Use of 'esquire' illegal?

[Zakalwe]

@askeptic

I would also be interested in a cite to my “ill courtesy”.

I’m pretty sure I tried to do that once, but this time instead of parody, I’ll just be clear about it:

@askeptic

Gosh Darnit, NorthernPiper, Is it so hard for you to understand
that WE IN THE COLONIES (THAT WERE THE FIRST TO HAND YOU BLOKES YOUR HEADS ON A PLATTER) may have not only abondoned your ancient definitions, but along with kicking you empirialist asses out, may have also adopted some of our own definitions.

Couple of things here:

1. “Yelling” in all caps is generally considered rude on-line.
2. Hmmmm…the repeated references to the defeat of the British seems gratuitous and rude since:
   a. You weren’t involved.
   b. Neither was the person you’re referring to.
   c. The two countries have been bestest buddies for quite a while now.

@askeptic

I.E. Esquire means "One who has earned a Degree in Legal Studies, not a land owner.

No, it fucking doesn’t always mean that - as you yourself admit in your next post:

@askeptic

I have said that in the US, the appelation Esq. no longer implies land ownership, that for the most part Esq. is used primarilly by lawyers to indicate their profession, that it is not exclusively used by attorneys, and that anyone may use the term if they wish, but that if they do it is probable that others will assume they are an attorney, that they can only get into legal trouble if they attempt to practice law without a lisence, but not for merely useing Esq.

@askeptic

Is that so hard to comprehend? No wonder we won our freedom so easily, and beat you in 1812, and saved your asses in 1918 and 1945. Give me a break! We killed more of ourselves during the Civil War than you limeys ever threatened. We killed more Turks (a side show) than you limeys ever threatened.

Do I really have to explain why this is rude? In fact, wouldn’t the direct reference to another poster as a “limey” constitute a personal insult outside the Pit, somthing you have been warned for in this very thread?

@C K Dexter Haven

I dunno quite why this topic is arousing such heat. In this forum, we play nice. No personal insults are permitted. askeptic, you are hereby officially advised to tone it down.

Which was a reaction to this comment:

@askeptic

If so, you are either young, or a knuckleHead.

Is that enough of a cite for you?

[Zakalwe]

@acsenray

not actually knowing any Latin

How do you get a law degree without knowing any Latin?

[Acsenray]

@grem0517

How do you get a law degree without knowing any Latin?

Yeah, I see Winkie, but, seriously, except for a few phrases here and there, we used very little Latin in law school.

In fact, I picked up the habit from my favourite professor of using the English word “against” when stating case names instead of the Latin “versus.”

[Zakalwe]

Hee! Yeah, I actually knew that. Not to mention that any Latin you did learn (certiorari, etc) was specific terminology and didn’t include grammar, tense, declension, or other fun stuff. I was just yanking your chain a little.

[DSYoungEsq]

In fact, I picked up the habit from my favourite professor of using the English word “against” when stating case names instead of the Latin “versus.”

Whoa! there, acsenray! You start doing that, and next thing you know, the hoi polloi will be able to understand what we write! Egads, man, do you know where that would lead us???

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I would also be interested in a cite to my “ill courtesy”. If I was in fact lacking in courtesy, I will offer my sincere apology.

Askeptic, did you see my earlier Warning in this thread? I may have expressed it with some humor, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t serious.I’ll repeat: Personal insults are NOT permitted in this forum. You want to flame, go to the Pit. Better advice would be, have a good lie-down with a cold washcloth on your forehead.

This isn’t a second Warning, it’s a reminder that Moderator Warnings are not to be lightly ignored. We clear on this?

[John_W.Kennedy]

@Zakalwe

Hee! Yeah, I actually knew that. Not to mention that any Latin you did learn (certiorari, etc) was specific terminology and didn’t include grammar, tense, declension, or other fun stuff. I was just yanking your chain a little.

Actually, a knowledge of Old French is even more important than a knowledge of Latin. (That’s where all those legal terms ending in -er, like waiver, come from.)

[Zakalwe]

@John W. Kennedy

Actually, a knowledge of Old French is even more important than a knowledge of Latin. (That’s where all those legal terms ending in -er, like waiver, come from.)

I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info!

[DrDeth]

Goodness- such great wisdom by Doctor Young and Sir CandidGamera , amoung others.

Not only can anyone call themselves “esq.” but you can call yourself “Lord High Emperor of the Universe” if you like. Nothing in US laws (AFAIK) to stop you.

I would GUESS (IANAL) that tacking “esq” at the end of your name then offering sercices as a paralegal that bordered on what only a Bar Attorney is suppose to do- COULD be fraud or something, sure.

The lost 13th admendment is interesting. But- it was NOT ratified. And the reason it is brung up now is a “nitwit” arguement - IF it had been ratified, it would have prevented dudes from accepting titles of nobility (true). Next- first nitwit part- That "Esq’ is somehow a Title granted by Foriegn nations or Rulers. Then follows more nitwit reasoning- thus all the lawyers are criminals. Thus- and get this- every law ever passed in the USofA- ESPECIALLY THE TAX LAWS- is thus invalid . :rolleyes: :dubious: Which is SO “nitwit” that the word isn’t strong enough.

Even IF the “lost 13th Ad” been ratified- 'esq" is not a “title granted by a foriegn nation/king”. Even if it was- lawyers in the USA would just not accept/use it. And the postulate from that that every fucking law every passed is invalid is just plain looneytoons. And, if it wasn’t for this loony& nitwit idea- the whole 'lost 13th admendment" thing woudl just be a minor footnote.

[DSYoungEsq]

DrDeth, while I heartily agree about your characterization of the final outcome (nitwitdom), you do make a small error on the way to that conclusion. The purported 13th Amendment not only prohibits the granting of titles, it prohibits the claiming of titles, regardless of the supposed source of the title. This would, theoretically, preclude me from asserting that I was the Grand Poobah of Toledo (God knows why I’d want to, but that is another thread), assuming that I was asserting that this was an official title or honour. Thus, claiming to be an “esquire” would be a violation of the Amendment, at least arguably; certainly the plain language of the text would reasonably support that conclusion.

Of course, even if true, it’s where they go from there that takes it into the totally bizarre…

Grand Poobah of Toledo. I like that. I think I’ll try it on for size some day.

[DrDeth]

I see your point- but in that case, Lawyers would simply stop using “Esq”. The nitwit idea is that all layers ("esq’ used or no) would be in violation.

[Baller]

@askeptic

Why do Canadians say Ay?

sorry to burst your bubble but canadians say “eh” not “ay”

[Isamu]

@Northern_Piper

Why do American lawyers, presumably all good “small-r” republicans, have the compulsion to tack an archaic English psuedo-title onto each others’ names, but Canadian lawyers, living under the reign of Good Queen Bess, feel no such need? Didn’t you guys fight a revolution to do away with titles? What’s up with that?

It’s that some (many?) republicans have an authoritarian streak. They seek positions that have titles and supposed associated authority. Senator, Sargent, Esquire etc. Titles like “Lord” carry the same attraction.