Loandbehold

Thanks Charlie Baker! That's good to know.

He put it there after killing Patton Oswalt. Skye put it back when she left.

That was a fantastic scene. I have to give Pastor Tim credit for not backing down to Phillip. It looked like no matter where he went, he was soon going to be in Phil's blind side, and that never ends well. Elizabeth shot that one guy on the mission, but I don't remember who he was. Was that their mission, along with getting photos of the camp? I think the driver did die of hypothermia, which is a much worse way to go then just allowing Elizabeth to have shot him instead. I know they film in NY, which really hit home with the boardwalk scene. It actually looked like it was filmed near where I used to live. Do they have boardwalks in Virginia or Maryland? I loved this episode, but there better not be anymore that don't have at least one Nina scene. Now that Mrs. Beemon has left, I look forward to seeing Nina's reacting when Stan tells her at their next rendezvous.

It was Casey who was all over the coach for his decision. I loved when he asked Dana to demonstrate the "crash and burn" sound effect.

Yeah, Chyna, I know that all my sympathy goes to the people who didn't know they had a freaking deadline coming up. 'Cause, that's not something one needs to take note of or anything. Have fun in S.F. and watching the games, AnnieF!

For those of us in NYC (and surrounding areas), we won't see this episode. The Mets are being shown on Channel 11 Friday night.

To put it into words that a Shakespearian actor might understand, "the agency is an ass."

I have returned from the wilds of Albany, NY. While both appellant's attorney and the employer's attorney (but especially the appellant) faced questioning, the judges asked me a collective total of one question. And that was basically asking if I had any explanation for why the agency went through all the problem of allowing the entire case to be relitigated, only to conclude that they were bound by the arbitrator's decision. To which I said that the vagaries of the agency are beyond my ken, but maybe they just felt bad of appellant. I believe this is a big indication that they are going to rule in our favor, b/c if they are going to reverse and didn't ask me any real questions, I'll be hell'a pissed. Erratic, I know that whatever you decide to do, Giles couldn't be in better hands.

Today, I am preparing at work for my oral argument in Albany tomorrow. This involves about 6 hours in round trip travel, from NYC to Albany and back, about 2 hours of waiting after I arrive in Albany, and the same before my train back to NYC leaves (assuming it doesn't get cancelled and I have to wait an additional hour). All so I can stand up before the judicial panel for 5 minutes. The total argument time is 20 minutes (10 for appellant, 5 for me and 5 for the other respondent). Currently, if I am not asked any questions, my argument runs 8-9 minutes. So, I really need to significantly cut it down instead of trying to speak a mile-a-minute. I will have a couple of colleagues do a moot court (practice) this afternoon. The case itself isn't a tough one, or, at least, it shouldn't be. Unfortunately, the agency that wrote the decision did so in a purposefully fucked-up manner in the hopes that they will be reversed. The reason being is that there is a legal doctrine called collateral estoppel. This basically means that if an issue was necessarily decided in a prior forum/case, in the interests of judicial economy, the losing party is subsequently bound from relitigating that issue. The agency seems to not want to be bound by decisions of other agencies or arbitrators, so they wrote a decision that was designed to encourage this appeal in the hopes that the Court will collectively slap itself upside the head and reverse centuries of jurisprudence. What they really should do is ask the legislature to draft a law that says arbitration decisions are not binding at unemployment hearings (there is a similar law that works in reverse - unemployment decisions are not binding on other agencies/courts in subsequent litigation). Jerks. The Chairman (who wrote the decision) asked if it would be OK if he sat in on the argument, but, would understand if I didn't want him to. I surprised him by saying that I had no problem w/ it. In fact, I would enjoy him watching while I told the Court that they should ignore all the dicta (extraneous statements that do not go to the actual facts or opinion of the case) in the decision, and can even tell the agency not to write this type of decision again. Of course, today I get the word that he has decided not to show up. His bluff called, he folded like a cheap suit. Ass. Edited b/c "now" and "not" are different words, and for other grammatical errors.

Absolutely. Frank Furillo. Lou Grant. Bob Hartley. What? TV isn't real life? My mind is blown.

T - 1:45 to Orphan Black S2 premiere. That is all.

Brad Garrett, being 6' 14", can look like Frankenstein's monster when he's lumbering around. He was lurching from the fire (due to having been stuck under the podium, and the peasants w/ pitchforks (as he told the newsperson during the interview) were chasing him. So, yes, an homage to Mary Shelley's story.

It is bitch. Not you, KPC, the quote. I didn't even notice it until today.

Happy Birthday, dusky! And a joyful anniversary to Erratic!

Hello newbies, and oldbies that are resurfacing to (re-)join our little crew here. I'm Gary. I live in NYC and have been an attorney for over 20 years. Single. Childless, but a doting uncle of a niece and nephew who have grown up way too fast. I was a long-time Administrative Law Judge holding unemployment insurance hearings until about 9 years ago when I left for my current job at the state attorney general's office. Still dealing mostly with unemployment cases. Outside of work, I love most sports, play softball from March to November (volleyball playing days are likely over due to knee problems), work out, and also spend (way too much) time on the computer, watching tv, and reading sci-fi/fantasy/spy novels. I guess Orphan Black is probably my biggest current tv obsession. I've also had the good fortune to meet a number of the people on this board, as well as to see a few of KPC's plays.

Food and drink rules do vary from ballpark to ballpark. CitiField is similar to Citizen's Bank. They do put a limit on the size of liquid you can bring in (much like airport carry-on baggage). And, the food is much better than it used to be, although quite a deal more expensive as well. cko mentioned the food in S.F. (highly recommend the garlic fries), CitiField has a Shake Shack, Camden Yards has Boog Powell's Bar-b-que, Coors Field has Rocky Mountain Oysters (and, no, I chose not to try them). Beer is ridiculously expensive, but you're no longer limited to Bud or Bud Light, so that's a plus. There is something special for me being at the ballpark watching the game live, that I don't get from watching on tv.

Registration complete. Now, I just need to remember to check this site.