Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats!

The BBQ Pit
301

[QUOTE=Stoid, at post # 281 of this Pit thread]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Except, Stoid, in your own first Pit thread, what you actually said was that you weren’t planning on asking just one question of the lawyers you spoke to. You said:

[QUOTE=Stoid, at post # 159 of the original Pit thread]
Nope again. I do not talk about my case. I don’t want to talk about my case, and most of the lawyers only want to talk about my case, that’s exactly the issue, because they want to know how what I’m asking relates to my case before they answer. They ask and ask and drive me nuts. “Well, tell me about your case” NO. I don’t want to talk about MY case, please! Stop asking! You cannot possibly address my case in a 5 or 10 or 30 minute conversation, there are too many variables. I just wanna know about this little tiny bit of law itself. How it relates to my case is an hour long conversation neither one of us wants to have not least because we won’t arrive at an answer and both of us will have wasted our time. So please stop making my case the issue.

(And of course I will ask a follow up question and another and another and the lawyer is entirely free to stop answering me any time with a simple: can’t spend this time anymore, see ya.)
[/QUOTE]

Which is why I commented that you were not just asking for one bit of information, but were seeking legal advice:

[QUOTE=Northern Piper, at post # 196 of the first Pit thread]
Sixth, the conversation won’t really end with “Have you ever heard of Y?” If I say “yes” and nothing more, you’ll just think I’m arrogant. You’ll want to know where I’ve heard about it. Implicitly, you’ll also be asking me why I think that the case or statute relates to your situation. And that is the beginning of legal advice, because I’ve already filtered your request, compared it to my knowledge of the law in that area, and started to point you towards certain cases or statutes. In other words, I’ve made a professional assessment that certain cases or statutes are relevant to your case.
[/QUOTE]

I based that conclusion on your own words, in your own thread: that the conversation wouldn’t end with just one question; you would keep asking follow-up questions of the lawyer. And the more detailed those questions, the clearer it would be that you were asking for legal advice - again, based on your own statement of how you envisaged the conversation going. And in that context, the first question and answer would be the beginning of seeking and getting legal advice.

302

OTOH, the upshot of all this may be that she ends up in law school, becomes a succesful lawyer, and then gives all and sundry legal information on message boards. So it could all work out in the end. You never know … :slight_smile:

303

[QUOTE=Stoid at post # 264 of this Pit thread]
And the very first question that started all this was even less likely to be seen as “advice” in my opinion, it was an invitation to discuss the meaning and theories of the legal concepts of evidence, findings, and conclusions, and how they interact, and the meaning and theories and lines between law and equity. Hardly “advice”.
[/QUOTE]

Stoid, I’m afraid you’re missing a key part of the discussion. Yes, it’s entirely possible to have an academic discussions of “the meaning and theories and lines between law and equity.” There have been innumerable threads on the Dope over the years where law-dopers have quite willingly participated in academic discussions of the law.

What changes the equation is when the person starting the discussion states that they are interested in the issue because they are involved in a legal dispute of some sort, which is exactly what you did in the title of your thread in February, where you asked about the law and equity distinction: I’m appealing. Attorneys: ultimate facts/ law v. equity in practice…

And then, in your very first post, you made it clear that you were asking about these legal issues to assist you in your appeal:
[QUOTE=Stoid, in Post # 1 of the GQ thread]
Well, I’m knee deep in my appeal work and slogging through some rather thorny concepts. (If any of the folks that were around 18 months or so ago and weighed in about my handling my own case are wondering, see the end of this post. It’s been quite a ride…)

I’ve read some definitions, but I’d like your thoughts on the meaning of the terms in the title, as well as “probative facts” and “evidentiary facts”.
…
A clear meaning of equity is important because so much case law casually refers to “actions in equity” equitable actions", etc. I think I understand, but what I really seek is to grok…

Also: anyone with appellate tips and tricks, I’m listening!
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding in the original; underlining and italics mine)

As soon as you said that, it was pretty much impossible to have an academic discussion, except at the most general level, such as Billdo’s post in that thread about the development of law and equity. You were not just asking about “the meaning and theories of the legal concepts of evidence, findings, and conclusions” out of general curiosity, or to become a better-informed citizen about the legal process. In your very first post, you made it clear that you wanted that information to prepare for a legal proceeding.

Once it is apparent that a person is asking for legal information for the purposes of their legal proceeding, then it is legal advice. You weren’t asking for information about law and equity in the abstract. You made it clear that you were asking for information about law and equity to assist you in preparing for your appeal.

And that connexion is impossible to break. It was a request for legal advice.

304

As an aside, I’ve never before participated in a Dope thread where I’ve had to give cross-references to the post numbers in three different threads …

305

One time my parents got in a huuuuuge fight. A fight so huge the cops were called.

Over how to fill up the ice cube trays correctly.

Now, anyone with any sense would know that they were not fighting over how and when to put water in ice cube trays. What got them into a bare knuckled rage was his ego and needing to be in unquestionned command and her ego and needing to be respected, even if she wasn’t agreed with.

This issue is never ever going to be resolved, because Stoid is now emotionally vested in her hate and need to see her opponent be decimated. At first her opponent was her ex. Now the circle has widened to her lawyer, the judge, her ex’s lawyer, the legal system, lawyers IRL, probably law librarians, and now all of you. It won’t matter what reasonable arguments you put forth because this isn’t about reason. It’s about identity. I would bet **Stoid **sees losing this appeal as a loss of self, as an invalidation of herself as a person. A zero sum game. I bet she denies that, too.

She’s clearly very, very threatened and defensive about anything regarding this issue of her case. Unduly so, to a point of needing professional help, IMO.

She reminds me of a nutjob I know that uses the law as a bat to beat down his opponent (who is only an opponent in his own troubled mind). He is certifiable, and no amount of reason or legal result will ever switch on the lightbulb. It’s not about being right, it’s about his rage and impotence and shame he feels. It’s sad, really.

To be honest, I’ve learned an awful lot in this thread (not the least of which is that hatred of lawyers seems to short-circuit reading comprehension). But I do wish people would let it die, because you’re just never ever going to get through. Stoid is never ever going to acknowledge anyone but those who don’t make her face her horror.

306

I see your point, niblet_head, and I’ve been thinking it myself for a few days now. Stoid’s admitted that, win or lose this case, she’s going into bankruptcy. It’s just a question of how and when at this point. And by fighting this case, by immersing herself in the minutia of the law and getting into arguments about legal doctrine and rules of hearsay and arguing arguing arguing and never coming up for breath does two things

  1. If all things go well, it prolongs the inevitable
  2. Regardless of the outcome, it prevents Stoid from ever sitting down, taking a good, honest, hard look at her life and saying “damn…I’m kinda fucked.”

It’s a really sad situation to be in and I really have no advice for her that hasn’t already been given.

307

[hijack]
One of my favorite opinions was an Illinois Fifth Circuit appeal of a criminal case, which raised two issues. The appellant complained that the jury was permitted to hear “bloodhound evidence” about how a dog named Cain had tracked him down, and that his lawyer’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (a Strickland claim).

The opening sentence of the opinion: This case raises Cain and questions whether counsel was able.

[/hijack]

308

Stoid

I mean this with all seriousness: I will abstain from commentary in this thread and kowtow to your belief that you have stumbled upon some revelation regarding the process by which asshole lawyers screw non-paying customers by using strained definitions of such words as “advice” and “information” if you promise to give us the case caption of your appeal.

Your legal issue has a certain appealing je ne sais quoi about it - much like a train wreck. Thus, I extend this generous offer to you.

309

Hate to perpetuate the hijack, but I’ve got to contribute one of my favorites: Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The judge begins with “If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong,” and ends with “The parties are advised to chill.”

310

Ugh, I hate that pornographer.

311

Why didn’t you skip this thread? Lemme break this down for you:

  1. You want to know “why lawyers insist on telling me what you really mean”?

  2. The answer to this is that you SAY you are asking for “information” and they reply, in effect, “No, you’re asking for advice so I can’t help you.” You interpet this as them telling you what you “mean” (“You mean to ask for advice”), when in reality they are telling you what they think you’re asking for (“You ARE asking for advice.”)

  3. Therefore, whether you are asking for information or advice is the very heart of that thread. Not collateral bullshit. The absolute center of it.

Now, feel free to tell me again that I’m wrong, but keep in mind that I base my opinion on exactly what you posted, so if my conclusion is not IYO correct, it will be some pretty darn convincing evidence that you’re communcation and argument skills are shit. Not only did you not carry your point, you didn’t even make it with any degree of clarity. This does not mean that I am “assuming” anything. It means you are not are not conveying what you think you are conveying or, to the extent you are, people are not buying it.

So you can rehash and rehash and rehash – tell me 1000 times that you weren’t asking for advice, and my response will be, every time: Yes, you were. The fact that you don’t THINK you were doesn’t actually matter to me at this point; the fact that clearly no one is going to be able to make you grasp that you were matters even less.

And I am of course fully willing to accept that IYO this is all my fault: I have added things in. I have assumed. It couldn’t be that YOU are being unsuccessful in conveying your point. No, no: That “is not true of you.” Again, you’re never wrong; thus everyone else must be.

As for reading the whole thread again – I could of course, but I think it would be less time-consuming and yield the same effect if I just jabbed this screwdriver into my right eye. OW! Now you owe me an eye patch.

And in closing: I am done reading your dense, random, must-be-carefully-parsed-in-order-to-be-understood, TLDR posts. I only read the last one because someone else quoted a bite-size chunk of it and I saw my name in that quote. If you can’t grant us humble Dopers enough of your amazing editing ability to spare us eye-glazing blocks of text, I see no reason to continue to work this hard to understand you.

Good luck with your appeal. This last is said without sarcasm, though not with a lot of hope.

312

Mattel is a pornographer??? I KNEW IT!!

313

Just for grins, I dumped Stoid’s posts in this thread only into Word and ran a word count. Over 10,000 words, ran 20 pages with her line spacing, normal margins, fonts, etc.

This is clearly someone who is obsessed. It’s not just the research and work on her case, but the time she spends here arguing (typing) when that effort doesn’t even move her any closer to her goal. I agree with niblet and ender … it’s beyond rock-headedness, it’s complete emotional investment and loss of perspective.

314

It gets better: the first appendix (of that Mattel case) is the lyrics to Aqua’s Barbie Girl.

I want to clerk for this Judge Alex Kozinski guy real bad.

315

The line right before that is almost as good. On the accusation of “piracy”:

No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo.

316

It’s interesting that she claims she’s going into bankruptcy.

If I were facing bankruptcy, the last thing I’d be doing is fighting a court case that would not prevent said bankruptcy. I’d be working a second job.

That’s the sane option, anyway.

317

Why wouldn’t filing the bankruptcy be the sane option?

318

Okay, I haven’t posted but I’ve been following this saga from the beginning, but I can’t recall if this has been asked: why hasn’t Stoid considered settling out of court?

319

I think either he wouldn’t, or they couldn’t come to an agreement.

320

Do you really, truly think it was HIM that wouldn’t settle? For real?