piece of evidence should come in, meaning (1) is it admissible-is it relevant to the trier of fact in making a determination of the ultimate issue of the case and (2) is the prejudicial affect to the defendant substantially outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Any material that is not relevant is not disclosed or may be redacted."
It's sad to see somebody who is so insecure that they cannot admit they are wrong.

Judged:

1

1

1

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruc, Maruc, Maruc ...
I guess all those judges I practiced in front of and worked for were full of shit? And the DAs who I saw in court reading evidence into the record, noting that it was camera-ed by the full text had been submitted in the court brief?
Huh, who would have thought? A conspiracy.
You need to look up the word, not the colloquial part of speech I used to make the point (to people who can handle that kind of thing without undue mental strain, like the 100s of people emailing me every day about each of my posts.) Yours is such a thin equivocation. I bet you can't even divine the word your should have been looking up, can you ...hmmm, tempting.
Listen, honestly, I have seen some of your really insightful posts. All this is BS ... I just like to tweak people who flail their arms in pointless conviction. We should try to bring you back to the place where you think critically about the case and offer good insights. In that context, I'm trying to help you out buddy, but ... did you see that thing I posted here about recycling your own bathwater due to a dismissive predisposition? Anyway, would love to hear what you think about substantive matters if you can muster a post that will clear Renner's administrator. As for this ... have fun with your copy and paste routine and intentionally deceptive posts which appears are fooling only the already fooled, judging from my inbox.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The less the worse with great conviction.
Still, I love you guys. You are irresistible in your useless convictions. And there's no reason to get angry Meruc. It is all in fun!:) We are big boys, we can play rough and keep it fun. But at some point lets bring it back to the business at hand, what do you way? We all want the same thing, don't we buddy? Right? Don't we? I hope so.
John

Judged:

3

2

2

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruc, Maruc, Maruc ...
I guess all those judges I practiced in front of and worked for were full of shit? And the DAs who I saw in court reading evidence into the record, noting that it was camera-ed by the full text had been submitted in the court brief?
Huh, who would have thought? A conspiracy.
You need to look up the word, not the colloquial part of speech I used to make the point (to people who can handle that kind of thing without undue mental strain, like the 100s of people emailing me every day about each of my posts.) Yours is such a thin equivocation. I bet you can't even divine the word your should have been looking up, can you ...hmmm, tempting.
Listen, honestly, I have seen some of your really insightful posts. All this is BS ... I just like to tweak people who flail their arms in pointless conviction. We should try to bring you back to the place where you think critically about the case and offer good insights. In that context, I'm trying to help you out buddy, but ... did you see that thing I posted here about recycling your own bathwater due to a dismissive predisposition? Anyway, would love to hear what you think about substantive matters if you can muster a post that will clear Renner's administrator. As for this ... have fun with your copy and paste routine and intentionally deceptive posts which appears are fooling only the already fooled, judging from my inbox.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The less the worse with great conviction.
Still, I love you guys. You are irresistible in your useless convictions. And there's no reason to get angry Meruc. It is all in fun!:) We are big boys, we can play rough and keep it fun. But at some point lets bring it back to the business at hand, what do you way? We all want the same thing, don't we buddy? Right? Don't we? I hope so.
John

Judged:

2

2

2

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruc, Maruc, Maruc ...
I guess all those judges I practiced in front of and worked for were full of shit? And the DAs who I saw in court reading evidence into the record, noting that it was camera-ed by the full text had been submitted in the court brief?
Huh, who would have thought? A conspiracy.
You need to look up the word, not the colloquial part of speech I used to make the point (to people who can handle that kind of thing without undue mental strain, like the 100s of people emailing me every day about each of my posts.) Yours is such a thin equivocation. I bet you can't even divine the word your should have been looking up, can you ...hmmm, tempting.
Listen, honestly, I have seen some of your really insightful posts. All this is BS ... I just like to tweak people who flail their arms in pointless conviction. We should try to bring you back to the place where you think critically about the case and offer good insights. In that context, I'm trying to help you out buddy, but ... did you see that thing I posted here about recycling your own bathwater due to a dismissive predisposition? Anyway, would love to hear what you think about substantive matters if you can muster a post that will clear Renner's administrator. As for this ... have fun with your copy and paste routine and intentionally deceptive posts which appears are fooling only the already fooled, judging from my inbox.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The less the worse with great conviction.
Still, I love you guys. You are irresistible in your useless convictions. And there's no reason to get angry Meruc. It is all in fun!:) We are big boys, we can play rough and keep it fun. But at some point lets bring it back to the business at hand, what do you way? We all want the same thing, don't we buddy? Right? Don't we? I hope so.
John

Judged:

2

2

2

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
But listen, a little tip for you: go track down a Black's Law Dictionary. "Camera-ed" means removed from view or reserved for the view of a public authority, including a tribunal, but not made a part of the public record. In legal parlance IT EXACTLY applies to black markings on records released by - technically speaking - a district attorney, who is an officer of the court. So, way to unearth some ancient authority there, but you missed some relevant authorities too.

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruc, Maruc, Maruc ...
I guess all those judges I practiced in front of and worked for were full of shit? And the DAs who I saw in court reading evidence into the record, noting that it was camera-ed by the full text had been submitted in the court brief?
Huh, who would have thought? A conspiracy.
You need to look up the word, not the colloquial part of speech I used to make the point (to people who can handle that kind of thing without undue mental strain, like the 100s of people emailing me every day about each of my posts.) Yours is such a thin equivocation. I bet you can't even divine the word your should have been looking up, can you ...hmmm, tempting.

John Green wrote:

Oh and hey Maruch-y, you know what, I should apologize. I will give you this, I should have (seriously) put quotes around the terms as I used it so as to not confuse the pedantic. I will next time. That was my bad. Sorry to have wasted all your time on those otherwise GREAT posts.

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Cheap Seats wrote:

Oh John Green,
You remind me of my wife. Slapping me and kissing me at the same time.Tell me, if I bring you flowers can I sleep in the big bed again? ; )
I do appreciate your use of street language with me. I am a mere salty street urchin and those big legal words confuse me. Yes, all of the self claimed legal scholars( at a whisper)here use the internet for their legal definitions. It's clear that you, an esteemed (and retired) attorney are the only person involved in this case with an actual law degree...The "bar" is just to high for us lowly peasants up here...My uncle daddy studied for the bar...Oh wait, he studied at the bar, but do to issues with consumption he still hasn't passed....Makes a wonderful martini however... ; )
Now John, don't hold yourself back sitting with us regular folk here in the cheap seats. You belong up front with the rest of the dandies... Say hello to Mr. Wilde for me. You have an uncanny resemblance to him (Meant as a compliment,but, spoken in a whisper of course). ; )

SnowyB wrote:

sending my love to "Cheap Seats"...i only can wish to be half as gifted. thx for the laughs. ;)

Judged:

1

1

1

Cheap Seats wrote:

<quoted text>
Awwww Snowy,
As you have stated, it's just impossible to stay away! Both boys are in lacrosse now and it's way more time consuming than B-ball. That jam session that I had a few months back turned into a band thing and as most know, this time of year is a very busy time for us working class peasants, so, time is at a premium.
I just had to comment on Mr. Greens assessment of us as cheap seats. As backwoods and unedumacated as I am, I was shocked that such an esteemed lawyer would think that name calling. patronizing and flinging rocks would open the minds here.
Fortunately, he's my buddy, so, I'm certain that we can work pat this. ; )

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
It's great to see you back.

Judged:

1

1

1

Cheap Seats wrote:

<quoted text>
Awwww Snowy,
As you have stated, it's just impossible to stay away! Both boys are in lacrosse now and it's way more time consuming than B-ball. That jam session that I had a few months back turned into a band thing and as most know, this time of year is a very busy time for us working class peasants, so, time is at a premium.
I just had to comment on Mr. Greens assessment of us as cheap seats. As backwoods and unedumacated as I am, I was shocked that such an esteemed lawyer would think that name calling. patronizing and flinging rocks would open the minds here.
Fortunately, he's my buddy, so, I'm certain that we can work pat this. ; )

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Hannah, this is misinformation. You are incorrect. Renner spoke with her and spelled her name in a post. I spelled it the same way. She subsequently contacted him at least once and has not said that her name is spelled incorrectly. So you feel you have a source better than Karen herself on the spelling of her name.
But wait Hannah! Shhhh! Wait. It gets worse for you, in terms of your dangling dignity. You call me out for one error among many words (incorrectly, mind you) coherently written and yet you wrote the above quoted? Do you intend to mock yourself. My god, it is a horrifying for humanity example of glass houses and stone throwing. God bless you woman, re-do second grade!
Lets look at your single sentence, you CAPTAIN of literacy and accuracy. You not only failed to put the adverb "too" next to the word it modifies (grade school stuff, mind you), but for some incoherent reason you put it by itself it a new sentence.
Gosh Hannah, i mean have enough dignity to not mock yourself. I am embarrassed for you!
Actually, I'm just kidding Hannah. Tweaking you a little for the misinformation. I appreciated your supportive email the other and I hope you will continue posting at Renner's blog as you have intelligently in the past. I just like to occasionally pick out something here to give the cheap seats something to play with.
Regards,
John

Judged:

1

1

1

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
seriously? Strelzin is working for the partners at Green and Renner? just kidding.
we lowly worms. working stiffs, poor bast-eds (prounounced with a improper Bawston accent) are rightly held down in our places.
LAX became the new hockey some time ago. parents are ruled by the sports seasons.
i second Wowzer's emotion! welcome back! woot woot.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
John, did you practice law in Massachusetts or New Hampshire?