For some reason he popped up in a dream I had last night. No idea why. I think this thread has started to brainwash me...To any paralegals being forced to read this thread, let me apologize right now for repeatedly posting this picture.
But at least you can "Bill" for it and make some "Cash".
Neil
They don't, which is a shame because I always fancied being on TV.
Entertainment should be the last consideration when it comes to public access to the courts. I am vehemently against the televising of hearings for that reason, especially the kind of cases that deal with deeply personal issues for those involved. I would rather not see people wheeled out for a Victorian freak show, nor lawyers playing up to the camera. One of the proudest things for me about the British approach to hearings is that there are no theatrics. We stick to the law and the arguments. I fear that will be compromised....and compromising it just to give the public voyeuristic entertainment is not a good reason to do so in my opinion.
I'd love to see these puppets:
I disagree, and I think the Axanar case is a good illustration of why civil trials should generally not be televised. I concur with @Smoked Salmon that televising trials would merely be an exercise in "public voyeuristic entertainment." It has nothing to do with public access to the courts or the "public's right to know" (which is a BS argument advanced by self-serving media professionals). Especially in the age of social media, where the marginal cost of bullying is zero, every online troll should not be given easy access to footage of witness testimony or jurors, which will inevitably be weaponized in the form of YouTube videos and animated GIFs.
Totally agree about the concern over theatrics and some sort of sick "entertainment" value. My experience (and it's considerable) is that where the judge keeps a firm grip on things a trial will be conducted with dignity and respect. There are downsides, but I think the writers of the American Constitution dealt with the same issues when they wrote into the basic law the right for "public" trials. On the whole (again acknowledging that it is not a panacea) I believe televising trials is a good thing.
Even in areas of the country where cameras are allowed the one involitile rule - you can NEVER shoot/show ANY member of the Jury.
It's easier to get them if it's a Civil case, yes. In Criminal cases (depending on the situation); the Judge may rule that Juror info is NOT to be made public/available; but again, that's on a case by case basis - and there would need to be a compelling reason.
Do you mean the motions for summary judgement? The MtDs were ruled on (and denied) quite a while ago.
Assuming you mean the summary judgment motions, odds are that some material facts remain in dispute, despite both sides' efforts to portray them to the contrary. So long as that's the case the judge has to send the case forward to trial. Unless he manages to eke out enough undisputed facts for a partial summary judgment (which is technically what the plaintiffs have asked for).
At trial? Probably not by the plaintiffs, for whom Axanar's potential nonprofit status is irrelevant to copyright infringement; they were a for-profit at the time the suit was filed.
