The only site I'll ever need...

[Internet Apex]

I hear a lot of people around my parents' age do it with business names. "Going to Paneras and then Barnes and Nobles."

That's awesome.  My dad always says "Paneras" ("Hey if you're hungry why don't we go to Paneras?") and it never not makes me chuckle.

My mother in law refers to Whole Foods as "Whole Food."

That just wrinkled my brain.

Wholes Food

Whole's Food

Hole's Food.

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

That's the way I've always interpreted it up here, too. "Jewel's".

[Bort]

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

That's the way I've always interpreted it up here, too. "Jewel's".

Thirded. And I used to assume it was a southern thing until I got here and heard it too.

[Gilgamesh]

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

That's the way I've always interpreted it up here, too. "Jewel's".

Thirded. And I used to assume it was a southern thing until I got here and heard it too.

I think what's even weirder is how some words are never singularized or pluralized, despite the fact that other similar company names do get altered.  For example, I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Dominick" or "Walgreen."

I'm trying to think of a few more...probably McDonald's and maybe Starbucks.

[CBStew]

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

That's the way I've always interpreted it up here, too. "Jewel's".

Whatever.  Just make sure that you take the 10 to the 405 to get there.

[Saul Goodman]

I always thought it was a Buttpuddle(s) thing but they do it up here just as much if not more. Down there I think it is more about making it possessive than plural, like you're going to Panera's establishment to get some of their sandwiches and shit.

That's the way I've always interpreted it up here, too. "Jewel's".

Whatever.  Just make sure that you take the 10 to the 405 to get there.

[Wheezer]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

[Saul Goodman]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

[Wheezer]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

[Saul Goodman]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

[Bort]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

Better luck next time, Gil.

[Wheezer]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

It gets "better," in that the guardian has announced an intention to [attempt to] resign in light of being unable to discharge her duties. Something is going to happen in Suffolk County probate court tomorrow (and I'm pretty confident of what the important part is going to be), but I'm curious about the position that Grandstanding* Teabag Lawyer might ultimately find himself in.

*There's no question that that amicus really, seriously blows. It's sloppily prepared and practically an insult to the court to the extent that it pretends to offer novel legal assistance. In short, nothing but an excuse to inject his ass into the media on this one.

Edit.--Massachusetts is a different case that I had in my head.

[Richard Chuggar]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

It gets "better," in that the guardian has announced an intention to [attempt to] resign in light of being unable to discharge her duties. Something is going to happen in Suffolk County probate court tomorrow (and I'm pretty confident of what the important part is going to be), but I'm curious about the position that Grandstanding* Teabag Lawyer might ultimately find himself in.

*There's no question that that amicus really, seriously blows. It's sloppily prepared and practically an insult to the court to the extent that it pretends to offer novel legal assistance. In short, nothing but an excuse to inject his ass into the media on this one.

Without reading anything other than your weird words, I'm going to say you should just kill the cat.

[Wheezer]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

It gets "better," in that the guardian has announced an intention to [attempt to] resign in light of being unable to discharge her duties. Something is going to happen in Suffolk County probate court tomorrow (and I'm pretty confident of what the important part is going to be), but I'm curious about the position that Grandstanding* Teabag Lawyer might ultimately find himself in.

*There's no question that that amicus really, seriously blows. It's sloppily prepared and practically an insult to the court to the extent that it pretends to offer novel legal assistance. In short, nothing but an excuse to inject his ass into the media on this one.

Without reading anything other than your weird words, I'm going to say you should just kill the cat.

It's not like you to so precisely invoke case 64 of Hsüeh-t'ou's Verses on One Hundred Old Cases, Dubbs.

Although the case was clearly decided, [Nan-ch'üan] asked Chao-chou, and let him wander at his leisure within the walls of Chang-an. If no one understands the sandals on his head, he'll return to his home in the mountains and take a rest.

This is the earliest known use of kung-an (kōan) outside of its earlier legalistic context.

[Bort]

Does anybody know whether it's considered poor form to file a purely advocacy-based amicus brief in a case and then turn right around and join the case as an attorney for the party one was just advocating for under the guise of being a mere friend of the court?

How would you join an existing case? You don't get to just because you want to. Joining the party, or as a new party?

As attorney for one of the existing parties. It's a bit complicated, because they've fled the country, although their original counsel remains. Here and here.

Interesting.  This isn't covered in law school so I'll have to defer to the REAL lawyers.

It gets "better," in that the guardian has announced an intention to [attempt to] resign in light of being unable to discharge her duties. Something is going to happen in Suffolk County probate court tomorrow (and I'm pretty confident of what the important part is going to be), but I'm curious about the position that Grandstanding* Teabag Lawyer might ultimately find himself in.

*There's no question that that amicus really, seriously blows. It's sloppily prepared and practically an insult to the court to the extent that it pretends to offer novel legal assistance. In short, nothing but an excuse to inject his ass into the media on this one.

Without reading anything other than your weird words, I'm going to say you should just kill the cat.

It's not like you to so precisely invoke case 64 of Hsüeh-t'ou's Verses on One Hundred Old Cases, Dubbs.

Although the case was clearly decided, [Nan-ch'üan] asked Chao-chou, and let him wander at his leisure within the walls of Chang-an. If no one understands the sandals on his head, he'll return to his home in the mountains and take a rest.

This is the earliest known use of kung-an (kōan) outside of its earlier legalistic context.

And another terrifying instance where I know exactly what Wheezer is talking about.