The I and J defenses are different. Someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bedroom even if it is somehow visible to the outside world if they reasonably believed it was not.

I think you missed the "or" under subsection j. Reread what you linked.

Not in California.

I doubt that she is setting her client up for failure based, if she was, that is serious malpractice.

People still cannot take photographs from, for example, a public vantage point, into a private area (i.e., a bedroom) because of the expectation of privacy people have in private areas of their homes. I would argue that a crotch is a private area.

Then why the divorces? Is that an act too? And on the first instance of cheating/drug use/whatever. That suggests people making poor marriages, but not having "arrangements."

People in entertainment are real life people, and I think it is odd to think they would be more likely to have arrangements. If you are talking about some kind of sham/for publicity marriage, fine, but I don't think that really happens all that often. (Of course, there are the rumors about certain couples, but not…

Most of 'em care. Arrangements are the exception, not the rule.

It is unlikely this would have been admissible. He could have invoked marital/spousal privilege (forget which one applies here) and it is very unlikely the judge would have let it in.

Umm, it was his video.

I read the whole thread, but okay. Again, this is all way more interesting then your initial "let me talk about a stupid young woman post."

I have almost no idea what this means, seriously:

Look, that isn't why the memo was written. As the article above states, it was written:

Hear, hear. I had opposing counsel (who had repeatedly interrupted me during a meet and confer call) call me out for interrupting him. Which I had. But it was mostly accidental, and I had actually been polite about it, while he had REPEATEDLY TALKED OVER ME. When I pointed that out to him, him and the other male…

That's not what CC says, though, they say the memo was sent to women only as advice on public speaking in general. The writer did not write it in response to what was happening in the office.

Did you read the article? The firm is just saying this is general advice on public speaking that one female attorney gave. So this is not a memo in response to some kind of crisis.

It makes it hard to reply to your posts, or even understand what your conflict with Rooo is about. And considering the fact you are mocking a young woman for not being qualified, it is pretty ironic that your posts on the subject have devolved to the point where they are virtually unreadable.

Except for when the standards are way different for men and women. Then it is called discrimination. Which isn't lawful, even for $160k.

If you either are a lesbian/bi or people think you are, they would probably be SUPER NICE to your face, and really weird and awkward behind your back.

The problem is, women are held to higher, shifting, and sometimes impossible-to-meet standards. Some of the responsibility is on the male partners to stop finding our edges so rough, or our boobs so entrancing. Really, it is, and every time they pull shit like this instead of sticking up for young women, they are…