Your Thoughts, Please (Seriously)...

by AGuest 88 Replies latest jw friends

OUTLAW

Good Morning Shelby..
I would take a much tougher approach to someone who was threatening me..
That being said..You have an Email..
......................;-)...OUTLAW
AGuest

Saw it and responded, dear one!
Peace to you!
SA, on her own...
Band on the Run

If there is a flourishing separate section where people exchange misinformatin regarding law and outright advice, it is time for me to leave. I see only a single person with legal training (?) giving advice. Other people leave general legal info that I feel is instructive. Offering garbage for free is no holy act.
When it comes to A Guest, I allow myself to be pulled into the abyss. Frankly, I would love to blame her but it is my fault. This is my last reply. Whatever she adds, b/c she must have the last word, I am praying to ignore her. It is an ugly sight. Rational debate has its limits. Facts have limits. From my first tenous post here, she was correcting me with her unique rendition of the Holy Spirit. I apologize for digging in deeper.
Hearing static does not mean that she won. It means someone sees that discourse has no impact. Hey, bring all your Argentian/Iceland conflict questions to her.
james_woods

Well, I am glad that this one is over (if indeed it is over).
BTW, and just for what it is worth - we opine on legal opinions all the time on the Ferrari board where many but of course not all are real practicing attorneys. The non-attorneys have just as much to say as the attorneys - good example is the recent big Ferrari wreck in Japan.
Nobody takes it as formal legal advice (as in a legal attorney-client relationship) and I don't recall anybody getting told not to use their free speech rights to express an opinion.
Justitia Themis

I thought I once read that Legal Advice was just a friendly opinion unless the person giving the advice was both a practicing attorney in the venue at question, and also (importantly) unless that attorney had received compensation and had agreed to represent the person given the advice.
Not necessarily. In my Tranmission of Wealth (wills/trusts) class that I just finished, we reviewed the sad case of a non-lawyer who was determined to have committed the unauthorized practice of law.
An elderly woman was rushed to the hospital, and her long-time friend, fellow church-member, and part-time care-giver accompanied her. The old woman felt she was dying and asked her friend to help her write a will because she was too ill even to write. The friend downloaded some pre-printed will form off the internet and wrote the woman's directions on them, after which the old woman signed the documents. In her will, the old woman gave her friend a small amount of money (like a couple thousand bucks).
The court ruled that the friend committed the unauthorized practice of law by helping the woman. They upheld the will, but struck the provision that gave the woman a few thousand dollars. Most lawyers agree that this case was decided wrongly, and it is an outlier, but it does show that what may appear to be clear by statute may turn our quite differently when the statute is applied by the courts.
However, in that case, there was some sort of a relationship beyond an anonymous forum.
As far as practicing attorneys, we get screwed on this stuff all the time, so the post is drop-dead wrong when it comes to licensed attorneys. In professional responsibility, we reviewed the case of an attorney at a party. Some guy he didn't know found out he was an attorney, and though people hate us, they love to ask us for free advice, and this guy presented a hypothetical to the attorney. The attorney said he would need more facts to answer, but that such cases usually proceeded along a certain line. The guy took action based on that comment, it didn't turn out well, and he sued the attorney for malpractice. Of course, only clients can sue for malpractice. The court determined that even that informal conversation was enough to create an attorney-client relationship, that the attorney should have realized that, that is was reasonable to expect that the guy would act on the attorneys advice, the attorney was guilty of malpractice and was liable for damages as a result of the outcome. This is happening more often, so state bars are recommending that attorneys send out you-are-not-my-client letters to people who merely call to make an appointment. As you might imagine, practicing attorneys are a bit gun shy about the subject.
...two examples of no good deed goes unpunished.
james_woods

The above would be the fraudulent act of attempting to practice law without actually being a lawyer...outside the law, of course - and not real legal advice. Probably the court upheld the will itself because it believed it really was the last will and testament of the old lady without benefit of attorney.
But the point here is - nobody has done that on JWN (or Fchat) when merely making a post on their opinion on some legal question.
Justitia Themis

The above would be the fraudulent act of attempting to practice law without actually being a lawyer...outside the law, of course - and not real legal advice

Wrong again. Practicing law is a verbal phrase indicating action, namely, trying to interpret what the courts might do and rendering an opinion. I clearly identified myself as a student and merely wrote a report of what the court already did. ; )
It is, of course, "not real legal advice" because there is no advice at all my post, legal or otherwise. ...double wink.
As far as what qualifies as legal advice on this DB, I'll defer to your erudite legal opinion as stated above. ...triple wink.
james_woods

No - no - no, Justicia. I did not mean YOU were the fraudulent party.
I meant that the person (non-lawyer) who charged the old lady 2,000 to make a will for her was the fraudulent party: And that was because she was pretending to act as a lawyer. And got money for it.
AGuest

If there is a flourishing separate section where people exchange misinformatin regarding law and outright advice, it is time for me to leave.
Yet another "empty" threat. It's not going to happen, BOTR (peace to you!)... but your leaving certainly wouldn't be what would stop it. Simon's common sense is what would stop it.
I see only a single person with legal training (?) giving advice. Other people leave general legal info that I feel is instructive.
See, this is what bothers me, dear BOTR (peace!): that my legal training is your problem. Or what you wish to make your problem... along with my other "training" (I'll get to that, in a sec). On several occasions, indeed many, even here (see the opening to your post #3371) you have confused me with others. Sometimes you don't even know it's me you're addressing (see your initial post on this thread). On some occasions your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what... or WHO... you seem to be responding TO... and why. (See, http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/1/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice, and this time bother to READ what's posted there... and from whom...).
What also bothers me is that, on some occasions, YOU don't even know the law (i.e., regarding assisting with UD matters (California Business & Professions Code) or UPL law (Texas Government and Penal Codes). I posted BOTH... FOR you. When I posted the latter you started using the typical legal "smoke and mirrors" types of replies ("the statutes alone aren't sufficient)... even though YOU were the one who, if you COULD have, would have posted the latter FIRST.
Offering garbage for free
Your position is that it's garbage. Seriously, would my contribution not be "garbage" if I gave it as a licensed attorney... even it if was the exact same thing? How can that be? I mean, the laws/statutes/regulations/procedures/policies don't change simply because someone passes the Bar, chile... or do they?
is no holy act.
And therein lies the problem. YOUR problem... with me. Which is quite transparent. You wanna charge a hefty fee to help others? Do that. But don't try to use your "license" to stop ME from doing so... or slander because I try to do so... without charge. If I WANTED to charge a hefty fee... I would put everything in my life on hold to pursue a license. It's just not that important to me, particularly because I know that I CAN'T help [most] others afterward... without charging a fee. Sure, I could do "pro bono" work... but someone's got to pay for that, too.
This was NOT about any spiritual matter, other than trying to help. You, though, in your attempt to strain out gnats... should look more closely at that humongous camel YOU'RE gulping down.
When it comes to A Guest, I allow myself to be pulled into the abyss.
No, dear one, you actually created the abyss. I just chose to not let you get away with it simply because you get to wave an "I'm an attorney" banner. Your being an attorney doesn't insulate you from being sued for slander/libel. Dear CF (peace to you!) knew that... and told you as much. Whereafter, you got quiet. I didn't come at your from that position (although perhaps I should have) and so you apparently believe I am "fair game," that you can threaten my professional potential... without any comment from me. You were wrong. Now, you didn't HAVE to open this thread... OR comment. But you chose to, and so...
Frankly, I would love to blame her but it is my fault.
It is. Because, again, this wasn't a matter of your professional opinion, at all, regardless of what you want folks to think. It is your PERSONAL opinion... which you're trying to pass OFF as a professional opinion in front of dear ones who may not know any better. Not because you resent or have a problem with my TRAINING... or lack thereof... or my lack of licensing... but because you have a problem with ME. You can always "see" where I respond (perhaps in disagreement) to YOU... but somehow you NEVER seem to "see" where you attack ME. Although others have pointed it out on more than one occasion.
This is my last reply. Whatever she adds, b/c she must have the last word, I am praying to ignore her.
Yeah, sure... right. We're not THAT different, you and I, BOTR. But let's both hope your prayers are heard. I doubt it...
It is an ugly sight.
Well, that's what happens sometimes when one looks in a mirror... that one supposes is a window. Again, you and I are not THAT different...
Rational debate has its limits. Facts have limits.
Indeed.
From my first tenous post here, she was correcting me with her unique rendition of the Holy Spirit.
First, this is one difference between you and I: I don't lie to get folks to sympathize with me. I never even read your first post... until today. I certainly didn't comment on it... or many after. What you don't LIKE... is that my first disagreement with you was pursuant to something I had received by means of holy spirit. And THAT is the gist of your problem with me. Not my training, lack of license, or anything else.
I apologize for digging in deeper.
Yes, 'cause it gets stinkier when you do because for SOME reason you have to lie, threaten, and make excuses. All of which stinks.
Hearing static does not mean that she won.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, BOTR. That's your realm. You know, that whole adversarial thing. I think people here "win"... when they can give... and take others'... opinions/POVs, etc. in stride... and not personally (unless they are meant to BE personal, and sometimes even then...)... and when they stick to the truth (vs. trying to malign someone and win others over... by lying on them).
It means someone sees that discourse has no impact. Hey, bring all your Argentian/Iceland conflict questions to her.
It shouldn't have an impact if it's based on lies/falsehoods. Even YOU know that. And please... please... don't try to sell the dear folks here that attorneys don't lie. Many, indeed most, attorneys make a living on lies. And you that, too. As for such conflict questions, no, folks should actually take those to you. 'Cause I neither know... nor care... about what goes on in the Falklands.
Seriously, BOTR... you need to consider taking your professional self a bit less seriously on this board.
My wish for peace remains.
SA, on her own...
AGuest

Well, I am glad that this one is over (if indeed it is over).
Perhaps not just yet, dear JW (peace to you!). But it is something I wish to flesh out, so if you can bear with me, great - hang around. If not, well, sorry about that...
BTW, and just for what it is worth - we opine on legal opinions all the time on the Ferrari board where many but of course not all are real practicing attorneys. The non-attorneys have just as much to say as the attorneys - good example is the recent big Ferrari wreck in Japan. Nobody takes it as formal legal advice (as in a legal attorney-client relationship) and I don't recall anybody getting told not to use their free speech rights to express an opinion.
Perhaps there's a tad bit (at least one poster worth) more common sense going on over there than here?
The court ruled that the friend committed the unauthorized practice of law by helping the woman. They upheld the will, but struck the provision that gave the woman a few thousand dollars. Most lawyers agree that this case was decided wrongly, and it is an outlier, but it does show that what may appear to be clear by statute may turn our quite differently when the statute is applied by the courts.
It does, dear JT (peace to you!); however, I can see why the court decided as it did: usually, those who help prepare wills/trusts can't benefit from them. I realize that it seems a small amount but apparently the court took the law to mean ANY benefit. Which interpretation can have merit. Case could've gone either way.
However, in that case, there was some sort of a relationship beyond an anonymous forum.
Yep... and which may violate wills/trusts law because of the benefit TO the one so helping. Could be construed as "compensation," yes?
The court determined that even that informal conversation was enough to create an attorney-client relationship, that the attorney should have realized that, that it was reasonable to expect that the guy would act on the attorneys advice, the attorney was guilty of malpractice and was liable for damages as a result of the outcome. This is happening more often, so state bars are recommending that attorneys send out you-are-not-my-client letters to people who merely call to make an appointment. As you might imagine, practicing attorneys are a bit gun shy about the subject. (Emphases mine.)
YES!!! I am SO glad you pointed this out! THANK you! I get that practicing attorneys may be gun shy regarding giving out advice, in light of this. However, I find it quite ironic that someone is chastising ME... someone who neither holds herself out as an attorney or requests ANY kind of compensation, heck, doesn't even know who she's exchanging comments WITH, per se, but completely ignores this BASIC legal tenet. I can only chalk it up to when we each attended school (me, a few years ago; another, some time ago).
Practicing law is a verbal phrase indicating action, namely, trying to interpret what the courts might do and rendering an opinion.
YES, again!! And nowhere have I done that. It is illegal to run a red light. Telling someone that it is illegal to run a red light is NOT rendering an opinion... or practicing law. Thank you... truly... for that!
Okay, I think I'm done here. Got it all out. And, yeah, again... I was irritated. Someone has accused me of a crime (albeit, a misdemeanor) that could affect my future. They also threatened to go to others with their allegations. They are now trying to back-peddle by "not naming names", but should KNOW (if they are an attorney), that more than enough has already been "said."
So, I know appeal to that person, BOTR... to stop it. Cut it out. Please. Or I will have to seriously start considering MY next steps.
Again, peace (truly) to you all... and thank you, all of you, including BOTR... who commented. The matter greatly bothered me, as you can see... and I needed to deal with it in MY way. I think I've done that, now.
SA, on her own...

Your Thoughts, Please (Seriously)...

Share this