LAWYERS ON LIT! C"MERE A SEC.....

[landslider]

Retainer first.

 

[Gekken]

*raises brow

that's really strange reasoning.

nah, I just don't like lawyers. it's GRATUITOUS reasoning

 

[Gekken]

Retainer first.

hehehehe

 

[Guest]

 

[Gekken]

...and *poof* another wacko thread disappears!

hrmmm?

 

[bg23]

nah, I just don't like lawyers. it's GRATUITOUS reasoning

why don't you like lawyers?

i'd say gratuitous reasoning is fairly strange. the wonderful thing about the word "strange" is how adaptable it is, no?

 

[Gekken]

why don't you like lawyers?

i'd say gratuitous reasoning is fairly strange. the wonderful thing about the word "strange" is how adaptable it is, no?

I am a weirdo that believes that anyone should be able to understand all of the laws of the land. By extention, should be able to know all of them. I also believe that no land should change the laws simply because they piss someone off.

Lawyers make millions of dollars producing nothing, benefitting very few.

I feel a just nation is one that doesn't even require defense attys. (I know there a lot of holes in that arguement STFU crackerjack)

It's not so much the lawyers as the society that produces them.

 

[bg23]

It's not so much the lawyers as the society that produces them.

*smiles*

so in response to my question, "i don't really hate lawyers, i just like saying that."

 

[kotori]

...It's not so much the lawyers as the society that produces them.

That would be any beyond Neanderthal, I guess.

*backs away from survivalist*

 

[Gekken]

That would be any beyond Neanderthal, I guess.

*backs away from survivalist*

suvivalist!?!?! like those racist wack-jobs in Idaho? hell no! I know HOW to survive, but I'd rather call room-service.

I was specifically thinking of post-renaissance mercantile law and how it changed society. Is it so distasteful to actually envisage REAL free-market economy? or TRUE freedom? or a government that regulates interstate/international policy and trade VISIBLY? It's not survivalism, it's basic AMERICANISM! read Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Douglas. (I like douglas' views on the rights of man in a free-market economy if you add "wage: to the front of "slave", and take out "negro" and put in "everybody" [except where it is grammatically unsound])

or, for a more roots view JS Mill, maybe some Keynes.

 

[DesertDave]

Understand the Law?!

I am a weirdo that believes that anyone should be able to understand all of the laws of the land. By extention, should be able to know all of them. I also believe that no land should change the laws simply because they piss someone off.

Lawyers make millions of dollars producing nothing, benefitting very few.

I feel a just nation is one that doesn't even require defense attys. (I know there a lot of holes in that arguement STFU crackerjack)

It's not so much the lawyers as the society that produces them.

Do you honestly believe that even lawyers know any more but a infinitesimally small portion of what is commonly known as "the law"?

 

[Gekken]

Do you honestly believe that even lawyers know any more but a infinitesimally small portion of what is commonly known as "the law"?

kinda proves my point, eh?

 

[Brinnie]

Free Speech Coalition Wins Round One!

SMALL VICTORY FOR THE FREE SPEECH COALITION.


DENVER, Colo. — A deal has been brokered between lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition and U.S. Justice Department in U.S. District Court regarding the new 2257 regulations, XBiz has learned.
While FSC attorney Jeffrey Douglas told XBiz that he could not reveal details of the deal, he said there will be an announcement tomorrow at 1:30, and it will be “big news and good news.”

Fellow First Amendment attorney Gregory Piccionelli added, "I cannot state in more emphatic terms that you have to be out of your mind if you don't become a member of the FSC immediately."

XBiz will post details as they become available.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236​

 

[bg23]

kinda proves my point, eh?

actually, not really, no.

 

[Gekken]

actually, not really, no.

if a lawyer cannot possible know all of the laws of a nation, how are they just?

 

[cjh]

if a lawyer cannot possible know all of the laws of a nation, how are they just?

because they can easily be found. and because lawyers specialize. and because life is too complex for a simple one-size-fits-all set of rules.

 

[Gekken]

because they can easily be found. and because lawyers specialize. and because life is too complex for a simple one-size-fits-all set of rules.

that is simply untrue! Ihave tried to look for laws and was completely lost and flabergasted. they use some kind of filing system that I found to be purposefully obtuse.

Of course lawyer specialize, so we have to go to them on bended knee, pay extortionate fees, and hope they don't get bored and loose the case because they wanna get a round in before dinner. I wouldn't know if a lawyer did that or not! (I don't go to court very often)

And isn't a one-size-fits-all legal system kinda the point in a democracy? (we aren't IN a democracy, I understand that. But couldn't we pretend?)
Life is not too complex. I know most of the rules of the road. they are simple to understand and have a point. I have no idea about environmental law. make is simple and to the point. you can't dump shit here. simple and vulgar. AND to the point.

or more in you milieu: EO Law: simple. no Affirmative Action. Also, no "race" or "gender" boxes on applications. two birds, one stone. simple. next?

 

[ruminator]

<clip>
what you should be concerned about are gonzales' efforts to recast fairly common adult entertainment as "obscene." say goodbye to cum shots. so long penetration. adios gang bangs. http://www.infomanage.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6670#post6670

focus your ire on uptight fundamentalist conservatives.

*sniff*.......wipes away a tear...


I'm going to miss 'em

 

[Brinnie]

Free Speech Coalition Wins Injunction: Experts Say It Is Only The Beginning

DENVER - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.

The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction...

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=231539

Over the course of the next few months, there will be continuing proceedings, so the Free Speech Coalition still needs your help. So keep those banners up until this all blows over. And if you don't already have one, have at it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/intern.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/88x31-animate.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/468x60-animate.gif
​

 

[Gekken]

DENVER - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.

The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction...

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=231539

Over the course of the next few months, there will be continuing proceedings, so the Free Speech Coalition still needs your help. So keep those banners up until this all blows over. And if you don't already have one, have at it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/intern.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/88x31-animate.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/alienpeople/468x60-animate.gif
​

brinnie, marry me. lets have lots of free-speech babies.

 

[cjh]

that is simply untrue! Ihave tried to look for laws and was completely lost and flabergasted. they use some kind of filing system that I found to be purposefully obtuse.

Of course lawyer specialize, so we have to go to them on bended knee, pay extortionate fees, and hope they don't get bored and loose the case because they wanna get a round in before dinner. I wouldn't know if a lawyer did that or not! (I don't go to court very often)

And isn't a one-size-fits-all legal system kinda the point in a democracy? (we aren't IN a democracy, I understand that. But couldn't we pretend?)
Life is not too complex. I know most of the rules of the road. they are simple to understand and have a point. I have no idea about environmental law. make is simple and to the point. you can't dump shit here. simple and vulgar. AND to the point.

or more in you milieu: EO Law: simple. no Affirmative Action. Also, no "race" or "gender" boxes on applications. two birds, one stone. simple. next?

i suppose it's reasonable for one attorney to stay on top of laws passed to ensure enacted to keep banks solvent, and patent laws passed to provide inventors incentive to invent, and criminal laws designed to protect the public, and criminal procedure designed to ensure defendants a fair trial, and property laws designed to ensure that you know what is and can keep yours, and medical malpractice laws designed to ensure that doctors are held accountable only when they are at fault, and utility laws designed to ensure that we have a ready source of affordable electricity, and domestic laws designed to look after kids in divorces, and securities laws designed to ensure the soundness of the stock markets so that capital can raised, and education laws passed to ensure that our children learn in a safe environment, and environmental laws designed to balance the competing interests between businesses and people who eat and drink and breath. . . .

and by that same token, i suppose it's reasonable to expect a doctor to know how to treat cancer, and read specimens, and mend a bone, and perform heart surgery, and diagnose malaria, and treat aids, and perform brain surgery....

 

[Gekken]

i suppose it's reasonable for one attorney to stay on top of laws passed to ensure enacted to keep banks solvent, and patent laws passed to provide inventors incentive to invent, and criminal laws designed to protect the public, and criminal procedure designed to ensure defendants a fair trial, and property laws designed to ensure that you know what is and can keep yours, and medical malpractice laws designed to ensure that doctors are held accountable only when they are at fault, and utility laws designed to ensure that we have a ready source of affordable electricity, and domestic laws designed to look after kids in divorces, and securities laws designed to ensure the soundness of the stock markets so that capital can raised, and education laws passed to ensure that our children learn in a safe environment, and environmental laws designed to balance the competing interests between businesses and people who eat and drink and breath. . . .

and by that same token, i suppose it's reasonable to expect a doctor to know how to treat cancer, and read specimens, and mend a bone, and perform heart surgery, and diagnose malaria, and treat aids, and perform brain surgery....

firstly I was a paramedic for several years. doctors don't know anything. that's why WE drive ambulances and save actual lives. we let them feel important and walk around befuddled. ok, snobbery done.

what I am saying is simplify. reduce. codify logically. privatize everything possible into publically held companies (except law enforcement. I've seen RoboCop)

why should there be laws governing behaviour that is not physically harmful to others?

why cant all property law be simplified? I own the deed. it is mine. period. vs the bank owes the deed. we have a contract to pay by a date. I pay, eventually I own the deed. I don't pay the bank has my ass out.

It's really simple if you look at it from a business standpoint. contracts, either boilerplate or otherwise are binding. caveat emptor. (that'll give the surviving lawyers something to do)

 

[ruminator]

firstly I was a paramedic for several years. doctors don't know anything. that's why WE drive ambulances and save actual lives. we let them feel important and walk around befuddled. ok, snobbery done.

what I am saying is simplify. reduce. codify logically. privatize everything possible into publically held companies (except law enforcement. I've seen RoboCop)

why should there be laws governing behaviour that is not physically harmful to others?

why cant all property law be simplified? I own the deed. it is mine. period. vs the bank owes the deed. we have a contract to pay by a date. I pay, eventually I own the deed. I don't pay the bank has my ass out.

It's really simple if you look at it from a business standpoint. contracts, either boilerplate or otherwise are binding. caveat emptor. (that'll give the surviving lawyers something to do)

Will your background check clear you to run for office?



I'll help campaign

 

[Gekken]

Will your background check clear you to run for office?



I'll help campaign

no, there were some peccadilloes in my youth.

 

[Sean]

I qualified as a solicitor ( a lawyer to you) two years ago. I only take human rights cases. I'm thirty eight years old, I didn't spend five years retraining for the money. For the first year of my practice I drove a van to pay the bills. Then I became established and now my practice pays my bills. I drive a 10 year old saab and spend my days suing govts., multi nationals, lost causes. I don't win many, I don't charge a lot, I love my life and I sleep well. After a number of years as an activist filming atrocities I find that what I do has more of an impact than standing on the front line getting mowed under.