Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg? (page 4)

seesthesky

HS = the master of ad hominem - lol - we've did this and, well, if anyone bothers to look it up, i won

the ad hominem attack never settles the question, you get that, right, HS? it's the polite version of me beating the shit out of you because i dislike your opinion - of course i would never do that - lol

seesthesky

btt

slimboyfat

what does that stand for?

back to the topic?

OldSoul

seesthesky: he offered an opinion on a specific situation - that's the practice of law - it's like a lay person offering a medical opinion about a specific medical situation

Offering an opinion is not the practice of law. I defy you to demonstrate where HS advised SBF to follow a course of legal action, to alter a course of legal action, or to abstain from a course of legal action. That would be practice of law. If I hear symptoms that sound like pleurisy and I say to someone, "That sounds like pleurisy. You should get that checked." I did not pretend to be a doctor, nor did I practice medicine.

HS offered an opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment. I can say that without being a lawyer. It is my opinion. Would you like to test my opinion by charging me, officer? You are an officer, right?

State Bar of California Article 7

Clearly, HS did not hold himself out to be a lawyer and his opinion did not constitute legal opinion. You are behaving like a nitpicker.

seesthesky

yes - btt = back to the top -

i apologize for misdirecting the thread

seesthesky

old soul, here's a legal opinion by HS:

"If the WTS publicly misrepresented the work of any of the persons mentioned in your comment, as they would need to to discuss any matter associated with them theologically, named them in their work, and this impacted their private or business life in *any* way, they can and would be sued."

"they can . . . be sued" = a legal conclusion about a particular party in a particular set of circumstances -

i do not understand what you mean by calling me an "officer" - an officer of what?

seesthesky

old soul, also, offering an opinion can constitute the practice of law - professional opinions = professional practice

indeed, i ask my doctor what she thinks about my x, y and z and she says a, b and c - i pay for her opinion in such matters just as i would pay for the professionl opinion of my lawyer - and payment or the lack thereof neither creates nor negates professional practice (of law, medicine, engineering, etc.)

seesthesky

btt

OldSoul

i do not understand what you mean by calling me an "officer" - an officer of what?

Policing posters.

"they can . . . be sued" = a ~~legal~~ conclusion about a particular party in a particular set of circumstances

And quite an accurate one, at that. Given the set of circumstances described, there is ample available material in the public record to support that conclusion. Offering an opinion on a matter of law does not automatically constitute practice of law. Stating a conclusion from of a hypothetical set of circumstances offered certainly does not constitute practice of law.

What is required to sue someone? Must the lawsuit be heard to be a lawsuit? No. You can bring suit against someone on nearly any premise you care to. In the circumstances described by HS the great likelihood is the case would even be heard, but all that is required to sue someone is filing the proper papers. So, HS was entirely correct and you were entirely pedantic.

If you are really sorry for hijacking the thread, by all means prove it.

Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

Share this