JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB? (page 3)

seesthesky

HILLARY STEP WROTE:

"You cannot seem to understand your own posts. Jeannie has made a similarly sweeping statement as yourself but from an opposite vantage and yet you take exception to hers. I am questioning your sweeping statement as you questioned hers.

From the experiences in this thread so far, it would seem that your expressed viewpoint is challenged by the collective experiences of others. I am not going to fall into a game of semantics with you as you know very well what my point is."

Jeannie's statement is indeed sweeping - mine, however, is limited not to "most lawyers" but to "most lawyer's I know." The semantic game which you will avoid is known as logic and, i daresay, truth. Avoid it at your peril.

hillary_step

seethesky,

Jeannie's statement is indeed sweeping - mine, however, is limited not to "most lawyers" but to "most lawyer's I know." The semantic game which you will avoid is known as logic and, i daresay, truth. Avoid it at your peril.

You really are rather stupid aren't you! Look at your words again. You do not limit your statements to most 'lawyers that I know'. That is why I suggested that you do not seem to understand your own posts.

Why would ( most ) lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? ( Most ) Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for ( most ) lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty.

Can you spot all the instances where you did *not* use the words' most lawyers', but first presented your views as a universal notion. There are *three*, yet you now base your own viewpoint on the one time that you used the word 'most'. Does this invalidate all you said beforehand? I have placed your omissions in paranthesis.

If this is a game of sematics then you should acknowledge that it is one that you have lost hands down and to now attempt to portray yourself as a logical thinker is an even more puzzling conecpt than your statement above.

You are going to have to do much better than that!

HS

PS - The Board has a quote function. Look at the function box above the reply window and you will see a little white balloon next to the smilie face. Cover the portion you wish to quote with your curser and then press this button, it will highlight the quote for you.

seesthesky

HILLARY: "You really are rather stupid aren't you!"

Name calling, hmm...

HILLARY: "Can you spot all the instances where you did *not* use the words' most lawyers', but first presented your views as a universal notion. There are *three*, yet you now base your own viewpoint on the one time that you used the word 'most'. Does this invalidate all you said beforehand? I have placed your omissions in paranthesis."

I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.

In the first instance, I asked a rhetorical question the (implied) answer to which I predicated on a FACT - not an opinion or "universal notion" - in the subsequent sentence. That fact is that usually (note, I used "usually in the original sentence), a lawyer cannot testify in a case where she is an advocate.

In the second instance, the sentence which you incorrectly construed as a "universal notion," I presented yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty. Some jurisdictions will even go as far to disbar for dishonesty in personal matters if, somehow,the dishonesty in personal matters becomes public knowledge, e.g., via a news report or a divorce proceeding. My statement about ethical obligations thus constitutes not conjecture but fact. [As an aside: a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers.]

Hillary, please read more carefully in the future - at least take more time to opine on another's words before you draw conclusions about them and engage in ad hominem attacks. Indeed, hopefully, on review of my words, you will understand that the only opinion I offered was with regard to the lawyers I know. That understanding might even prompt you to apologize for your name calling.

Big Tex

I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.

Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty.

My wife has worked for various lawyers for over 30 years. I have worked for them for only 10. Why would lawyers lie in court? Well the ones we've known wouldn't view it as lying. I had an attorney once tell me that all law is grey and depends on interpretation. From that mindset, there is no lying, only interpretation.

Complete honesty? Well I can tell you some stories about billable hours sometime.

The lawyers Nina and I have come across (some charging $600 an hour) do not view the law in black and white terms. Everything in the law is grey and any position can be argued. Honesty comes from arguing the case from whatever viewpoint their client wants. (A subtle but important difference.) As long as they stay true to the argument, their conscience is clear.

lawrence

I wonder if the lawyers at Bethel get more booze to help them to lie easier, and morphine to help them sleep at night. Just wondering what their perks might be, and then the new CPAs they are recruiting, does that mean they'll get a cut of the more they can hide/invest?

seesthesky

BIG TEX:

"My wife has worked for various lawyers for over 30 years. I have worked for them for only 10. Why would lawyers lie in court? Well the ones we've known wouldn't view it as lying. I had an attorney once tell me that all law is grey and depends on interpretation. From that mindset, there is no lying, only interpretation.

"Complete honesty? Well I can tell you some stories about billable hours sometime.

"The lawyers Nina and I have come across (some charging $600 an hour) do not view the law in black and white terms. Everything in the law is grey and any position can be argued. Honesty comes from arguing the case from whatever viewpoint their client wants. (A subtle but important difference.) As long as they stay true to the argument, their conscience is clear."

BT, your words ring true. In court a lawyer can take practically any position as to how the law should apply in a particular case. In those circumstances, a lawyer is merely making interpretive truth claims - none of which can ever constitute an absolute lie or an absolute truth because they all constitute opinions.

Some people confuse that aspect of a lawyer's job with dishonesty. As far as billable hours go, I once helped get a lawyer disciplined for dishonesty in billing. He does not know me personally but I believe he hates me - lol.

hillary_step

seethesky,

Hillary, please read more carefully in the future - at least take more time to opine on another's words before you draw conclusions about them and engage in ad hominem attacks. Indeed, hopefully, on review of my words, you will understand that the only opinion I offered was with regard to the lawyers I know. That understanding might even prompt you to apologize for your name calling.

As I have proved the highlighted section of your post is not true. I will leave the readers to make some sense of your rebuttal. It should not take them too long and and a review of your post will only clarify the contradictions in your thinking. My own rebuttals are clearly presented, consistent and endowed with a logic that you might one day hope to emulate.

I apologize for calling you stupid. Despite the fact that you do not seem even seem to comprehend your own posts, it was uncalled for. That having been said, I do have to give you this weeks 'Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory' award.

Best regards - HS

hillary_step

Tex,

"My wife has worked for various lawyers for over 30 years. I have worked for them for only 10. Why would lawyers lie in court? Well the ones we've known wouldn't view it as lying. I had an attorney once tell me that all law is grey and depends on interpretation. From that mindset, there is no lying, only interpretation.

Exactly. Any lawyer who is unable to bend reality to suit his client will soon be out of business.

HS

seesthesky

Hillary - were/are you a JW Elder?

hillary_step

Seethesky,

Hillary - were/are you a JW Elder?

I am sure that this has something to do with the issue in question. Perhaps you might enlighten us with your own particular brand of logic as to what relevance this has. HS

JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB?

Share this