Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Druwdeadeng
As an attorney myself, I'll never begrudge anyone from attempting to protect and preserve every legal right that they have. Whether choosing to do that on your own, or by retaining myself or another attorney is a matter of personal choice.
I think the primary concern (and source of criticism) from the attorneys that post here is show that many of the legal theories that are expressed by posters here are either outdated law, procedurally incorrect, or otherwise just not going to work in the Courts.
Anyone can be a student of the law. The law books are open, public, and available for anyone to review. Acquiring the skill to know how to meaningfully put together the jumbled assortment of statutes, case precedents, and administrative regulations is difficult.
In most cases, you simply can't take one isolated case/statute/regulation in a vacuum and cite to it as the basis for judgment.
I'm not here to condemn the users of SuiJuris.net for their opinions. While I tend to find myself shaking my head a lot of the time, the one thing I can't understand is the unwillingness of some folks to consider the merit of the points made by the lawyers who post.
Logically, even assuming that every legal concept that SuiJuris users believe to be true, there still is legal structure in place in this nation. Having someone who understands the machinations of the system, whether or not you agree with that system, is of value.
I would hope that everyone could play nice, but I know that's not always the way it will be. Nonetheless, I will continue to come around and look in, commenting when appropriate.
Cheers.
DD
|
Characteristics emphasized above, are the reasons that actual or wannabe attorneys are normally held in ill repute on this and other forums. They say things negative in regard to particular theory or belief, yet they offer no information to correct a misunderstanding of Law or a misapplication of law or procedure. If they would offer the proof of the claims they make instead of a blanket 'believe me, I know' attitude, they might just start winning a little appreciation.
As an example, in the above emphasized text belonging to you, you have indicated a differing set of criteria culminating in the issue of "...just not going to work in the courts." This clearly is an arbitrary statement barring the exclusion of the remaining two members of the set. If the first two are not at issue, then the third stands as an arbitrary system of justice based upon the whim of whoever is in control of the 'court'. Can you clarify your statement so as to relieve the frustration of finding yet another admitted attorney who whimsically states that the procedure or theory is 'just not going to work in courts.' Surely, if the judge sees that he/she cannot use the first two as a justifiable means of barring a positive enforcement of a case in favor of the 'nut job' 'pro se' plaintiff, then according to your statement, all the judge has to do is simply make a ruling based upon his/her dislike for the man or woman that has paraded an otherwise justifiable claim into 'HIS' 'COURT'.
As for
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Farmer giles of ham
I think a lot of us would be grateful for your positive input.
|
I would concur and express the same sentiments.
Jerry Carlos