+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Lawyers These Days...

  1. #31

    Default

    BullsLawDan: "No one can determine if a suit is frivolous except a court. I would expect that you would have no medical bills and no lost time from work, ergo the case wouldn't even make it to a lawsuit, because the attorney, no matter how questionable his ethics, wouldn't take your case. However, I don't really think this happened to you, given legal ethics prohibit such solicitation."

    I will agree that you can't recognize frivolous but it do4sn't require a court for a person who isn't an attorney to recognize frivolity. Or, are we going back to "it depends on what the meaning of is is."

    No medical expenses? The chriopractor isn't free and once he's established that I have a permanently disabling injury he will certainly treat me. A very expensive treatment, too. And you totally ignore the permanently disab ling emotional injury I suffered. I'm afraid to drive now and therefore I can't work. Oh, and my god, the pain. Pain and suffering. Loss of consortium. Oh, the horror.

    I listened to a burglar explain why what he did was beneficial to sosiety and his argument was no more ridiculous than yours.

    Enjoy your shot at the brass ring but don't try to tell us that dirt is diamonds. Frivilous lawsuits are plentiful, often generated by lawyers, nurtured by judges, and are destructive to our society.

    Assume for a moment that a nitwit chooses to walk out onto a deck with no railing and then chooses to bend over and stick a bottle rocket in his butt and when it explodes he falls off the deck. Now,he, with an attorney, is suing. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit. But, the lawyer will make money so I suspect it's a good frivolous lawsuit.
    Last edited by PatrickT; Feb 15 2012 at 04:33 AM.

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    This isn't a court room and I am not under cross-examination. If you wish to have an exchange with me, then do so, but do not expect me to jump through hoops for you.

    Your choice of the word "lunacy" is most unfortunate. Insults preclude discourse.
    Then admit you made a statement with no support in evidence.

    You stated that, and I quote, "The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury."

    However, there is no evidence of any of that statement.

    I asked how you arrived at those conclusions.

    You refused to answer the question.

    For purposes of this debate, then, we can presume you have no answer, and simply made up your previous statement out of thin air.

    Or would you like to answer?

    Start with the simple: How do you know the plaintiff was drunk?

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    I will agree that you can't recognize frivolous but it doesn't require a court for a person who isn't an attorney to recognize frivolity. Or, are we going back to "it depends on what the meaning of is is."
    No, it requires a court. It precisely requires one. "Frivolous" is a legal determination, which can only be made in court.
    No medical expenses? The chriopractor isn't free and once he's established that I have a permanently disabling injury he will certainly treat me. A very expensive treatment, too. And you totally ignore the permanently disab ling emotional injury I suffered. I'm afraid to drive now and therefore I can't work. Oh, and my god, the pain. Pain and suffering. Loss of consortium. Oh, the horror.
    I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?

    I listened to a burglar explain why what he did was beneficial to sosiety and his argument was no more ridiculous than yours.
    A pithy statement, with absolutely no value other than a personal attack.

    Try arguing with logic instead of thinly-veiled insults.
    Enjoy your shot at the brass ring but don't try to tell us that dirt is diamonds.
    Again, try arguing with logic instead of insults. That's kind of how it should work here.
    Frivilous lawsuits are plentiful,
    Statement void of evidence.
    often generated by lawyers,
    Statement void of evidence.
    nurtured by judges,
    Statement void of evidence.
    and are destructive to our society.
    Statement void of evidence.

    Assume for a moment that a nitwit chooses to walk out onto a deck with no railing and then chooses to bend over and stick a bottle rocket in his butt and when it explodes he falls off the deck. Now,he, with an attorney, is suing. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit. But, the lawyer will make money so I suspect it's a good frivolous lawsuit.
    That's not what is happening in this case, but thanks for providing you're just another ignorant lawyer hater with no facts (see above) to support your arguments.
    twitter.com/BullsLawDan <~ My Twitter (may be NSFW). Follow me!

    "But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BullsLawDan View Post
    Then admit you made a statement with no support in evidence.

    You stated that, and I quote, "The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury."

    However, there is no evidence of any of that statement.

    I asked how you arrived at those conclusions.

    You refused to answer the question.

    For purposes of this debate, then, we can presume you have no answer, and simply made up your previous statement out of thin air.

    Or would you like to answer?

    Start with the simple: How do you know the plaintiff was drunk?


    No, it requires a court. It precisely requires one. "Frivolous" is a legal determination, which can only be made in court.

    I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?


    A pithy statement, with absolutely no value other than a personal attack.

    Try arguing with logic instead of thinly-veiled insults.

    Again, try arguing with logic instead of insults. That's kind of how it should work here.

    Statement void of evidence.

    Statement void of evidence.

    Statement void of evidence.

    Statement void of evidence.


    That's not what is happening in this case, but thanks for providing you're just another ignorant lawyer hater with no facts (see above) to support your arguments.
    "I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?" And, lordy, lawyers never ever suborn perjury. A trial lawyer never hires a "plaintiff's" expert. That's the expert who has made a career of testifying only for plaintiffs and only the way he's told to testify. Try your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on people who've never been to court. I'm done. No, I didn't commit perjury but it sure wasn't for the lack of being told to lie by attorneys. That would be defense attorneys and prosecutors both.

    You have established your vested interest and your willingness to say whatever is necessary to defend your position so we're done.
    Last edited by PatrickT; Feb 15 2012 at 08:12 PM.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BullsLawDan View Post
    Then admit you made a statement with no support in evidence.

    You stated that, and I quote, "The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury."

    However, there is no evidence of any of that statement.

    I asked how you arrived at those conclusions.

    You refused to answer the question.

    For purposes of this debate, then, we can presume you have no answer, and simply made up your previous statement out of thin air.

    Or would you like to answer?

    Start with the simple: How do you know the plaintiff was drunk?


    No, it requires a court. It precisely requires one. "Frivolous" is a legal determination, which can only be made in court.

    ....
    Do you think that Political Forum is the same thing as a court of law? The Rules of Evidence don't apply here.

    Legalistic analysis is useful in deconstructing ideas and arguments. But all too often those who employ this method do so in a formulaic and predictable fashion like the catching of a cog within a wheel.

    In the court of public opinion people will use their life experiences and understanding in evaluating facts that have been established.

    There was a frat party where alcohol was served. Most people would conclude that only someone with alcohol impaired judgment would stick fireworks up his ass and detonate it in the expectation of lift off. Most people would think this is shameful behavior of a deviant variety.

    What do you think the plaintiff was doing? Do you think the plaintiff was probably drinking while he watched a deviant drop his trousers? The plaintiff stood around in close proximity and watched this shameful behavior; and in so doing, he participated in the shameful behavior. This makes the plaintiff look like a deviant too. In a better time he would have been too ashamed of his behavior to risk exposure by litigating his claim.

    As far as plaintiff's counsel is concerned the complaint he filed is exactly what one would expect to be churned out by a tort mill. He probably is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association...United Shysters of America.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    "I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?" And, lordy, lawyers never ever suborn perjury.
    I never said that. See, that's you arguing with what is called a "strawman". You need to use logical fallacy to make your argument, because your argument in chief is nonsense.

    Anyway, of course a few lawyers commit bad acts, the same as any other profession. There's no evidence, however, they commit bad acts in any greater rate than any other profession (and considerable evidence they commit them at a lower rate).
    A trial lawyer never hires a "plaintiff's" expert. That's the expert who has made a career of testifying only for plaintiffs and only the way he's told to testify.
    And so what? Attorney's have a responsibility to their client and to the system to put on the best case possible. The adversarial nature of our system requires it.

    Obviously, your problem is not only with attorneys but with the very nature of our justice system.
    Try your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on people who've never been to court. I'm done. No, I didn't commit perjury but it sure wasn't for the lack of being told to lie by attorneys. That would be defense attorneys and prosecutors both.
    And given your known, and essentially admitted, bias against lawyers, we can just assume this statement is an anecdotal fabrication meant to support your position.
    You have established your vested interest and your willingness to say whatever is necessary to defend your position so we're done.
    What's my vested interest? I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer. I make money whether I win or not.
    Your "vested interest" is only in lashing out at people whom you wrongfully perceive did you some harm, as your prior examples show.
    twitter.com/BullsLawDan <~ My Twitter (may be NSFW). Follow me!

    "But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Do you think that Political Forum is the same thing as a court of law? The Rules of Evidence don't apply here.

    Legalistic analysis is useful in deconstructing ideas and arguments. But all too often those who employ this method do so in a formulaic and predictable fashion like the catching of a cog within a wheel.
    A bunch of trite statements that really say nothing, except to further show you have no evidence to support the statements you are making.
    In the court of public opinion people will use their life experiences and understanding in evaluating facts that have been established.
    And life experience and understanding are obviously biased and limited.

    See, the biggest problem I have with your posts is that you think anecdotes and personal experience provide a basis to invent facts out of thin air.
    There was a frat party where alcohol was served. Most people would conclude that only someone with alcohol impaired judgment would stick fireworks up his ass and detonate it in the expectation of lift off. Most people would think this is shameful behavior of a deviant variety.
    Obviously. But the behavior of the defendant is not being called into question. Everyone agrees the defendant was a drunken moron.
    What do you think the plaintiff was doing? Do you think the plaintiff was probably drinking while he watched a deviant drop his trousers? The plaintiff stood around in close proximity and watched this shameful behavior; and in so doing, he participated in the shameful behavior. This makes the plaintiff look like a deviant too. In a better time he would have been too ashamed of his behavior to risk exposure by litigating his claim.
    In fact, the only evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite.

    The plaintiff's case is premised on his being startled and suprised by the bottle rocket. From that, we can infer that the plaintiff was not a participant or even a spectator to the actions of the moron defendant.

    Why should a person who has been injured through no fault of their own be "too ashamed" to ask that the guilty parties pay for their injuries? You realize here the plaintiff is only seeking compensatory damages, right? Not punitive or anything like that.

    By your logic, a beautifully-dressed rape victim should be "too ashamed" to file charges, because obviously their appearance makes them look like a "deviant" also.

    This could all be resolved if you'd just admit what is completely obvious: You posted this thread thinking that the person suing was the person who put the rocket in their ass, and you just can't admit your colossal mistake.
    As far as plaintiff's counsel is concerned the complaint he filed is exactly what one would expect to be churned out by a tort mill. He probably is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association...United Shysters of America.
    LOL... Well, I'm not, so I can't speak for them, but considering they only count as their membership a small percentage of all lawyers in America, I don't know why you'd arrive at that conclusion.

    Why don't you just come out with the real problem. What wrong? Did you commit a similar stupid act, get sued, and think you were "wronged" by a lawyer? Obviously your venomous bias has some genesis. What happened to you that made you hate lawyers so much?
    Last edited by BullsLawDan; Feb 16 2012 at 09:00 AM.
    twitter.com/BullsLawDan <~ My Twitter (may be NSFW). Follow me!

    "But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BullsLawDan View Post
    A bunch of trite statements that really say nothing, except to further show you have no evidence to support the statements you are making.

    And life experience and understanding are obviously biased and limited.

    See, the biggest problem I have with your posts is that you think anecdotes and personal experience provide a basis to invent facts out of thin air.

    Obviously. But the behavior of the defendant is not being called into question. Everyone agrees the defendant was a drunken moron.

    In fact, the only evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite.

    The plaintiff's case is premised on his being startled and suprised by the bottle rocket. From that, we can infer that the plaintiff was not a participant or even a spectator to the actions of the moron defendant.

    Why should a person who has been injured through no fault of their own be "too ashamed" to ask that the guilty parties pay for their injuries? You realize here the plaintiff is only seeking compensatory damages, right? Not punitive or anything like that.

    By your logic, a beautifully-dressed rape victim should be "too ashamed" to file charges, because obviously their appearance makes them look like a "deviant" also.

    This could all be resolved if you'd just admit what is completely obvious: You posted this thread thinking that the person suing was the person who put the rocket in their ass, and you just can't admit your colossal mistake.

    LOL... Well, I'm not, so I can't speak for them, but considering they only count as their membership a small percentage of all lawyers in America, I don't know why you'd arrive at that conclusion.

    Why don't you just come out with the real problem. What wrong? Did you commit a similar stupid act, get sued, and think you were "wronged" by a lawyer? Obviously your venomous bias has some genesis. What happened to you that made you hate lawyers so much?
    I understand the plaintiff did not place the fireworks in his anus. That isn't the issue. My view of the change in the character of the legal profession and the statement this makes about American society prompted this thread. Don't make personal statements about me. It violates the TOS.

  9. Default

    What does one get when one fuses Jackass Culture, litigation as cultural norm, and the excess of young lawyers?

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    I understand the plaintiff did not place the fireworks in his anus.
    ... Now that I told you.
    That isn't the issue. My view of the change in the character of the legal profession and the statement this makes about American society prompted this thread. Don't make personal statements about me. It violates the TOS.
    I don't see this particular case making any statement about the legal profession. There have been more silly torts in the past. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the famous Pfalsgraff case of a century ago dealt with people being dummies with fireworks.

    I also don't see it making any particular statement about American society. People have always done stupid things that have led to injuries to other people. That's why we have tort law.

    I just don't understand what your problem is, other than you obviously started the thread for a mistaken reason.

    Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in a semi-public place somewhere, minding your own business, and someone caused you injury, you would be "too embarrassed" to sue?
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    What does one get when one fuses Jackass Culture, litigation as cultural norm, and the excess of young lawyers?
    What, exactly, is the excess of young lawyers? I find people like you generally have no clue about the realities of the legal profession. What do you think "young lawyers" make?
    twitter.com/BullsLawDan <~ My Twitter (may be NSFW). Follow me!

    "But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BullsLawDan View Post
    ... Now that I told you.

    I don't see this particular case making any statement about the legal profession. There have been more silly torts in the past. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the famous Pfalsgraff case of a century ago dealt with people being dummies with fireworks.

    I also don't see it making any particular statement about American society. People have always done stupid things that have led to injuries to other people. That's why we have tort law.

    I just don't understand what your problem is, other than you obviously started the thread for a mistaken reason.

    Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in a semi-public place somewhere, minding your own business, and someone caused you injury, you would be "too embarrassed" to sue?

    What, exactly, is the excess of young lawyers? I find people like you generally have no clue about the realities of the legal profession. What do you think "young lawyers" make?
    The roles of professionals in public life changes over time. This is true for law, medicine and accounting no less than other professions.

    Law was once a calling...a profession...professing the law...that took on secular priestly overtones. That's why lawyers didn't advertise. That mindset is completely gone now.

    Today the lawyer is like a technical expert...not a gatekeeper. Perhaps that's why so many young lawyers are disappointed in the experience.

    I saw this change in the recent foreclosure/mortgage modification imbroglio. When the housing market collapsed in California lots of borrowers were confused about the appropriate course of action when they ran into trouble with making payments on adjustable financing encumbering underwater properties. For real estate lawyers this field quickly became a possible profit center.

    Generally at that time, it wasn't possible for a lawyer to help these troubled people because the lenders didn't have their acts together or were not acting in good faith. Old style lawyers told people the truth that they couldn't help them under the then existing state of the market.

    But lots of lawyers didn't tell these people the truth. Instead they gave the defaulting or underwater borrowers false hope and took their money in the form of advance payments up front. It got so bad that the State Bar of California had to promulgate a rule forbidding lawyers from taking advance fees in these cases. A few of these lawyers took their clients' money after promising the world to people desperate for hope. Then they discharged their clients' claims in bankruptcy.

    What distinguished the lawyers who followed the old style of practice and those lawyers who promised the world and pocketed the hefty retainers? Ethics.

    It is much more difficult for young lawyers to survive because the legal profession is undergoing major transformations in the way services are delivered and clients are charged. Most of these young lawyers are not employed with major silk stocking legal operations.

    Instead they are grinding out a living, earning less than they expected, and realizing that the return on their educational investment isn't likely to turn out as they had hoped.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Doma Lawyers Back Out.
    By Colombine in forum Gay & Lesbian Rights
    Replies: 314
    Last Post: Feb 25 2012, 05:37 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks