# It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 14, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316 "2013-02-14T20:34:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/761 "2013-02-21T13:28:23Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In that case, it’d be just as easy to start a thread entitled _“It is implausible that pchaos is a theist”_ I’ve begun phoning pastors of all the Catholic Churches in his vicinity. So far, nobody recognizes the name. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/762 "2013-02-21T13:38:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > _“It is implausible that pchaos is a theist”_ You _can_ be a theist and have… umm… _unique_ beliefs. See, for example, **lekatt** or **kanicbird**. You _can’t_ be a lawyer unless you pass a bar exam which demonstrates that you’re on the same page as the rest of the legal system. I only question whether or not he’s _Catholic._ ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/763 "2013-02-21T13:49:43Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > FWIW, I think ya’lll are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me **pchaos** is an attorney as claimed. An idiot, sure, but obviously those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Take his mistake about the _Marvin_ case. In fact, that was based on contract law rather than common law marriage. But the two theories are pretty close for someone not practicing in that particular field. (Indeed, I only know the difference because I’m kind of wonky that way.) When I’ll care about his claimed credentials is in a thread about an actual legal topic. > > Stated a little differently, if ya’ll want to press **pchaos** on his credentials, ask him how he thinks the Supreme Court will rule on the dog sniff cases pending this term. THAT will tell us more about whether he’s a poseur than haggling over Catholicism vs. atheism. Even if it’s not his field (nor mine), he should be able to remember enough Con Law from school to express an intelligible opinion. That’s a good point. You can generally tell if someone is trained as a lawyer by how well they can reason from first principles. If you give someone a fact pattern, they should be able to highlight the relevant issues involved and discuss what facts should be considered in resolving those issues. That reasoning ability has always impressed me more than being able to cite a specific case or statute since it connotes a true understanding rather than simply rote memorization. As someone who used to do a lot of search and seizure work, I don’t know if that particular case would be a good test since I think the lower court probably got the right result, but how well he discusses the issue certainly could be. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/764 "2013-02-21T13:58:07Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > FWIW, I think ya’lll are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me **pchaos** is an attorney as claimed. An idiot, sure, but obviously those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Take his mistake about the _Marvin_ case. In fact, that was based on contract law rather than common law marriage. But the two theories are pretty close for someone not practicing in that particular field. (Indeed, I only know the difference because I’m kind of wonky that way.) When I’ll care about his claimed credentials is in a thread about an actual legal topic. > > Stated a little differently, if ya’ll want to press **pchaos** on his credentials, ask him how he thinks the Supreme Court will rule on the dog sniff cases pending this term. THAT will tell us more about whether he’s a poseur than haggling over Catholicism vs. atheism. Even if it’s not his field (nor mine), he should be able to remember enough Con Law from school to express an intelligible opinion. It’s implausible that an employment lawyer doesn’t know whether informal marriage exists in the state where they are licensed. Employers need to identify potential beneficiaries of their employees. It is plausible that an employment lawyer would give you the wrong standard for inducing infringement of a patent, because he hasn’t followed that an appellate court changed the standard a few months ago. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/765 "2013-02-21T14:07:22Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > That’s a good point. You can generally tell if someone is trained as a lawyer by how well they can reason from first principles. If you give someone a fact pattern, they should be able to highlight the relevant issues involved and discuss what facts should be considered in resolving those issues. That reasoning ability has always impressed me more than being able to cite a specific case or statute since it connotes a true understanding rather than simply rote memorization. Guys, give me a break. We now have two threads pitting me. Is there a limit as to how many threads that I can be pitted on. May I suggest we have no more than one going at one time. After all it’s difficult to respond on two threads. Basically, I’m repeating the same arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/766 "2013-02-21T14:24:36Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > FWIW, I think ya’lll are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me **pchaos** is an attorney as claimed. An idiot, sure, but obviously those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Take his mistake about the _Marvin_ case. In fact, that was based on contract law rather than common law marriage. But the two theories are pretty close for someone not practicing in that particular field. (Indeed, I only know the difference because I’m kind of wonky that way.) When I’ll care about his claimed credentials is in a thread about an actual legal topic. > > Stated a little differently, if ya’ll want to press **pchaos** on his credentials, ask him how he thinks the Supreme Court will rule on the dog sniff cases pending this term. THAT will tell us more about whether he’s a poseur than haggling over Catholicism vs. atheism. Even if it’s not his field (nor mine), he should be able to remember enough Con Law from school to express an intelligible opinion. It’s implausible that an employment lawyer doesn’t know whether informal marriage exists in the state where they are licensed. Employers need to identify potential beneficiaries of their employees. It is plausible that an employment lawyer would give you the wrong standard for inducing infringement of a patent, because he hasn’t followed that an appellate court changed the standard a few months ago. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/767 "2013-02-21T14:25:31Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Guys, give me a break. We now have two threads pitting me. Is there a limit as to how many threads that I can be pitted on. May I suggest we have no more than one going at one time. After all it’s difficult to respond on two threads. Basically, I’m repeating the same arguments. Well, you don’t seem to have ever responded to the other one and I can’t say that this one has been especially intellectually taxing for you so I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Of course I don’t really know what your abilities are so perhaps I’m giving you too much credit. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/768 "2013-02-21T14:32:12Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Basically, I’m repeating the same arguments. That’s what got you in trouble to begin with!:):)🙂 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/769 "2013-02-21T14:33:59Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Guys, give me a break. We now have two threads pitting me. Is there a limit as to how many threads that I can be pitted on. May I suggest we have no more than one going at one time. After all it’s difficult to respond on two threads. Basically, I’m repeating the same arguments. There is no limit to how many times you can be pitted. It would only be limited by the new posts you make that are so astoundingly wrong and ‘repetitive’. There is no requirement for you to respond to anything - in fact - most folks don’t respond in their own pittings continually digging themselves deeper into the pit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/770 "2013-02-21T15:02:17Z")
> [@Robb](#): > > It’s implausible that an employment lawyer doesn’t know whether informal marriage exists in the state where they are licensed. Employers need to identify potential beneficiaries of their employees. It’s plausible. Entitlement to dependent benefits is not a frequently litigated issue for private employers, since there is no legal requirement for the employer to offer them. Beyond that, you wouldn’t need to go behind an employee’s beneficiary designation; that would have been handled at the HR level at the time the employee’s benefits entitlement vested. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/771 "2013-02-21T15:15:11Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > You _can_ be a theist and have… umm… _unique_ beliefs. See, for example, **lekatt** or **kanicbird**. You _can’t_ be a lawyer unless you pass a bar exam which demonstrates that you’re on the same page as the rest of the legal system. > > I only question whether or not he’s _Catholic._ Given the number of times he’s mentioned Pastor, and his emphasis on the Bible (and changing it?!), he seems decidedly protestant. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/772 "2013-02-21T15:23:04Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > Given the number of times he’s mentioned Pastor, and his emphasis on the Bible (and changing it?!), he seems decidedly protestant. To be more fair than I should, **pchaos** has shown a marked tendency to ignore or misread anything he doesn’t like. He could be a late in life convert (for marriage?) and just remarkably stupid/deliberately obtuse about all those not-so-fine points of dogma and verbiage you’d expect anybody with literally half a brain to pick up as a Catholic. Even if it’s the best possible reading, it’s not flattering. It’s the old liar vs moron paradigm. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/773 "2013-02-21T15:24:08Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > Given the number of times he’s mentioned Pastor, and his emphasis on the Bible (and changing it?!), he seems decidedly protestant. Here’s how I look at the NT. Remember in high school how we used to take what our teachers said and our textbook as the gospel truth. That’s one way to read the Bible, it is the embodiment of the truth. The way I look at it, the NT is man’s spiritual quest. The NT makes a lot more sense when viewed in this manner. Jesus becomes Man in order to show us the path to God. He is both God and Man. And He struggles like any man would. He is on a quest to return to His Father in Heaven. That is the same journey we all need to make. I personally am on a quest to return to God. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/774 "2013-02-21T15:27:32Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Remember in high school how we used to take what our teachers said and our textbook as the gospel truth. Maybe you. I started doubting my teachers in middle school. > [@pchaos](#): > > That’s one way to read the Bible, it is the embodiment of the truth. The way I look at it, the NT is man’s spiritual quest. This is so far out of line for Catholic belief. Next you’ll be telling us you’re only nominally Catholic and belong to a group that rejects Vatican II. Still nothing here that’s inconsistent with “liar vs moron”. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/775 "2013-02-21T15:30:38Z")
And what is the Church’s role in your quest? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/776 "2013-02-21T15:34:09Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > And what is the Church’s role in your quest? My parish and pastor establish the community standards that I need to follow. My daily prayers establish my continuing relationship with God. The NT allows me to communicate with the historical Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/777 "2013-02-21T15:36:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s plausible. Entitlement to dependent benefits is not a frequently litigated issue for private employers, since there is no legal requirement for the employer to offer them. Beyond that, you wouldn’t need to go behind an employee’s beneficiary designation; that would have been handled at the HR level at the time the employee’s benefits entitlement vested. If this were true, employment lawyers in California are working to a lower standard than in other jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/778 "2013-02-21T15:37:26Z")
Perhaps. I don’t know how it works where you live, but around here about 99% of employment law is wage and hour disputes. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/779 "2013-02-21T16:15:36Z")
Yeah but the point of being a lawyer is being prepared for that 1%. I know my parents had to prove their marriage (married in Taiwan) recently for insurance reasons via their work. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a lawyer - especially employment law - to know the standards of marriage in that state, especially since CA has a pretty rigorous Bar, especially if they went to Berkley Law. As for Pchaos’s reply - your terminology and ideology is entirely inconsistent with Catholicism. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/780 "2013-02-21T16:31:57Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > My parish and **pastor** There’s that pesky word again. Did you convert to Catholicism late in life or something? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316.md?page=40)