Mind Blown,
One does not need to be lawyer to see how you misperceive and, therefore, mischaracterize. I will not lower my intelligence to your level. Legal facts are facts, not opinions. 144,001 and I both posted accurate legal information. It is not for you to judge the content of our posts since you know no law. Justitia never corrected me on Conti content. Her point was bizarre. Frankly, I was much more interested in seeing her take on Conti than your take on Conti. You have no background from which to access it. Justitia just completed law school, I believe. So she is in the ball park. Fo reasons know to Justitia alone, you never commented for a very long time. When she did, she wrote that she agreed with me on almost every detail. She never offered insight into where she did not agree with me. Her main insight was that I incorrect about a tiny detail on why the CA bar exam was difficult. An issue not remotely appicable to Conti.
Frankly, I don't give a damn about the CA bar exam. The threads are archived. Anyone is free to read them. Reading comrehension is a good skill to use when reading the content. You have a biased slant that you report as hard core truth. Well, you are incorrect on the facts. The text of the threads prove you wrong. Such bias is more understanable when people debate politics in a time when we are very threatened. I fail see why you are so biased against me, in particular. I had no animus towards you.
This country is going to ruin because of people who are proud of their ignorance. No one expects Cedars (who is a gentleman, unlike you) and you to go out and attend law school to coment on Conti. What I expect from you is not to dispute legal facts and analsys unless you have special training or expertise.
Life is not simple. If casual reading were sufficien to understand legal principles, a college and law school requirement would not exist. These were not requirements in Abe Lincoln's time. They are requirements now. Besides the education, we are tested by state bar examiners. If we pass, we must present evidence of our character. Once admitted, there are many ethical requirements which we must meet and also attend mandatory courses so our knowledge is fresh. I love law precisely b/c it is challenging and despite all the technical attention to minutae, creativity is also needed.
I am certain you have knowledge and skills that I lack. New York state has qualified me to be an expert on law. There is no way I can know all law at all times. I do know the basics, however. You evidently do not. I would never dream of telling you that you are an idiot concerning your area of expertise. Rather, I would defer to you. I may editorial opinions but I would never ridicule you concerning your area of expertise.
Why does all this matter so much to you? Your animus is outsized. Something besides the specifics of Conti's case is affecting your judgment.
Simons is a good lawyer. He is not the only lawyers in this vast country. You remind me of "our country. Love it or leave it." I have posted more gently than 144,001 but I wish I could say this it and get over yourselves. What he corrected were objective facts, not opinion. Once the correct facts are mustered, debate is appropriate. Black and white answers do exist in this world.
I fail to see the rude response to lawyers perfectly willing to explain the technical jargon and moves. Most people pay for these skills. The law itsel fis not debatable.
I am proud of my education and my contributions to this forum. Just go ahead and vomit because I have reality on my side. How dare you suggest that I am against Conti winning? The lack of common sense appalls me.
In rare instances, people should just be dismissed. No, I will not be submissive b/c you don't happen to agree with me. 144,001 and other lawyers agree with me. Rick Simons would agree with me. Who are you in the grand scheme?
