Congratulations,** SuaSpante** , I hope that you and your future bride or groom can afford to split a bottle or two of $500 a bottle wine. Tip your photographer well, wedding photographs are like fine overpriced wines of which even the best of palates can’t tell the difference between them and wines at $10 a quart, so don’t expect avant-garde photographs worth your investment, because in fat America today we pay the high buck for pretense and phony prestige. This is our right as americans and we can afford it.
What we can’t afford are lawsuits and criminal charges that can destroy our lives as well as the well being of our families through extortion by exorbitant attorney fees.
Dewey Cheatem Undhow
Ha! I just one word for you** Dewey**, —> ** IgiveUp**!
Uh, I can’t seem re- find that site that referred to the bar association’s comment but I did find one that was similar.
Too similar. I think maybe I misread it. :smack:
It pains me to say this, but I apologize. And I offer the following not as an excuse but in the spirit of understanding…
It happens that I was practicing at my own personal bar at the time.
I see no need to apologise, Milum, since your statement is simply not correct. Lawyers in private practice have to build their client base, just like other commercial enterprises. They have to keep those clients happy, or else the client goes down the street to a competing lawyer, as Dewey points out. And they have to make their payroll for their employees (support staff, juniors and para-legals), just like other businesses do, as well as pay for their overhead, such as their offices, supplies and so forth. If they don’t do all these things well, they go under, just like other businesses.
But I see that you’ve not responded to my inquiry: why is it that the profit motive is the basic principle driving a free market economy, but it’s bad for lawyers to want to make a profit?
Thank you for correcting me. One more blow against ignorance.
Yep, that’d be the cause. “Rumpole of the Bailey” on PBS, specifically. Hey, it’s better than learning about the US courts from Law and Order, ain’t it?
It is not my wont Piper, to be unresponsive, but it is my wont to feel uncomfortable explaining the obvious. But enough tip toeing, I will now tell you why its bad for lawyers to make a profit…
For the same reason that doctors and preachers aren’t allowed to make a profit. One doesn’t sell salvation and one doesn’t sell freedom from pain and remain human, and to do so would be to present yourself as a despicable money grubbing monster, unworthy of the designation “human”. These sacred occupations should be forever reserved for only virgin nuns and poverty-vowed monks. But what a lawyer sells is much much worse. Why? Because lawyers have stolen from the people what they then sell back to them at a grossly obscene profit.
Hmmm? One might say. What is this thing that a lawyer sells? Is it representation? No? Well then, is it …oh what the hell, I give up. What is this thing that a lawyer sells for obscene profit?
Fill in the blanks --> . __ __ __ __ __ __ __.
(Hint: (The right of every man. The commodity of every lawyer.)
Yeah well, so it goes, so let’s pick up the saga of DaDa, shall we, and ** Mr. Pravnik** and** Mr. Dewey**.
Da Da, as you will remember( especially you, Dewey) is a most happy negro, ( his discription) and his claims that he is " blessed" beyond belief, are loudly supported, by his testimony to his joy of being alive and well in the USA today.
Meanwhile, Da Da is articulate , and keen of mind, and seems to live beyond the temptations of the superficial world that surrounds the world today.
** Da Da was arrested last night. I hope you all are happy.**
What in the blue hell does DaDa being arrested have to do with the thread, and what to the posters here have to be ashamed of (as is the clear implication of your final sentence)?
Sorry I haven’t posted earlier, but I’ve been overwhelmed, what with my raping of the judicial system, rolling around in my gobs and gobs of money, and my taking of joy in the arrest of poor DaDa.
First out let me say that Da Da wasn’t arrested, I, uh, got that fact wrong (sorry). But anyway, after working all day at the farm Sunday Da Da was driving from dinner at my house to the warehouse to load out the next morning’s delivery trucks. To his annoyance he came across two cars that were stopped in the middle of the road blocking traffic. Da Da blew his horn and began hollering out the window asking them to please move. They didn’t but a black chick cop stepped out from a unmarked van and walked toward Da Da she was not smiling. Then. Later as she listened to Da Da begging for mercy she began smiling broadly as she wote out two tickets; one for no driver’s licence and another for no liability insurance. Da Da said she was actually laughting as she walked back to her van. This time Da Da didn’t go to jail because there were no outstanding warrants for his arrest like last time. He has been paying all of his court fines on time each week.
So now, you rightly ask, why are Da Da’s troubles the fault of ** Dewey** and the cabal of lawyers on this board?
Well for one thing they perpetuate the wrongs of American justice by their rationalizations. All but a couple of posts in this thread defend a flawed system that ultimately leads us to poor Da Da as a example…
A lawyer in the Alabama Legislature embraced the auto insuance companies and got enacted a law that exacted a $500 fine if operators of vehicles didn’t carry a document proving their ownership of automobile insurance.
Annual libility insurance for Da Da costs him 10% of his income.
Lawyer fees and fines and court costs so far this year have cost Da Da another 15% of his annual income.
This latest episode will likely cost Da Da another 10% of his annual income and might get him deported. (He is on probation and his probation officier reports back to the Department of Immigration.)
Below is a complete listing of Da Da’s high crimes along with an attendent distribution list of Da Da’s wealth this year…
[Crimes]
(1) Speeding
(2) Faliure to come to a complete stop at stop sign.
(3) Faliure to appear in court
(4) Left tail light out.
(5) Driving without a drivers’s licence
(6) Driving without libility insurance.
[punishments]
(1) court costs_____$450 approx
(2) Fines _____$1400
(3) Lawyer fees$3100
Question: What precentage of your income did you pay for libility insurance this year?
America: What a country.
Lawyers, courts and the poor: What a team.
I am happy - indeed, overjoyed- that the law forces people to carry liability insurance. Because if it did not, then when poor, put-upon Da Da fails to come to a stop at a stop sign and hits me, he will have sufficient money to pay for the damage to my car that his carelessness caused.
$3100 for six uncontested traffic tickets? Would you and Da Da be interested in purchasing some prime Florida real estate, or perhaps a bridge conveniently located between two New York Boroughs? Either there’s more to the story than you’re telling us, or you should have shopped around. That’s about what I’d charge for a felony jury trial. Heck, I’m charging less than that to write a reply brief in the appeal of a first degree murder dismissal. I asked my Dad what he would charge for Da Da’s case; he thought I actually had someone on the phone and said “tell them $50 per ticket, if they want to take it to a jury in city court, $350.” When I said another attorney charged $3100 for this he gave me an unbeleiving look. While we’re on it, why didn’t Da Da get a court appointed attorney, or represent himself? Nobody made him hire a lawyer.
Even if the epic tale of Da Da is true, again, what’s your point? That some lawyer overcharged someone you know once? Hey, I once knew a mechanic and a plumber who overcharged someone! Clearly a Satanic compact between the plumbers, mechanics, automotive industry, and Sears, maker of Craftsman tools.
I must point out that when confronted with yet another charge of being evasive, you answer with yet another anecdote of questionable veracity and relevance illustrating nothing more than another reason why you don’t like lawyers.
Part of being an attorney is counseling others in the law. My advice to Da Da: don’t break the law if you can’t afford to. I can’t afford to go to prison, being much, much too pretty, so I don’t rob banks. If Da Da decides to break the law anyway, my advice is try not to attract attention to yourself while doing so by honking and yelling. And, geez, man, show up for your court dates.
They work for free? Cite please.
Cite, please, as to the implication that a lawyer who stood to gain something in his or her private practice of law enacted this law for that purpose. Also, please tell me what percentage of your annual income it would cost to replace your car if an uninsured driver hit you and totaled it.
Where does it say in the Constitution that all citizens must carry certificates of guaranteed wealth in case they accidentally do damage or otherwise do harm to the much coveted property of *** Bricker***? Hmmm?
First a quick story: Yesterday charges against State Senator Roger Bedford for misuse of office were dismissed by an imported judge (two local judges had invoked recusal because of their social hob-nobings with the Senator) because of lack of evidence of wrong doing.
Roger, it seems, suggested to the Maron County Commission that they buy 400 acres from a dear friend of his for three and a half million dollars, or at more than three times the appraised value of the land. Roger reminded the Commission of the twenty million dollar local high school football stadium that he had just built in the county using 100% state funds and intimated that if they didn’t go along with the land purchace, other such projects would not be forthcoming. Roger is known for straight talking.
The judge said that he dropped the charges against Bedford because it was his opinion that Roger was only bluffing the Commission, and that his bluff was not meant to be blackmail or a threat.
“All politicians bluff” the judge said.
The point of the above story is that sub-groups have by the very semantics of of their designation, common bonds; and therefore they can always agree that a “bluff” is not a “threat”.
And vice versa.
Completely irrelevant. It’s not a constitutional issue; it’s an issue that falls into the hands of a lower-level jurisdiction.
If you think everything that’s not explicitly written into the Constitution is unconstitutional or somehow doesn’t belong in the American system of law, your understanding of the legal system is more deficient than your debate skills.
Tish tish, Ace309, you are overruled by me. I think that you mistakenly think that these exchanges on Great Debates are situated to be as a high school debating team, or , may God forbid, as a legal trial with you as judge. No! No one human nor any grouping of humans can pass any final judgement on what we post here on Straight Dope Debate. The best we can hope for here is only an exchange of worthwhile ideas.
And growingly I begin to see that the buttoned down minds of most of the young attorneys reporting in this thread are unable to make quick jumps to the general from the specific.
So don’t think I’m being condescending by speaking real slow…
All laws that govern we of the states must be consistant with the wording and intent of the United States Constitution.
And…
Requiring a citizen to pay a fee to a private company so he will be able to pay for any damages that could possibly happen in the future as a result of his possible carelessness or his possible future incompetent behavior violates the fact and spirit and intent of several articles and clauses of the US Constitution, the Preamble, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments.
Besides…
Any govenmental law that makes it illegal not to pay money to a private enterprise such as an insurance company is simply a legal form of coercion and therefore that law is itself illegal.
Hey! The world has shifted. A man has to have a car to get to work in order to afford the pursuit of happiness that is guaranteed by the US Constitution today.
My very, very favorite thing you do is when you condescendingly lecture the lawyers here on the law. There’s so much wrong with the above I don’t know where to begin. Maybe I’ll just limit myself to the comment below.
:smack: [Deep, frustrated sigh]…That’s not the Constitution, Milum. That’s the Declaration of Independence.
Care? Dewey I will be delighted to cite a specific clause that prohibits the states from requiring mandatory liability insurance.
Even better, I will cite a clause that will drop like a thick leather bound lawbook upon the legal dogmas that clutter up your once beautiful mind.
Mind you, the real reason for the forbiding of such laws can be found in the body of the Constitution but I’m afraid that the nuances of the wording found there might best be left to philosophers and poets and not to the narrow understandings of nit-picking lawyers.
So here goes…
** Amendment V **
…against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;** nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.**
Money is private property.
We are required by law to give money to insurance companies.
Where is our just compensation?
