Attorney Scott (Lawdog) ?

[Livefire]

Everyone,

This thread is rather silly, Lawdog has the same right as any other poster here to reveal as much or as little about himself as anyone else here. The only way he would be mandated to provide his name, employer name, bar number and areas of expertise is if you wished to retain his services. He has made it quite clear by his postings that he isnt trolling for clients. If anyone should have proof otherwise, report it to admin so they can deal with him. If anyone wants "legal advice" from an online forum they can go to lawyers.com, which is run by LEXIS.

My challenge to the likes of Shoonra and Lawdog is this...If you want to really help people, teach 'em how to fish like the attorney who runs jurisdictionary.com. I think that would help pro per litigants all over. You two might not agree with the theories esposed, but if they are presented with a certain amount of professionalism as learned from members of the bar, it would certainly help their case. Larry Becraft has said repeatedly that ill prepared pro se litgants have gone a long way to creating bad precedental case law for perfectly legitimate issues (money theories, taxation, and other such issues near and dear to the patroit community)

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Larry Becraft has said repeatedly that ill prepared pro se litgants have gone a long way to creating bad precedental case law for perfectly legitimate issues (money theories, taxation, and other such issues near and dear to the patroit community)

Mr. Becraft has made his own contributions by making frivolous arguments and being sanctioned for doing so. See In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989), where he was fined $2,500 for repeatedly making the absurd claim that federal tax laws don't apply to resident U.S. citizens, an argument that he had urged previously in two other appeals and which had been rejected as frivolous.

[Shoonra]

Larry Becraft has this unfortunate alibi that his arguments fail because someone else, somewhere else, had the same idea earlier but had not phrased it as elegantly as Becraft could. In some cases he cannot even point to that earlier case. In most instances, he might be about to point to it, but it was some distant, perhaps unpublished, decision that Becraft's judge might never have known about. Of course, one of the primary skills a lawyer must develop is being able to persuade a court that this instant case is not governed by an earlier decision in another case that has superficial similarities.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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.

You guys are basically propagandists and apologists for a decadent and dying status quo, and most of what you do here involves the fabrication of ludicrous strawdogs as illustrated above.

You ARE a shill for an extremely corrupt "legal" profession, and there ARE many "professional" shills for a likewise thoroughly corrupt "medical" profession.

All you are here for is to protect your own parasitic little racket from the effects of any light many people here are shining into your very dark little corner of the of the universe.

People here turn over the rock and lo and behold you crawl out from under it.

[masterduke]

Taking the 'cherry picked' legal avenue for opposing counsel to 'prove' their cause in the court, most of the time hinges on some phrase, word, case cite, etc. That is all it takes to tag the opposing party(defendant). Like the 'Assignment' of debt letter that debt attorneys hang their whole case on. Some super slim case cite from over a 100 years ago(in most states) is all thats needed to 'magicially' allow them to steal money from people they never ever have or had a so-called 'contract' with? This is, of course, accepted as "capitalism", according to at least one blow hard in a black robe, while using his asute observational methods anyways. And further quoting the self same greasy pile of lasagna, also, "Welcome to America" belched forth from his large garlic stenched spagetti hole. The law as it is structed in this country is a travesty and if the if the ancient court room barristers from which our system of law was taken could see how its been transformed into the grotesque circus of freaks that it is today, they would be sadden and shocked(I hope). But gee, If you know how to argue the points of law(or your attorney) you can defeat them. If you don't, then welcome to black sheeted garlicsville. What a bunch of crap period..........