Morning Docket: 01.03.08
* DOJ initiates criminal probe into destruction of CIA tapes. [New York Times; Washington Post]
* DC fires lawyer in SCOTUS gun control case. [The BLT via WSJ Law Blog]
* Geragos argues SF zoo delayed help for tiger victims. [MSNBC]
* Same sex divorces raise new legal issues. [Washington Post]
* Man in charge of Portugal's smoking ban lights up on first day of ban. [MSNBC]
Comments
FIRST they came for the tigers, but I did not act because I was an L2L monkey
Posted by: Loyola 2L | January 3, 2008 09:49 AM
This blawg is in a downward spiral of lame-ness. Lat, wake up and save your sinking ship.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 3, 2008 10:21 AM
Great writing in the Geragos article:
"After talking with the security guard, Geragos said the tiger returned and began mauling Kulbir Dhaliwal before police officers arrived and shot and killed the animal."
I wonder what the tiger said to the security guard...
Posted by: Anonymous | January 3, 2008 10:29 AM
It really is getting bad in here. The posts are lame, and the few commenters left are lamer.
Posted by: Long time ATL'er | January 3, 2008 10:38 AM
Can anyone recommend a good blog about law firms and related gossip? I think ATL's played out, and I feel like I've got something to contribute to a lively forum.
Posted by: WGWAG | January 3, 2008 10:46 AM
WGWAG, FRAT STUD, Gallion, and any Ninja, Pirate, or Jedi who wants to can come join my blawg www.cobrakailaw.com. I promise not to cut and paste from WSJ and to post before 11 am. As usual, there will be no pain in my blawg.
Many of you already know, it's over when I say it's over. And in regard to ATL, it's over.
Posted by: Johnny | January 3, 2008 11:02 AM
"After talking with the security guard, Geragos said the tiger returned and began mauling Kulbir Dhaliwal before police officers arrived and shot and killed the animal."
I wonder what the tiger said to the security guard...
Actually, the sentence implies that Geragos talked with the security guard. A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence refers to the grammatical subject of the sentence. (Strunk & White rule 11). So if the sentence said "After talking with the security guard, the tiger returned and began mauling Kulbir Dhaliwal . . . ," that would definitely mean that the tiger had a chat with the guard. Likewise, if the sentence had a comma after "said," "tiger" would be the real subject of the sentence, and it would mean that the tiger talked to the guard. But as punctuated, the subject of the sentence is "Geragos" (and the tiger is the subject of a dependant clause, with the conjunction "that" omitted but implied).
But its still very poorly written, because it suggests that Geragos left the interview or news conference to go talk to the security guard, and then came back right after talking to the guard and made his statement as to what the the tiger did. And someone could easily read the sentence as though there were a comma after "said," so that it would read like the tiger was talking to the guard. There is no good reason to begin the sentence with the participial phrase, which is just distracting. The writer probably mean something like "Geragos said that after talking with the security guard, he had concluded that the tiger . . . ."
Participial phrases lead people into all sorts of trouble if they are not careful.
Posted by: Grammar Geek | January 3, 2008 11:13 AM
Thank you, DC, for throwing the gun rights case. I was sweating that you might actually win. I owe you one!
Posted by: NRA advocate | January 3, 2008 11:20 AM
Is this tiger-caused death worth $54 million?
Lawsuit Abuse is REAL.
LAWSUIT ABUSE VICTIM:
San Francisco Zoo
San Francisco, CA
Get the Stories at:
I Am Lawsuit Abuse.org
Posted by: I Am Lawsuit Abuse | January 3, 2008 11:34 AM
[Insert generic comment bashing Lat and ATL here.]
Posted by: Hater / Troll | January 3, 2008 01:00 PM