Attorney Scott (Lawdog) ?

[theghost]

I no longer see the point of this thread, maybe it got sidetracked, don't know. Are we really refuting/doubting that Lawdog and/or Shoonra are or could be attorneys? What's the point? Anyone with a 85 or better IQ can pass the bar exam, big deal. A better question for them might be, if either of them believe in a creator, how do they think their fancy title of "lawyer/attorney" is going to sit with the Big guy come judgment day? Maybe this should become a new thread, you decide.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by theghost

Anyone with a 85 or better IQ can pass the bar exam, big deal.

The big deal is that people like DiM and MRG couldn't muster the requisite 85 IQ points.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The big deal is that people like DiM and MRG couldn't muster the requisite 85 IQ points.

I don't see the purpose for such an obviously ludicrous remark, unless you are extremely insecure. I think you're afraid that Davids' and MRG's are bigger than yours.

Hey, another thought, if you and lawdog are so intent on proving/bragging about your attorney titles, just post your bar exam scores here for all to see. You can redact whatever you feel the need to. Personally, I don't give a rats' ass who is an attorney or not, but apparently others do. Let's put an end to this going nowhere diatribe. Please!

[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from the attorneys that post here is show that many of the legal theories that are expressed by posters here are either outdated law, procedurally incorrect, or otherwise just not going to work in the Courts.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

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Druwdeadeng

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.

In all the time I have been a member here, about one year now, I have NEVER seen any point made by any lawyer/attorney, with or without merit. A lot of negativity but really no points made.

Nonetheless, I will continue to come around and look in, commenting when appropriate.

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 a lot of us would be grateful for your positive input.

[Jerry Pitts]

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

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

[Druwdeadeng]

Ok. Perhaps that choice of wording was a bit sloppy. I can certainly see that it's a bit of a throwaway turn of phrase. Let me see if I can better explain what I meant.

"Otherwise just not going to work," as I intended the phrase, is really a combination of the first two points on the outdated laws and procedural incorrectness. But, more closely, I suppose I should have stated that it would more properly refer to the incorrect application of existing law and procedure.

Cherry picking portions of statutes/regulations outside of context, incorporation of common law theories when the common law has been superceded by a properly passed statute, etc.

Again, I have no animus toward any of the posters on this board, and I will certainly attempt to be productive in my posts. I'll happily try to offer further detail if I can, and will gladly say that I don't when I don't.

I'm a lawyer, I don't know everything about the law, and I'm pretty sure that no one else does either. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not. Hopefully, you all can appreciate my input and take it into account when you're processing your options for progressing through some legal proceeding.

Cheers.
DD

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Druwdeadeng

Ok. Perhaps that choice of wording was a bit sloppy. I can certainly see that it's a bit of a throwaway turn of phrase. Let me see if I can better explain what I meant.

"Otherwise just not going to work," as I intended the phrase, is really a combination of the first two points on the outdated laws and procedural incorrectness. But, more closely, I suppose I should have stated that it would more properly refer to the incorrect application of existing law and procedure.

Cherry picking portions of statutes/regulations outside of context, incorporation of common law theories when the common law has been superceded by a properly passed statute, etc.

Again, I have no animus toward any of the posters on this board, and I will certainly attempt to be productive in my posts. I'll happily try to offer further detail if I can, and will gladly say that I don't when I don't.

I'm a lawyer, I don't know everything about the law, and I'm pretty sure that no one else does either. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not. Hopefully, you all can appreciate my input and take it into account when you're processing your options for progressing through some legal proceeding.

Cheers.
DD

The above statements are Accepted for Value with stipulation. STIPULATION: I will not accept any statement from a lawyer that is contrary to the teachings of God; I acknowledge no other master than King Jesus; and that my rights are a derivative privilege for serving only one Master. As long as the laws of man (secular law) are in accord with the Laws of God, then I will adhere to those secular laws, otherwise, there is no room for secular law. See signature lines.

Jerry Carlos

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

In all the time I have been a member here, about one year now, I have NEVER seen any point made by any lawyer/attorney, with or without merit. A lot of negativity but really no points made.

You've probably seen the points, but for whatever reason you chose to ignore them.

Look, good advice from the lawyers who post on Sui Juris consists of two things: first, getting people to abandon the crackpot theories that have no legal basis whatsoever, have a 99.99999% probability of losing in court (I'll concede a .00001% chance of winning just in case you draw a judge who is as crazy as the Minnesota JP), and will only end up harming anyone who relies on them. The second consists of explaining what one should do instead, which usually involves telling someone to see an attorney or trying to explain what the law really is and citing applicable statutes and caselaw in support.

One need only look at Wesley Snipes to discover the folly of relying on bogus tax denier arguments. Thankfully, I haven't seen anyone on Sui Juris peddling the Section 861 argument (upon which Snipes initially relied), so maybe even the SJ people have seen through it and realize how worthless it is. But rest assured, there are other theories being espoused here that are just as legally nonsensical, and the courts are becoming more and more likely to sanction someone with a fine for raising such frivolous arguments.

I don't know how many times I've seen Lawdog explain that when you're served with a lawsuit, you should see an attorney to help you or you should at least file a proper answer so that a default judgment isn't rendered against you. His advice seems to be routinely ignored by most of his audience, who (if they don't automatically reject anything offered by a lawyer) persist in their delusion that filing a "Refused for Cause" or some similar document will somehow serve as a magic spell to stop the creditor in his tracks, when in reality it will do nothing of the kind but only facilitate the creditor's getting a judgment.

I think Lawdog made this analogy before, but if Sui Juris were a website purporting to give medical advice and someone were to post a question asking how to deal with severe symptoms, he would most likely receive advice from the non-doctors along the lines of "plant a photograph of your worst enemy under an oak tree by the light of a full moon, piss on it, and the next day you'll be cured." Any medically trained person posting the advice to go see a doctor would be greeted with accusations of being a shill for the corrupt medical profession.

In the tax area, where I post most often, I don't think I've ever seen a post from someone with a real-life tax problem. That's not to say there haven't been such posts in the past, but I haven't visited here that long. What I see instead are arguments that have been rejected time after time after time by the courts and that are legally unsound and baseless, much like the hypothetical medical advice referred to above.

I get the distinct impression that the non-lawyer posters consist chiefly of (a) people who've been burned in the past in a legal proceeding (a bad divorce, a collection action) and who as a result don't trust lawyers, even though the reason they lost might've been the plain fact that they had a terrible case to begin with, (b) those disgruntled with government in general who think all the courts are corrupt and use that as a rationalization to dismiss all of the caselaw that demonstrates their position is legally baseless, (c) anarchists, for whom no amount of arguing what the law IS will have any effect, (e) the unfortunate ones with real legal problems who in desperation for a quick and free fix come to Sui Juris for advice, only to be told by the legally untrained about solutions that won't work in the real world, and (f) a few with real mental problems who are deluded to the point of living in a fantasyland that bears no resemblance to reality. Those in (c) and (f) are beyond hope, but there's still a chance for the others.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

You've probably seen the points, but for whatever reason you chose to ignore them.

Look, good advice from the lawyers who post on Sui Juris consists of two things: first, getting people to abandon the crackpot theories that have no legal basis whatsoever, have a 99.99999% probability of losing in court (I'll concede a .00001% chance of winning just in case you draw a judge who is as crazy as the Minnesota JP), and will only end up harming anyone who relies on them. The second consists of explaining what one should do instead, which usually involves telling someone to see an attorney or trying to explain what the law really is and citing applicable statutes and caselaw in support.

One need only look at Wesley Snipes to discover the folly of relying on bogus tax denier arguments. Thankfully, I haven't seen anyone on Sui Juris peddling the Section 861 argument (upon which Snipes initially relied), so maybe even the SJ people have seen through it and realize how worthless it is. But rest assured, there are other theories being espoused here that are just as legally nonsensical, and the courts are becoming more and more likely to sanction someone with a fine for raising such frivolous arguments.

I don't know how many times I've seen Lawdog explain that when you're served with a lawsuit, you should see an attorney to help you or you should at least file a proper answer so that a default judgment isn't rendered against you. His advice seems to be routinely ignored by most of his audience, who (if they don't automatically reject anything offered by a lawyer) persist in their delusion that filing a "Refused for Cause" or some similar document will somehow serve as a magic spell to stop the creditor in his tracks, when in reality it will do nothing of the kind but only facilitate the creditor's getting a judgment.

I think Lawdog made this analogy before, but if Sui Juris were a website purporting to give medical advice and someone were to post a question asking how to deal with severe symptoms, he would most likely receive advice from the non-doctors along the lines of "plant a photograph of your worst enemy under an oak tree by the light of a full moon, piss on it, and the next day you'll be cured." Any medically trained person posting the advice to go see a doctor would be greeted with accusations of being a shill for the corrupt medical profession.

In the tax area, where I post most often, I don't think I've ever seen a post from someone with a real-life tax problem. That's not to say there haven't been such posts in the past, but I haven't visited here that long. What I see instead are arguments that have been rejected time after time after time by the courts and that are legally unsound and baseless, much like the hypothetical medical advice referred to above.

I get the distinct impression that the non-lawyer posters consist chiefly of (a) people who've been burned in the past in a legal proceeding (a bad divorce, a collection action) and who as a result don't trust lawyers, even though the reason they lost might've been the plain fact that they had a terrible case to begin with, (b) those disgruntled with government in general who think all the courts are corrupt and use that as a rationalization to dismiss all of the caselaw that demonstrates their position is legally baseless, (c) anarchists, for whom no amount of arguing what the law IS will have any effect, (e) the unfortunate ones with real legal problems who in desperation for a quick and free fix come to Sui Juris for advice, only to be told by the legally untrained about solutions that won't work in the real world, and (f) a few with real mental problems who are deluded to the point of living in a fantasyland that bears no resemblance to reality. Those in (c) and (f) are beyond hope, but there's still a chance for the others.

See postings above yours and reflect upon the sensible advice offered by one of the Attorneys visiting this site.

Edited Information: If you were to switch the priority of the examples in bold text, you would probably find that by first providing the data as spoken of in #2, you could ultimately do away with the specifics of the current #1. Though in the current #2, you suggest the use of 'case law' as if the 'case law' were somehow more important that the actual written law; with that in mind, I would have to question your sincerity in regard to desiring to accomplish #1.