This sounds rather unpleasant. May your body heal and your adversaries DIE! DIE! DIE!
Sorry, LB. To be on the safe side, stick a coffee stirrer in the water when you nuke it. It breaks the surface tension (I think?) and prevents super-heating the water, which could end up being far more painful than a head cold.
Yeah, I usually handle that by dipping a tiny corner of the teabag in first and being prepared to leap backward. But the coffee stirrer sounds easier.
Submit for a change of venue to Baghdad?
Raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction or standing. Other than that, good luck. If you can enunciate a theory of why killing the judge would help, this should also tell you what it would be good to convince the judge of.
Feel better, LB! I'm a big fan of Mucinex. The big secret is you can double or triple the dose and not die.
It wouldn't help much. She's made a prior ruling which is just flat wrong, and which means that there's no relevant caselaw for what we want to argue, because the legal situation is not one that occurs in reality. Sadly, though, talking her off the ledge (or getting a new judge through Borgia-like methods) would leave us in a legal situation where there are arguments we can make, but they lose.
LB- leaving out party names and other identifying info, what's the legal problem that you're facing? They're are a lot lawyers here, and we're brilliant. (I can only speak for myself on that last point.) Maybe we could help brainstorm?
Work on creating a good record for appeal?
They're are a lot lawyers here, and we're brilliant.
I'm sorry things suck so much, my friend. I hope they get better.
grammatically infallible, too!
on second thought, 9 would probably just leave you explaining why one suggestion after another wouldn't work, a la 8, which would get old fast and only worsen your mood. So instead, I'll just say sorry you're feeling bad and work is sucking.
If you decide to use Polonium 210, I'd advise very small doses administrated gradually.
If your clients are bound to lose perhaps you should tell them to settle.
Shearer, that's brilliant! Tell them to settle, LB.
9, 11: What the hell. We're a minor (very) player in a large (very) securities fraud -- everyone else got sued a while ago, and they just recently sued us too. While the central fraud rests on misreps under 10b-5(b), we didn't make any misreps, so they're suing us under scheme liability: 10b-5(a) and (c), to get around the Central Bank no private right of action for aiding and abetting.
The judge thinks it's an omissions case because we're the only defendant and we didn't say anything, and so is presuming reliance under Affiliated Ute, which says that you don't have to prove reliance when someone with a duty to disclose withholds material information. She's also holding that even though we didn't have a pre-existing duty to disclose (no relationship with the plaintiffs), we had a duty not to engage in a deceptive scheme, and that creates the Aff. Ute presumption.
We'd like to refute the last sentence and then we're in the clear. The problem is that there's no caselaw on it, because a case like this isn't usually considered an omissions case: plaintiffs relied on the central fraudster's misreps. And scheme liability cases (other than the literal messing around with the sale of stock type of scheme) are likely going to be piggybacking on someone else's misreps, so there are no cases saying no such duty to disclose exists.
There's good strong law that this isn't an omissions case, but she's already seen it and ruled the other way. And even if we flipped her on that, that would take us out of the Affiliated Ute world, but there's vague and unsatisfying law that mostly goes against us saying they probably don't have to prove reliance on our bad acts, just that we participated in a scheme that culminated in someone else's misreps that plaintiffs relied on.
Well, writing that out got my head straighter anyway, but I'm not actually expecting help here.
16: A charming and original suggestion, but I'm afraid I'm very far away from the client relationship on this one. I'm shoveling coal in the boiler room, not steering. (Well, not that bad. I'm the ship's engineer.)
Is this S.D.N.Y.?
Nah, North Dakota, but I'd take a glimmer of hope from anyplace.
To clarify, 11 was to dig, not an endorsement. 18 made little enough sense to me that rereading would be hopeless.
It wouldn't have made any sense to me ten days ago either -- I haven't been doing securities law for a while so I've been getting up to speed.
2- Provides condensation nucleii for steam bubbles to prevent superheating.
I knew 11 was a dig, you don't have to rub it in.
I was clarifying for LB. Rubbing it in was just a bonus.
If you change your mind about poisoning the judge, there's this handy reference. If you order it under Ogged's name, no one will guess who did it.
Not my field of law, so I've got no suggestions.
Is the 'deceptive scheme' genuine or something the plaintiff's lawyer has conjured up with unsubstantiated allegations?
And why is the plaintiff suing you now? What was the result of everyone else getting sued a few years ago? If there was liability, why was it insufficient to make the plaintiff whole?
Genuine, what's genuine? But there's enough solidity to it to make it past a class cert motion, which is where we are now.
I can only suggest changing method and seeing what happens. Talk about it with different people, or talk about it with the same people but in a different setting. Not this setting, obviously.
All colds, flus, viruses are unacceptable. The human race? You have to give us some credit just for hanging in there.
30: Our name came out in a bankruptcy report - we're so minimally involved that our role wasn't apparent to the naked eye. I don't know what the procedural state is of the other actions, but I doubt anyone's been paid yet.
You have told me before, and I'm sorry I forgot, but what exactly is the motion you are making? If you are seeking reconsideration or otherwise trying to get the judge to change her mind (I did not remember it this way) can you not use common law fraud cases based on a claim of a fraudulent omission and then argue (as I believe to be the case) that there is no liablity for fraud based on omissions absent a duty to disclose, and that (and this is the point) knowledge of the fraud itself creates no such duty. Unless you already have boiled the ocean on this issue, I would be surprised that there are not common law fraud cases on this.
30- oh, class action. Didn't realize.
It's a class cert motion -- we're making this argument to defeat commonality. That's not a bad idea, Ideal, and I haven't boiled that part of the ocean yet.
24,25: alternatively just use a dirty(er) cup.
34 is exactly right. Go with the omissions characterization; I don't think that hurts you. (*And* it could give you grounds to appeal if things don't work out well.) You don't need recent cases directly on this point, just argue that it's terrible policy. (And you can almost certainly find old common law cases to buttress this point.)
36- okay, I finally understand the procedural posture now. I think 34/38 still basically works though.
LB, you're much better at philosophy than I am at law.
Someone who's got more time than LB tell me if this is right: the judge is saying that Client's duty to avoid a deceptive scheme entails a duty to disclose, and that duty to disclose is enough to presume reliance under AU? It's that entailment that's weird, and that LB ia saying has no basis in case law, and yet it's something client is stuck with. Yowsers.
40: Yep, that's pretty much exactly it.
And when I said "basically works", I of course didn't at all mean basically works, I meant "might not work, but is the best thing I can think of right now (especially without knowing any more facts), and sounds like a reasonable approach."
Oh, it's non-crazy and it's new. That's something -- thank you Ideal and Brock. But yeah, I don't have lot of hope for it.
I'll take a shot.
First, reliance is presumed because it's an omissions case. As a practical matter, it is hard for a plaintiff to prove that she relied on something you had a duty to say but did not, so the law creates a presumption of reliance (a necessary element of fraud) in this instance.
Second, one is only liable for a fraudulent omission (the failure to disclose a material fact) if one has a duty to disclose--for example, directors have a duty to disclose information to shareholders. Generally, only fiduciaries or others who have a relation of trust or confidence with the plaintiff have a duty to disclose.
Third, the court has created a new class of persons with a duty to disclose--participants in the scheme.
To me, this third point has to be wrong, because it is an exception which almost completely swallows the rule in point 2. However, if this is what the judge has ruled, it is the law of the case and you are stuck with it.
Or something like this.
I'm stuck on the facts here, probably confused because I don't know them all. How exactly doe shte judge think this duty to disclose would work, generally, where there is no relationship with the plaintiffs? How would a company know who to disclose the information to? Just the market as a whole? And if the company isn't running the process, but is a side-player (as seems to be the case here), how mechanically are they supposed to ensure these discsloures happen? It seems like an awfulyl high burden to place on a company -- the diligence a company would need to do as part of a deal to ensure they wouldn't later be liable could be nearly unmanageable.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding the facts.
The idea is that it applies only to participants with knowledge, so it doesn't create a need for additional diligence (and they've pleaded scienter). And I think the obligation is to go to the papers or similar -- Company X is trying to run a fraud, and I helped! Given that no participant in a fraud is going to meet the duty to disclose (after all, wouldnt' you just not commit fraud, rather than getting into it and then ratting yourself out?) it doesn't really matter how the disclosure was supposed to happen.
Oh, that gets back to 29/31. I was assuming that this was innocuous enough that there would have been some known facts that could have easily been disclosed upfront, that just weren't, and that's what the suit was about. If the known facts were indeed so bad that disclosing them would look like going to the papers with "yippee, fraud!", then that's quite a bit different.
(You could still argue the general case against the rule in this particular, but that's likely to just cause a narrower ruling, still against your client.)
Drat, this isn't really going to do me much good. The language is always, 'absent a duty to disclose', but nothing stating that it necessarily has to be a pre-existing duty, rather than one created by the fraudulent scheme itself, because the whole 'scheme' bit is so securities law specific. The language of the cases isn't close enough to render them seriously incompatible with the judge's whacked out holding. But it was excellently worth a shot.
Yeah. Part of the problem is that the move I'm trying to make is not that we're innocent lambs -- from the pleading, we aren't (that is, taking the claims made in the complaint as true. Of course we actually are innocent lambs). The point is to characterize our conduct as aiding and abetting Fraudster, Inc.'s securities fraud, rather than being primary violators of Rule 10b-5 ourselves, because private individuals can sue primary violators, but only the SEC can sue aiders and abbettors.
In a common-law fraud case, we'd still be on the hook for aiding and abetting.
And I will stop narrating this case out loud now. ("Next time, keep thoughts inside head!")
It would be sort of awesome, in a horrible, horrible, horrible way, if your judge (or a clerk, etc.) read this blog. Slim chances, but you've actually given out quite a bit of information here. I couldn't identify the case, but someone working on it perhaps could (and might not appreciate her theories being called batshit insane). I'd at least redact the state, if I were you.
I'm still probably misunderstanding something about the facts, but the judge's theory really does sound rather unworkable on a going-forward basis. Who are aiders and abettors, under the judge's theory? It sounds like you ought to just ignore case law and construct a policy argument here. (Especially since none of the case law helps you. )
51: I've heard dumber ideas. Let me go mess up those posts.
I'm gonna tell all my judgy friends unless you [redacted].
Here's an off-the-wall thought. Could you back into the position you want by relying on the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley. There must have been discussion of who we do (and do not) want to make responsible based on a failure to disclose a fraud. Absent that, quote a plain vanilla case describing the situations where there is a duty to disclose and say "it ain't any of these, there must be no duty."
I'll re-lurk now. At this point you need citations, not suggestions to go search legislative histories. Hang in there.
51 53 Also I don't think it is a good idea to post about killing judges. Ann Coulter claims she was joking but still gets a lot of grief.
Thanks for watching out for me, Jim.
Come, now. I thought it was funny, not least because it set the stage for 6, which is both useful and amusing. And really, what more punishment is the judge going to apply to LB's client or firm beyond deciding the case against them, which it seems is going to happen anyway.
And depending on the judge, she might even agree that the best shot LB's side had was to poison her, and express gratitude that they realized the relative nature of "best shot".
Besides, no one actually poisons judges in corporate law - you just pay the fine and the shareholders get screwed. Isn't all the judgeicide in murder cases?
Just saying if I were the judge the "poisoning" remark would creep me out a lot more than the "bat#$#$ insane" remark. And if the judge wanted to be a jerk about it there are plenty of things she could do.
Really? When the poisoning remark was an obvious joke and the batshit insane remark was obviously serious?
Regardless, chances that judge is reading = very, very slim, and chances that judge could actually do anything it if she were reading are zero. Is she going to go after LB for threatening a judge? I'm willing to bet LB uses a different name in her court submittals. And it's not like anyone, including the judge, has been identified.
Besides, no one actually poisons judges in corporate law - you just pay the fine and the shareholders get screwed. Isn't all the judgeicide in murder cases?
Now now, it may be that LB works for a Mafia crime syndicate, and this "peripherally abetting a securities fraud by omitting to blow the whistle on it" charge is the judge's way of taking them down a peg tax-evasion style. In that case LB's wish to be rid of this turbulent judge may have already been granted!
An interesting possibility. But even then, you'd have to poison all the judges, and the Mafia these days is a pale shadow of its former self. No, I think that the advantage of working for powerful albeit evil clients is that those with the really limited vision required to engage in truly self-destructive behavior never get to that stage.
Speaking of self-destructive behavior, did we talk about Jessica Wolcott yet?
I feel for you LB, as I'm stuck working on a motion which is sure to be lost, since the other side is, you know, (almost certainly) right as a matter of law, despite producing crappy briefs.
So I suppose it's some consolation in knowing that I will lose because I deserve it, not because the judge is teh suxor...(how long before l337 speak actually starts showing up in legal briefs????)
62 Perhaps it is just me but I think jokes about killing judges who don't rule the way you want are a bad idea.
That wasn't my question. I asked why the one would bother you more than the other, if you were the judge.
it is just me but I think jokes about killing judges who don't rule the way you want are a bad idea.
You must not be a litigator. Or if you are, you have a sense of humor even worse than mine, which is a significant accomplishment.
Libertarians are not known for their senses of humor.
Libertarians are not known for their senses of humor.
Hey, that's not funny!
In a nearby possible world, we'd have to make LB wear a blindfold so she can't blink messages to the Mafia saboteur. "OMG-I-HAVE-SUCH-A-CODE-IN-BY-DOSE, ACH-OO!")
Just make it a biggish blindfold, so it doubles as a hanky, ok?
73 was me.
Oh, and James, do you think jokes about killing people because they don't do what you'd like are in such bad taste generally, or do you just have a thing about judges?
(1) is "mike" really acceptable shorthand for microwave? I'm thinking not.
(2) I make tea from the hot water on the coffee machine all the time. My tea seems to brew just fine. Is there really an advantage to having the water boiling? It comes out pretty damn hot.
First thing we do, let's poison all the judges.
75.1: Yes it is.
75.2: Your tea is not as good as it would be if you used boiling water. Though if you are usiing Lipton tea bags, the difference is probably within the margin of error.
I'm drinking decent tea. Probably my palate is just unsophisticated. I drink tea with boiling water at home. Actually, now that I think about it, this could explain why the tea I drink at work is always disgusting.
Why do you continue to drink it?
Heathen! The water must be boiling (for many teas). Now go forth and sin no more.
At altitude, you may even need to boil it continuously to make a decent cup.
But why? What's the difference, is what I don't understand? The tea comes out approximately the right color. I don't understand what hotter water is doing differently here, on a chemical level.
79- 99% of the time I drink coffee.
Do you use boiling water to make the coffee?
The flavour and color come from different things. Hotter water breaks down essential oils faster than cooler water, so the steeping is different.
I don't make the coffee.
by the way, Brock, it really does depend on the tea. Black teas should be just off the boil though. Green teas about 20C lower. I suspect `optimal' varies quite a bit with blend.
And some teas come with instructions to brew them with water just shy of boiling.
ermm. sorry for multiposting. Finally though, I should note that a lot of bagged tea uses dust & sweepings to reduce cost (look at the mean size in the bag) even the ones erroneously labeled `orange pekoe'. This changes the steep also, because you have a lot of surface area.
87: that's normal for black teas. The should be at about 90-95C so if you boil it, pull it off the heat and then pour into a cooler vessel that's about what you get. THat's part of the reason for warming tea pots, too.
That's intentional, not just for saving costs, but in order to make the tea brew faster (so you can have a cup brewed in about 2 minutes rather than ten.)
This is all way too complicated. I'll just stick to coffee, I suppose. I don't want to walk around with improperly brewed tea in my hands and all my coworkers laughing at me behind my back.
91: bah. just use black tea and boil the water before you steep it. what could be easier?
Even different aspects of flavor come from different things, I'd think. Smaller molecules will dissolve faster than larger molecules, but the difference in rates will vary with temperature. I think this can account for a lot of bitterness in coffee, but I basically have no idea what I'm talking about.
89: Yes but man had I entered the land of the snooty snoot rarity for the rare when I learned that even my tea must come in silken
94: That's bs, though.
what could be easier?
Coffee. Plus black tea is my least favorite type, usually.
And although I've been totally discredited on this tea thing, I still maintain that "nike" is an abomination.
It's more work to make good coffee though.
95: True, but it is good tea.
I like coffee, but can't manage to brew a decent cup to save my life.
I like coffee, but can't manage to brew a decent cup to save my life.
Or one of those cheap stove-top espresso things like they use all over europe. Drip machines suck unless you clean them internally all the time.
102: They're nice. Drip machines are no fun. (And it's not like French presses are hard to use.) I think my problem is cheap coffee, actually.
101: I'm sure it is. I just like to laugh about the tea snobs. You can get just a good stuff loose in the right markets, without the markup.
yeah, cheap coffee doesn't help to be sure.
There's something weird about raving over tea as if it were wine. I'm not a wine snob either, but that I think I can understand. Tea? Dry leaves, man.
Drip machines suck unless you clean them internally all the time.
Paper filters are an abomination. They catch all kinds of oils, not only affecting flavor, but also the diterpenes that have great anti cancer properties.
Ooooh! Someone recommend a good coffee maker, please. I have this one at home, which I don't really like at all.
Boiling water and a french press. I have this one, and it works fine. The french press is not as sensitive to ground size, so you can use a bar grinder without fear. Just grind coffee, add boiling water, and let sit for a few minutes. Easy.
Depending on how much coffee you drink, the 8-cup is a good size. It makes about 3 normal-size cups, which is usually what I have before leaving the house in the morning.
Seriously, Cala, spring for good coffee. I have a regular drip machine, and I was brewing Folgers and everything tasted like crap. Then I sprung for a $20 coffee grinder and some good beans, and all of a sudden, my house is the land of awesome coffee. Also, run the filter through very hot water just before you use it. I don't know why this helps, but I read it somewhere and it certainly doesn't seem to hurt.
Insulated presses are nice, and are cheap.
Stove tops are a bit more, also make good coffee.
Also necessary is a good burr grinder. Don't go too cheap on these as it'll have a crappy motor. Mid range at least. Best deal I've seen lately on one with a decent motor is at Costco.
109: One of these. Faster than a French press, easier to clean, and the only added cost is a new gasket every year or two. Most important, they make great coffee.
Burr grinders are only really needed for espresso, I thought?
The french press is not as sensitive to ground size
One caveat, err on the coarse side, as too fine will give you a "muddy" cup of coffe.
Burr not absolutely necessary, but nice. Much more control, much more uniform.
114: and how the hell can anything be easier to clean than a french press? I just dump the grounds down the garbage disposal, swish a bit of water around and dump out what's left, then run the strainer under the faucet for a second.
118: There are invariably little grounds caught between the screen and the rest of the press apparatus. Don't deny it. Plus, if you just rinse, and don't actually clean, the glass, it starts to look nasty. Jesus, I am so anal retentive.
Only at the edges, but proper positioning of the press apparatus and sufficient water flow can usually dislodge them. I think I'm more lazy than you are anal retentive.
Jesus, I am so anal retentive.
And you talk to yourself!
The thing in 114 looks nice.
So, I'm pretty sure I have this grinder. Should I buy a better one?
Isn't there supposed to be a hyphen in "anal-retentive?"
67 Because "bat**** insane" is just a colorful way of saying "wrong" and I would not be too bothered by the idea that my rulings were not universally accepted as correct. On the other hand jokes about being killed would make me a little nervous as a judge because judges sometimes are attacked by disappointed litigants and it can be hard to distinguish harmless jokes from warning signs of instability.
Should I buy a better one?
Blades just not as nice as burr. Besides the other advantages, having the grounds drop into a bin is great.
122: See 117. Basically, yes, but if the place where you buy your beans has a burr grinder, just do it there. Saves you the noise and the time in the morning.
123: I suspect you're right. So if I carelessly left it out... then maybe I'm not really anal-retentive! (D'oh.)
51: I'd at least redact the state, if I were you.
This is something which should be done more often. In all subsequent postings the states of [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] shall be deemed nonexistant. If anyone asks they shall be told that Colorado and Missouri share a border, and South Dakota abuts Mexico.
124: And fortunately, a throwaway comment in a blog that's anonymous and obviously joking is unlikely to a) attract the judge's attention in the first place and b) result in anything actionable. They haven't managed to do away with all freedom of speech yet.
127: You're going to need to redact one more state to get from SD to Mexico.
74 Well I think jokes about killing your wife for example are also a bad idea. However I am particularly sensitive about jokes about killing judges as I think they encourage disrespect for the rule of law which I think is dangerous.
Also as a practical matter I suspect jokes about killing judges like jokes about hijacking planes risk overreaction from the authorities.
Quite a lot of the internet comprises jokey threats against governmental authorities.
69 For the record I am not a libertarian. While I am sympathetic to some libertarian positions, believing in any creed which dogmatically advocates an ideal society which does not resemble any society in actual existence anywhere in the world, in my view requires an unjustified leap of faith.
112: the main problem with coffee is old oil from a previous brew. It goes off very quickly and tastes bitter. I suspect if you run very hot water through, you are cleaning some of this residue....
Late to the thread, but . . .
I have a case (maybe 'had' a case -- it depends on whether the opponent appeals from the summary judgment I got 2 weeks ago) where the opponent (allegedly) sent the judge an email threatening him and his family, should he fail to recuse himself from the case. Then she sent another. She's in federal custody, and has been indicted. (Thus, losing her case against my client is really the least of her worries).
The judge did recuse himself.
Yeah, it's the case where I was trying to plunge the court into the night where all cows are black.
That brief you linked may be my favorite ever.
Also, was it the attorney or the client who sent the threatening emails? (Either way, crazy.)
It is my opinion, and I'm not a doctor, that they're both crazy. Client and lawyer. The client sent -- is alleged to have sent -- the emails. She did so from a friend's house. The friend got a visit from the FBI.
Naturally, I'm hoping for an appeal. Sort of.
Actually, the lawyer left me a voicemail asking if I'd consent to an extension of time for his motion to reconsider. Naturally, I considered agreeing. (Note to non-lawyers -- the time to move for reconsideration of a judgment cannot be extended, by agreement or otherwise, and so if I'd said yes, he'd have filed late, and, I'd expect, let his time to appeal lapse while waiting for a ruling on the motion to reconsider [a motion to reconsider usually stops the time to appeal from running]). I chickened out though, and refused to agree. He didn't file anything . . .
gswift speaks much truth in this thread. Future generations will converge here in their search for a good cup of coffee.
I have a simple 8-cup Bodum french press, and it makes great coffee. Doesn't even have to be super expensive. My local supermarket does a 'premium' own-brand range which is really nice. If I am lazy I don't even both grinding my own, I buy it already ground and use it straight from the freezer.
Those stove top espresso ones only work if you have a gas cooker. And, in my experience, the coffee that comes out is never quite hot enough.
never quite hot enough? it was just boiling one second before. I guess the aluminum loses heat quickly. anyway, no one should ever have anything other than gas burners, so there's no problem there. when I was a teenager we had one of those totally flat stovetops with hidden burners. christ I hated that thing. my inlaws have something even worse, the original 50's electric range, without variable control. nice shade of pink enamel, though.
I have used stovetop machines successfully on electric stoves, campstoves, and bonfires. It does take more finesse, though, it's true.
Espresso not being hot enough when prepared in a stovetop pot is not a problem I have experienced. I usually let it sit for a moment after pouring, that it might reach a more palatable temperature.
Maybe ttaM is adding cold milk?
Ah -- didn't think of that.
I have a steel stovetop espresso thingy and don't find it cools down ... maybe the aluminium ones behave differently?
I would really love to get one of those steel stovetop espresso makers.
One thing about those pots is, after you make espresso don't let them sit for days without disassembling and cleaning, or they will grow some pretty disgusting mold in the lower chamber.
(Actually I'm not sure what kind of organism it was.)
I have heard that the aluminum ones make better-tasting coffee than the stainless steel ones. Those in the know: unquestionably true, snooty-snoot nitpicking, or complete urban legend?
I'm always kind of embarrassed by coffee discussions, because while I'm reasonably fussy (that is, I frequently encounter coffee I consider undrinkable) I'm perfectly satisfied by coffee made with canned grounds (it does have to be El Pico -- the Anglo brands are disgusting) in a drip machine.
And I'm now home sick, writing this brief from my bedroom. On the other hand, I had a brilliant idea, backing into a demonstration that you can't have a duty to disclose in the absence of a pre-existing duty through insider trading cases. They're 10b-5 scheme cases, just a different type, and yet there's no liability absent a duty to someone. (I haven't quite finished the research on this, so it may fall apart on me, but it's the best idea I've had in a week.)
I have to put a word in against french press coffee makers. If you use a multi-cup version, the remaining coffee keeps brewing and gets nasty. Even if you dump it all into a thermos, you'll inevitably get grounds in there, which will keep extracting. French presses = grounds = nasty.
Go for a melita or chemex style, and if you don't like paper filters, get a gold one. If you're real purist, get a vacuum pot and be prepared to wait forever for your coffee and do lots of cleaning.
Grinding your own beans fresh that have been roasted fairly recently will make a bigger difference than anything else you do.
VIRUS ALERT: I seem to have caught LB's cold, presumably from playing around on this website. Thank you, LB. Everyone be sure your anti-virus definitions are fully up to date before commenting around here.
i got an old-fashioned percolator for my office because the stuff in the staff kitchen comes in reg and falvored, all nasty, that gave me sharp headaches.
grind them on the coarsest perc setting and let it settle for 2 min. good for a few hours.
it's been a good solution. mine sits on a stained legal pad by the phone.