Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats!

Istead of dragging in all your “we can’t help you because / you should get a lawyer”,** none of which **has to do with law/equity, findings, conclusions and evidence…why not just skip the thread? The ORIGINAL thread?

If the pit thread was the starting point, you’d be right. It wasn’t.

No, actually, it was, both in FACT AND “in effect”: Why do lawyers insist on telling me what I really mean? (like you just did, in case the underlining and bold and size and color didn’t make that clear.)

And there’s been so much MORE of that going on, it blows my mind.

I thought you guys dealt with facts, not speculation? I thought that was the whole point of the anal-retentive details regarding evidence? If we get to jsut make shit up and attribute it to people because we think we know better, why the hell is anyone bothering with law school, anyone can do THAT.

I find myself bitching about people misinterpreting me, Jodi, not because what I ACTUALLY SAY is so incredibly difficult to understand, it’s because people do what YOU JUST DID. My Pit thread was extremely specific! Please, go read it again, I’ll wait here.

My pit thread is a rant about lawyers I’d encountered recently telling me they couldn’t answer questions seeking knowledge because it was “advice”, it isn’t. I was very, very specific, and I was specific that it was the assertion that my questions are in fact advice, it was not the refusal to be helpful itself. It was WHY. It was telling me I asked for something I do not want. It was telling me that the character and nature of my questions are something they aren’t. It was telling me that they knew what I really meant, no matter what it looked like on the outside.

Maybe most people do have a hard time accurately conveying what they mean. Maybe most people, when they say: “Can you tell me if you’ve ver seen a case like this” really want it serve as a coy kind of code for “Help! Tell me what I should do! Save me!” But that isn’t true of me. I do not speak between the lines. I say what I mean. I mean what I say. Take it at face value. Insert nothing. Assume nothing. Fill in nothing. If the face value of my words do not make sense on their face, fine. Reject them since they are not understandable. (My claim is not that I am always excellent at accurately conveying my meaning, only that I never intend another meaning and that, generally speaking, what I said is what I meant and requires no interpretation of an unspoken agenda.)

DO NOT INTERPRET AND ASSUME and seriously, do not interpret and assume and then tell me you know better than I do what I really intended.

Because then, I might have to beat you senseless.

And I suck at that, being fundamentally a very peaceful person.

And the pile on that followed was a bunch of people trying to tell me that ALL requests for information ARE IN FACT requests for advice.

THEY ARE NOT.

People can and will misinterpret what lawyers tell them. They will misunderstand and misinterpret their relationships with lawyers. They will also lie and make stuff up. And they will sometimes try to make hay from that.

None of which transforms my requests and my intentions into something they are not, and you and a thousand other people telling me they do is like telling me the emperor is bundled up in wool when his dick his plainly hanging out.

A: People can fuck with lawyers when lawyers didn’t really do what people think they did.

B: The argument has been that because A is true, all requests for information or knowledge are, in fact, requests for advice.

C: The legal cites that have been offered thus far prove A, not B.

I accept A. I do not accept B. Stop telling me that A = B. It doesn’t. It never will. Be accurate, be precise, don’t try to tell me I’m a crazy impossible nutjob because I don’t accept a bullshit premise because a dozen lawyers are telling me to. Especially when they have not done a thing to prove B, only A.

I can see the emperor’s dick, goddamnit.

Yeah, well, sometimes you don’t have to say things right out loud, your actions speak for themselves.

More of the same assertions. The pit thread was about lawyers who said that to me and it was a bitch about that particular interaction, not a lumping of all lawyers into a big unethical group.

If you are referring to my later posts after being roasted over the coals by the lawyers around here, that doesn’t count either. Again, if you can go back and show me where I “laid the groundwork” (a phrase denoting the early phases of a project, the very beginning) for these legal discussions and requests for discussions by stating that as a group, lawyers are unethical, incompetent and unfair they are, I’d like to see it. Simply saying I did doesn’t qualify.
And, finally, for the record… I give people the same respect I ask in return: I do not assume people meant something other than what they said. I do not read between other people’s lines and presume to tell them that they really intended something else. I take people at their word. Often to my detriment, since by its very nature this means I trust people as rule before they have actually earned my trust and long after I should have realized they were not to be trusted.

But it’s the only way I know to be in the world, and it isn’t always a good thing, because often people do expect to have their secret underlying truth just “understood”, like the wife assuming the husband should just “know” that she really didn’t mean it when she said she didn’t want any fuss made for her birthday. Well, I’m that husband. You tell me you don’t want fuss, I ain’t gonna make any, because I think you mean it. It is too damn hard to try and figure people out and too easy to get it wrong, so I just go with what people actually say.

ESPECIALLY (and I want to open a debate thread about this, actually, I just don’t have time) because we are all different. We are raised differently, we have different family cultures, block cultures, city cultures, etc. What is wonderful, rude, expected in my house may be exacty opposite in yours. It’s so unfair to expect me to understand your code beyond the most obvious things (no stealing, lying, say thank you, etc.). If I don’t it says nothing about how I feel about you or whether I care. It says I don’t relate to your feelings. But if you tell me what they are, if you explain to me what your expectations and desires are, then I can either rise to meet them or not. But if your primary expectation and desire is that I somehow manage to figure out what all your other expectations and desires are, I will fail you, guaranteed.

And, again, that’s what I do. I just say exactly what i mean. If I secretly want a fuss made over my birthday, I either stop keeping it a secret and just come right out and ask people to make a fuss, or i am sad that I don’t get the fuss. But I NEVER resent or am hurt by the fact that no one really knew my secret desire. How could they if I never said it?

(It’s lovely when people DO figure us out accurately. But that doesn’t mean we should expect it or base our reactions on expecting it.)

Man, I’ve got shit to do. Later.

Some men say brevity is overrated. To them I say, “read Stoid’s posts.”

Whatever! She’s a FANTASTIC editor.

Yowza.

Hey, I was four threads down the hall and smelled something burning. I think somebody left some crazy unattended on the stove?

Here’s the best thing about these threads.

After work, I’m crossing the street on a green light with the little walk guy, when some suit driving a murder-mobile (i.e., black BMW) tries to run me over and kill me because, well, I’m walking… in the intersection? Anyway, I turn to the person next to me and say, “Asshole attorneys.” What I should have said, of course, was “Arrogant attorney asshats!”

And then I laughed thinking about it, because it was funny.

Don’t worry, I smothered it with a wet blanket.

I gave you the article so that you would read the article. I provided selected citations from that article as a convenience, because you did not seem to believe that the intentions of the parties to create an attorney-client relationship had little relevance to whether an attorney-client relationship existed, such as could bind the attorney.

But you didn’t read the article. You didn’t even have to read the entire article! It is helpfully indexed. You could have clicked right to section III E “Giving Legal Advice in Cyberspace.” You didn’t even do that! I can think of no valid reason why this would be so, considering its relevance to the subject of debate, except for a peculiarly intense, blinding desire not to be wrong.

I knew that I would regret trying to help you.

You owe me a new irony meter.

If a dozen lawyers are in agreement regarding the risks of giving you advice over the Internet, then the risks ARE real. Remember that lawyers are a self-policing (i.e. they face Bar discipline) bunch. This means that lawyers, in some sense, get to make their own reality.

By the way, what’s the URL of the site you own? I love porn.

Actually, no. There are quite a few cases out there regarding anonymous users on messageboards on topics like slander, copyright infringement, harrassment, among others. Sometimes it’s a suit against the anonymous person, filed with that user’s ID in the party line. Other times it’s a suit against the message board owners or the internet providers to disclose the name of the user. But rest assured, it does happen. And it’s been happening with more frequency the more things are conducted online.

Amen. Look at the AutoAdmit suit, for one.

Believe me. I know.

I can’t take much more time, I’ve really got shit to do, but:

There were a lot of rulings made, initially in an interlocutory judgment. More were made in what has been a designated a second interlocutory judgment following the second part of the trial (accounting bifurcated from the rest). There were rulings in between.

Except for one major issue, I could just lick my wounds and get on with life. Letting go would vastly simplify keeping the house, for instance (bankruptcy lies at the end of all this, no matter what happens. It’s just a question of timing, for a variety of reasons.)

But there is one major issue, and that’s money. Since I AM doing this myself and it’s not actively costing anything but my time, it’s worth it to fight for it. If it were only a matter of shedding the burdens of the judgment, bankruptcy would do that.

While I am appealing virtually every part of the rulings, with very good reason, the most important, key, central matter that I’m appealing is the one issue that have a truly excellent chance of winning. I won’t say guaranteed, nothing is, but since it is a matter of pure law, and the record is in no way ambiguous as to the errors, and the matter is not one of discretion, and the trial court’s opinion is not at issue (it’s a matter of statutory interpretation, the appeals court ignores the trail court’s interpretation and directly decides the meaning of the law and how it applies to the facts, and if the appeals court says it should have been X, but the court did Y, bam. Nothing about evidence, discretion, nada. In terms of the applicable standard of review, that’s far and away the strongest type of appeal to being with, and this happens to be a really clear, really straightforward point of law that has never, in a hundred years of California cases, been “interpreted” the way she did, and in fact, her “interpretation” has been specifically refuted in case law, as a collateral matter, not the primary point of contention in prior appeals.) I feel pretty good that I will win on that point. The court will find that the trial court made bad rulings and bad orders and denied me my statutory rights.

The big hanging question mark is what that will mean, in relation to everything else. On that, I know I might not get what I’m going for. But, since I cannot get a single appellate expert to sit down and say, yes, I have seen analagous cases, here they are, so I can go read them and understand for myself what the law has said in the past and is likely to say in the future, I am unwilling to give up just because other people think I should. Especially given how far I’ve gotten… it’s like bailing on a marathon with the finish line in sight.

As far as what I’m looking for from this being just and fair, the consensus among all the lawyers I’ve talked to (met with one yesterday, by the way, who was really great. Unfortunately not an appellate expert.) is that yes, it would be. Whether I will get it is something else.

Again, since it’s not costing anything, I think it’s worth it. I think too many good appeals, cases that absolutely should have been heard, have been abandoned because people simply couldn’t afford to fight or they couldn’t fight themselves, and I think that’s tragic. Another generally agreed-upon opinion among lawyers I know is that state court judges are often…not qhat one might hope, to put it gently. So, just as with the UD issue, I now know that lots of people have been unfairly, unlawfully, evicted from homes they owned using unlawful detainer statutes. Because they couldn’t fight it or they didn’t know how, or their attorneys didn’t want to. (And because the state court judges let the partition receivers get away with it, Because they could.) Unlike most people, so far, I don’t HAVE to give up, so I’m not going to. (My ex’s attorney’s strategy was based entirely on the expectation that I would exhaust my ability to get legal assistance and give up. My ex should have known better, but he listened to his lawyer. My lawyer’s strategy was based on a similar belief, that his lawyer would recommend that they cave before the cost and fight of the trial. I knew my ex better, but I made the mistake of listening to my lawyer. If we’d both acted from what we knew about each other, we probably woudn’t be here, we’d have hammered something out. But the lawyers each thought being tough and posturing was going to be the more effective strategy to break down the other guy. Of course, in my own case, I really didn’t have any choice. He turned down the best offer I could make. )

(Having been so surrounded by so many lawyers for so long I’ve come to understand that, contrary to my fantasy, lawyers are not crusading for truth and justice and just incidentally pleased to get paid for it. Their decisions and thought processes are motivated by a mindset of time = money, it’s a business. Efficiency. Max money, least time. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, only that it affects their point of view about whether something is worthwhile in a way that doesn’t really bear on my reasons for doing what I’m doing.)

bleh…

Libel. Not slander.

I can’t believe I screwed that one up.

But aren’t your time and sanity worth something?

Double points for Vinyl Turnip for being subtle while using the term salad tossing.

Lando: We’re almost in range of the Death Stoid, launch fighters!
Stoid Palpatine: Now you will see the folly of your ways, young Jedi. . .
Admiral Ackbar:** It’s a trap!**

Oh you know it baby

Main Entry: help
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: assistance, relief
Synonyms: advice, aid, assist, avail, . . . (Bolding mine)

Pardon me:
STOID: READ THIS PART

Done. He said that the statement “I don’t want you to pay the bills for X” would be a verbal act that is being offered as something he did, i.e. “I shot the sherrif, but I told Bob not to shoot the deputy.” (So much for the gravitas of academia.) The angry bit is just testimony that he was angry and is perfectly admissible.

Where you are getting confused is that the statement was not offered to prove that he said “Don’t pay the bills”, but to prove that he instructed you not to pay the bills. A subtle yet highly important distinction.

I wasn’t attempting to equate the two, although I can see how my post reads that way. I’m just pointing out that our legal system is unfair in a number of different ways.

I’ve also made it clear in this thread that I support better systems of support of poor people to deal with the legal system, and I’d be willing to pay more in taxes to do so.

If these positions earn your contempt, so be it.

You’ve got to be careful with that.

People have a natural tendency to view their personal disputes and struggles as “crusading for truth and justice”.

Sweet mother of Hannibal Lecter. THIS is what we’ve been blathering about for weeks now? THIS is the hanging chad of your ongoing legal saga?

I’m not a lawyer, but I can tell you right now … there is no court case in existence that is going to help you figure out what will happen, even assuming the ruling is in your favor. Each case is unique unto itself. This isn’t a situation where Judge Harry Stone is going to say “$50 and time served” and bang his gavel like on TV, just like he’s done with every other case of your type that’s come before.

The court may find that you are 100 percent correct, but will not give you anything you’re asking for. They may find that you’re partly correct, and give you everything you’re asking for. They may find that despite your ironclad assurance, you’re not correct, and you get nothing. It’s entirely at the court’s discretion.

I can’t speak for the lawyers on here, but I don’t think anyone has told you “give up”. They’ve encouraged you to get adequate representation (I know, I know, you can’t afford it). They’ve told you your understanding of the law – and how it is practiced – is tenuous at best. Maybe they’ve understood your case better than I, but at no point did I glean the fact that you have a single primary point you’re appealing on, and want to know the anticipated results if you’re successful. Law in this case doesn’t work like an equation.

Stoid: What precisely will happen if you throw in the towel right now, in terms of money, time, emotional satisfaction, legal obligations, and opportunity cost? Clearly, there will be some definite consequences (as, say, no longer having to spend time and money prosecuting an appeal). Other consequences will be more probabilistic: X% chance of aggressive enforcement of judgment and (100-X)% chance of lax enforcement.

I think what you should do now before proceeding any further is to take an evening to reflect on these outcomes and do a serious cost-benefit analysis, looking at all categories of costs and benefits (monetary, time and effort, emotional well-being, opportunity cost) and determine whether you are likely to be better off following the course you’ve proposed. You also need to do serious thinking about two things. First, every party to litigation assumes their chances of winning are better than they actually are. This is just natural. You need to think about this: imagine the Oracle of Delphi told you that your chances were a third of what you take them to be, would you still proceed as you are? Second, try to remember the wisdom of the Duc de la Rochefoucauld: “We are never as happy or as unhappy as we suppose.” You may think, however indistinctly, that you will get some emotional thrill by winning (or alternatively, that you will suffer some emotional devastation by quitting). I encourage you to exercise extreme skepticism toward this kind of psychological jackpot-thinking.

It is easy to forget that there is an actual person on the other side of these posts, and it seems fortune has dealt you a pretty grim hand. It saddens me to see what once was a happy relationship metamorphose into a war of attrition that will leave you both only older, embittered, and possibly destitute. I truly hope you realize that letting go can sometimes be the most effective legal strategy of all.