I get where you're coming from, and I generally agree with you. But there's a few bumps:
I've never seen anything expressed in "decimeters." Usually height of a person is given in centimeters. Whaaa? I have no idea! That unit is too small to be able to estimate. I can't imagine estimating things the size of a human being in centimeters. I can tell you in feet an inches though.
If you want to use decimeters, then it makes more sense, but otherwise, metric uses nothing that compares roughly to a foot.
Now, I can step off a room and tell you almost precisely what the dimensions of the room are: with my foot and shoe, it is almost exactly 12 inches (exactly 1 foot!). How do YOU do that in metric?
I'm really asking, not being facetious or sarcastic.
Also, many games are measured in 100-yards. American football (not soccer), the 100-yard dash, etc. Well 100 meters is a bit farther than 100 yards... What do you want? Re-calculate all the distances to be the fractional equivalent to meters? That's just dumb.
The majority of casualties were civilian. This was not an act of traditional war. This is far, far different than the cut and dry battlefield that the Geneva Conventions were based on.
1. It doesn't matter who the target is or who was killed. Contractors are killed all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan driving along with military personnel.
2. Those who were "arrested" in connection to these terroristic acts are not U.S. civilians, therefore should not be afforded same rights as U.S. citizens.
3. Those who were "arrested" were actually captured on the battlefield in a foreign enemy land we are at war with under the legal processes natural to a military fighting a war (not civilian police officers).
4. Oddly, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them either because they are not uniformed soldiers.
5. They were not properly Mirandized by our military, thus it is not possible to have any resemblance to a normal/ordinary civilian criminal trial anyway without overlooking some normal processes civilians are usually given. The legal proceedings are far too different from a military tribunal to a civilian criminal trial; thus too many things you would normally have to do were not done (and shouldn't have to be done) by the military at the time of their capture (including reading of Miranda rights).
6. Get a liberal judge and a good lawyer, and they will tear this case apart simply on the ways testimony was gathered (compulsion), evidence was gathered, etc. and you'll have almost no choice but to acquit. Not to mention, you'll be inadvertently giving up military secrets along the way that a military tribunal is meant to protect. Bad idea.
If 12 New Yorkers can't find this guy guilty, then I am pretty damn sure he didn't do it. And he will not be realeased in the US, no matter what.
Only 1 juror has to harbor doubt. Not a difficult proposition in this instance. And if he is not found guilty, then what? If not released in America, then where exactly? They say they'll ship him back home, but it isn't up to us. Usually the country of origin doesn't even want them anyway.
And neither was the case for the the unabomber, OKC bombing or any other big trial. This is no different. As for precedent... where do you live that planning (and following thru) to kill thousands isn't already firmly against the law?
Completely different set of circumstances. First, Unabomber was a U.S. citizen. Second, he was not a militant combatant, nor was he picked up by the military, nor was he found in a foreign country. Thus, his capture, the gathering of evidence, his reading of rights -- all took place under the expectation that he would be tried in a civilian criminal courtroom. These foreign terrorists were not.
Oh yeah, the prez was the one prejudging, eh?
You clearly do not understand this enemy at all. I am really very sorry that you don't. I'm not about to make a general statement about all of Islam, but this is radical-extremist-Islam we're talking about. There is no room for peace with them. They will not stop until they have slit your throat and your children's throats and will laugh in your face about it. You might think you are not at war with them, but I promise you they are at war with you. Again, I'm only talking about radical-extremist Muslims, not all Muslims.
Finally, KSM already admitted to doing these crimes so draw your own conclusion.
My password is approximately 32 bytes long, uses alpha numerics, and also uses two keyfiles, and encrypts with AES+DES+Blowfish. And I don't use that password anywhere except my encrypted "media" collection, and I also have a "shadow volume" in case the encrypted volume is discovered (for plausible deniability).
So there!
Or I could be lying. You'll never know.
At any rate, I think it would be easier to trick me into installing a keylogger/mouselogger (or break into my house and install it without my knowledge) and capture what I type in and click on to discover how to unencrypt it.
Or, wait for me to leave the encrypted volume mounted, and copy some part of the media that you know exists in the encrypted volume, and decrypt everything else based on that.
I believe you are grossly ignorant and uninformed of multiple facts. Due to the amount of effort I'd have to invest in educating you (which I doubt you would be receptive to anyway), it is not even worth such a sophomoric discussion with a stranger.
The reason you don't want him tried in a civil court is because he could not possibly be convicted there: He wasn't even properly Mirandized. That's just one technicality, I'm sure a competent attorney could easily find many more.
The problem is that KSM was found on a battlefield in a foreign country. He is not a US citizen. It doesn't make any sense to bring him back to America to try him in a civil court and give him rights reserved to US citizens, regardless of who the victims were.
I've also even heard it said from a NY federal judge (sorry, I don't know the name) that they aren't even set up to handle any case like this, both in legal process and in ensuring security/safety.
What you effectively set up with this precedence is this scenario: A group of terrorists decide to bomb a couple of ships simultaneously, one is a US Naval destroyer, and the other is a civilian cruise ship. All the terrorists are caught by the navy. No one knows which court they will be tried in, so there is a huge mess in processing (maybe some rights are read and some are not to all of them; maybe they are not told they have a right to an attorney). Now half of them are tried in a military tribunal, and half are tried in a civilian court of law. By what logic do you think this fiasco is the right way to conduct business?
You can't change horses in the middle of the stream like this. If you want to make a policy that all terrorists be brought to a civil court, then make that policy now for future terrorist arrests. Doing it now virtually guarantees they won't be convicted.
And even Eric Holder can't consistently answer why doing it for some and not others seems like a good idea.
Which Christians use the Old Testament LAW? Jews might? But typically "Christian" means that you recognize Jesus as the Son of God and that you believe he came to save us from the law and its consequences. I'm not sure which (if any) Christians use Old Testament law.
And then you've gone on to question whether the Bible is interpreted or literal or what?
Far from that, you've now jumped tracks again with a point of whether God even really exists, and if he does at what level is he involved in our lives?
That's all fine, and very fair questions to ask. I've had them ALL myself, and still wrestle with them from time to time.
Here are the bottom line facts that maybe you've never heard from a Christian before.
1. We don't know all the answers, and the Bible doesn't provide all the answers. Very often the Bible is vague and uses symbology. Anyone who says he has the answers to all of life's questions, even using the Bible, is just plain wrong.
2. Even in my own house, we have debated the interpretations of what the Bible means on certain things. A really big one is on whether the topic of Communion is literal or symbolic. I believe it is symbolic. My wife believes it is literal. But you know what? It doesn't matter. If there is any peace to be had in my home, you have your belief and I have mine; and that's the way it is.
3. God has never spoken out loud to me. He's never even spoken to me through a voice in my head. I've never experienced anything that YOU would call a miracle that couldn't be explained by statistical probability or chance. But I have experienced a miracle that was very real and personally tailored to me. It wasn't something anyone else did or was involved in, and I choose to believe that it was God speaking to me in his own way.
4. I believe that any being on a higher plane than man with sufficient enough technology, adequately fits the definition of "God" -- whether it turns out to be space aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
5. Not all Christians believe in the literal "Creation". I personally believe it to be a symbolic representation.
There is nothing I can ever say to you that will make you agree with my personal beliefs. So, if you TRULY, and HONESTLY, REALLY believe that there is no God of the bible, then I challenge you to do this one test:
Go somewhere tonight and find a perfectly secluded, quiet place, in the dark. Call out to God. Call to him and say, "OK, God of heaven and earth, here I am! You have my ear! What is it that you want me to hear? What will tell me?"
Give him two hours to respond to you in a real, definite way that would be enough for you. Really keep an open mind.
If he doesn't respond, then nothing changes. Life simply goes on and you can feel that much more certain there really never was any God.
Oh, let me tell a story. Generally, I would agree with you, but the lesson I learned is that "no one is indispensable." The best you can do is to make it painful for them to get rid of you.
I was a senior technician for a company that sold software as a subscription service. Part of the software was billing and accounting. One day Development rolled out a new version that broke the billing part on systems using Windows 98. We now had 50 subscribers who could not access their billing data, though we were told an update would come soon. (It didn't come for 8 more months!)
So, 2 weeks after waiting for the fix, I reverse-engineered the updates and allowed the billing module to run on those Windows 98 computers, saving those customers. The customers would call in, and they were directed to speak only with me. Everyone was happy.
Our software also had a tendency to corrupt its database files, especially if on a network. I identified, and invented a process to find the source of the corruption, and fix the corrupted data files.
I was also Employee of the Month (out of over 100 employees at the company). It even had a cash award.
I was well-cherished in this company, and people liked me and liked working with me. So, do you think I was fairly indispensable?
Well, I was fired one day for being 2 minutes late -- by my manager who really liked me. I'm sure it was hard for him to do. It wasn't the first time I'd been a minute or two late over the past 3.5 years, but I'd certainly never been threatened with termination. So Why was I really fired? Because what we didn't know was that the company was downsizing, and the owner told every department they had to cut one person. In our department, I was the first one who screwed up in any way at all, and so I was the one let go.
Vindication: They called me several months later and asked if I would consider coming back to work for them. I'll let you figure out what I told them. A year later the company tanked and was sold. (Not so much from lack of me being there, though I'm sure it didn't help matters.)
The point is, I was pretty much as "indispensable" as you can get, I wasn't even the highest-paid, and yet I was fired for the minutest and trivial of reasons.
And make sure when they get cancer, you stop by every day to ridicule them for smoking. Great bed-side manner, there.
You're exactly the kind of IT manager I'm glad I don't have to work with -- you look for excuses why it isn't your fault and then provide no real help to anyone. You might have the preventative stuff covered, but when the shit hits the fan, you couldn't care less about others' problems.
So after they call you a prick behind your back, they'll bring it to me and I'll recover their stupid files; because for some of us, IT is a calling, not a job -- regardless of our job titles.
Correct, but if you read the whole speech she is saying that her experiences and culture will bias her judgement, whether she wants it to or not. I tend to disagree with this ideal; if you can't be impartial and disconnect yourself from your own experiences, then maybe you shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
-Judge Sonia Sotomayor
I'm no expert, and usually the last to cry "racist!", but that sounds pretty racially-biased to me.
I have, and still currently use, a 1991 Ensoniq EPS 16+ 16-bit sampler with a SCSI interface. I have it connected to a SCSI ZIP drive on one side, and the other side of the ZIP drive is connected to my PC. I then use a piece of software that can read/write to the ZIP disk (and can do other disk-utilty things). This allows me to search the net for any given sound effect/instrument wav file, convert it into an EPS 16+ instrument, write it to the disk, and then load it into the EPS 16+ and play it on the keyboard.
So I suppose I can say that it is connected to the Internet, in a small way.
I would have to argue that if you're spending that much on general litigation and procedure, you're being taken for a ride by your own attorney. Anyway, everyone knows its the paralegal that does all the work, and the attorney just signs it. So maybe enlist the help of an independent paralegal. My point is that there are ways to be frugal without sacrificing quality.
A corporation who is being sued by an individual (nuisance lawsuits) knows that they might spend $20,000 defending themselves (and know they'll win) against a frivolous suit. Nuisance lawsuit bringers also know this, so they tend to offer to settle for $15,000.
Where does this notion come from that a lawsuit can drag on in perpetuity, draining all the funds from one party or the other? Please cite a reference (that doesn't involve incompetence on someone's part).
I hear this all the time, yet it doesn't really cost that much to file an answer to a brief every now and then -- hardly a "drain" at all, and it's quite impossible to drag a suit on for literally forever. Besides, I would think that has a tendency to piss most judges off and after ahile, they would just deny any brief attempting to do so.
Now you might be able to play a few delaying tactical games for some time (even 2 years is usual for most cases), but not indefinitely. And even so, it's not like you have to do something every day or you lose. It just doesn't work that way.
Also, perhaps it is a little known fact: all lawyers in Texas are required by the State Bar to do a certain amount of pro-bono work to be a member. (Yes, some weasel their way out of doing it.)
Actually, some people voted for Obama multiple times. (Paid by ACORN.) It's a fact that one man registered to vote over 72 times because ACORN wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. I'd post a link, but you can google as easily as I can.
I see your point and your logic is sound. However, remember that there may be no evidence that it is her ex-boyfriend who is the one doing this, thus no one to sue.
To use your analogy, it would be as if you hired a guy to hand out leaflets on your behalf, Bobb Sledd. Then I come along and say, "hey! stop that! I'm Bobb Sledd!" and the guy goes, no you're not! Bobb Sledd HIRED me!!! And he doesn't stop.
So I go to the parking lot owner, driver's license in hand, saying "Kick this guy off your property, he is handing out leaflets in my name, and I'm the real Bobb Sledd.
So, who really hired him? Should the parking lot owner really be involved? Who are you going to sue? Who can you sue?
Slashdot Mirror
I get where you're coming from, and I generally agree with you. But there's a few bumps:
I've never seen anything expressed in "decimeters." Usually height of a person is given in centimeters. Whaaa? I have no idea! That unit is too small to be able to estimate. I can't imagine estimating things the size of a human being in centimeters. I can tell you in feet an inches though.
If you want to use decimeters, then it makes more sense, but otherwise, metric uses nothing that compares roughly to a foot.
Now, I can step off a room and tell you almost precisely what the dimensions of the room are: with my foot and shoe, it is almost exactly 12 inches (exactly 1 foot!). How do YOU do that in metric?
I'm really asking, not being facetious or sarcastic.
Also, many games are measured in 100-yards. American football (not soccer), the 100-yard dash, etc. Well 100 meters is a bit farther than 100 yards... What do you want? Re-calculate all the distances to be the fractional equivalent to meters? That's just dumb.
It is easy for me to be jaded by those who have their own fast and hardened opinions from missing or wrong information.
I apologize, I was wrong to be so quick to judge you.
You're a breath of fresh air. Most people don't listen to a word I say... or find me incoherent at best :-)
OK. I'll try to keep it brief.
The majority of casualties were civilian. This was not an act of traditional war. This is far, far different than the cut and dry battlefield that the Geneva Conventions were based on.
1. It doesn't matter who the target is or who was killed. Contractors are killed all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan driving along with military personnel.
2. Those who were "arrested" in connection to these terroristic acts are not U.S. civilians, therefore should not be afforded same rights as U.S. citizens.
3. Those who were "arrested" were actually captured on the battlefield in a foreign enemy land we are at war with under the legal processes natural to a military fighting a war (not civilian police officers).
4. Oddly, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them either because they are not uniformed soldiers.
5. They were not properly Mirandized by our military, thus it is not possible to have any resemblance to a normal/ordinary civilian criminal trial anyway without overlooking some normal processes civilians are usually given. The legal proceedings are far too different from a military tribunal to a civilian criminal trial; thus too many things you would normally have to do were not done (and shouldn't have to be done) by the military at the time of their capture (including reading of Miranda rights).
6. Get a liberal judge and a good lawyer, and they will tear this case apart simply on the ways testimony was gathered (compulsion), evidence was gathered, etc. and you'll have almost no choice but to acquit. Not to mention, you'll be inadvertently giving up military secrets along the way that a military tribunal is meant to protect. Bad idea.
If 12 New Yorkers can't find this guy guilty, then I am pretty damn sure he didn't do it. And he will not be realeased in the US, no matter what.
Only 1 juror has to harbor doubt. Not a difficult proposition in this instance. And if he is not found guilty, then what? If not released in America, then where exactly? They say they'll ship him back home, but it isn't up to us. Usually the country of origin doesn't even want them anyway.
And neither was the case for the the unabomber, OKC bombing or any other big trial. This is no different. As for precedent... where do you live that planning (and following thru) to kill thousands isn't already firmly against the law?
Completely different set of circumstances. First, Unabomber was a U.S. citizen. Second, he was not a militant combatant, nor was he picked up by the military, nor was he found in a foreign country. Thus, his capture, the gathering of evidence, his reading of rights -- all took place under the expectation that he would be tried in a civilian criminal courtroom. These foreign terrorists were not.
Oh yeah, the prez was the one prejudging, eh?
You clearly do not understand this enemy at all. I am really very sorry that you don't. I'm not about to make a general statement about all of Islam, but this is radical-extremist-Islam we're talking about. There is no room for peace with them. They will not stop until they have slit your throat and your children's throats and will laugh in your face about it. You might think you are not at war with them, but I promise you they are at war with you. Again, I'm only talking about radical-extremist Muslims, not all Muslims.
Finally, KSM already admitted to doing these crimes so draw your own conclusion.
That is all.
Good luck cracking mine then!
My password is approximately 32 bytes long, uses alpha numerics, and also uses two keyfiles, and encrypts with AES+DES+Blowfish. And I don't use that password anywhere except my encrypted "media" collection, and I also have a "shadow volume" in case the encrypted volume is discovered (for plausible deniability).
So there!
Or I could be lying. You'll never know.
At any rate, I think it would be easier to trick me into installing a keylogger/mouselogger (or break into my house and install it without my knowledge) and capture what I type in and click on to discover how to unencrypt it.
Or, wait for me to leave the encrypted volume mounted, and copy some part of the media that you know exists in the encrypted volume, and decrypt everything else based on that.
I believe you are grossly ignorant and uninformed of multiple facts. Due to the amount of effort I'd have to invest in educating you (which I doubt you would be receptive to anyway), it is not even worth such a sophomoric discussion with a stranger.
Good day,
OMG you're missing the point.
The reason you don't want him tried in a civil court is because he could not possibly be convicted there: He wasn't even properly Mirandized. That's just one technicality, I'm sure a competent attorney could easily find many more.
The problem is that KSM was found on a battlefield in a foreign country. He is not a US citizen. It doesn't make any sense to bring him back to America to try him in a civil court and give him rights reserved to US citizens, regardless of who the victims were.
I've also even heard it said from a NY federal judge (sorry, I don't know the name) that they aren't even set up to handle any case like this, both in legal process and in ensuring security/safety.
What you effectively set up with this precedence is this scenario: A group of terrorists decide to bomb a couple of ships simultaneously, one is a US Naval destroyer, and the other is a civilian cruise ship. All the terrorists are caught by the navy. No one knows which court they will be tried in, so there is a huge mess in processing (maybe some rights are read and some are not to all of them; maybe they are not told they have a right to an attorney). Now half of them are tried in a military tribunal, and half are tried in a civilian court of law. By what logic do you think this fiasco is the right way to conduct business?
You can't change horses in the middle of the stream like this. If you want to make a policy that all terrorists be brought to a civil court, then make that policy now for future terrorist arrests. Doing it now virtually guarantees they won't be convicted.
And even Eric Holder can't consistently answer why doing it for some and not others seems like a good idea.
Wait. You've jumped tracks.
Which Christians use the Old Testament LAW? Jews might? But typically "Christian" means that you recognize Jesus as the Son of God and that you believe he came to save us from the law and its consequences. I'm not sure which (if any) Christians use Old Testament law.
And then you've gone on to question whether the Bible is interpreted or literal or what?
Far from that, you've now jumped tracks again with a point of whether God even really exists, and if he does at what level is he involved in our lives?
That's all fine, and very fair questions to ask. I've had them ALL myself, and still wrestle with them from time to time.
Here are the bottom line facts that maybe you've never heard from a Christian before.
1. We don't know all the answers, and the Bible doesn't provide all the answers. Very often the Bible is vague and uses symbology. Anyone who says he has the answers to all of life's questions, even using the Bible, is just plain wrong.
2. Even in my own house, we have debated the interpretations of what the Bible means on certain things. A really big one is on whether the topic of Communion is literal or symbolic. I believe it is symbolic. My wife believes it is literal. But you know what? It doesn't matter. If there is any peace to be had in my home, you have your belief and I have mine; and that's the way it is.
3. God has never spoken out loud to me. He's never even spoken to me through a voice in my head. I've never experienced anything that YOU would call a miracle that couldn't be explained by statistical probability or chance. But I have experienced a miracle that was very real and personally tailored to me. It wasn't something anyone else did or was involved in, and I choose to believe that it was God speaking to me in his own way.
4. I believe that any being on a higher plane than man with sufficient enough technology, adequately fits the definition of "God" -- whether it turns out to be space aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
5. Not all Christians believe in the literal "Creation". I personally believe it to be a symbolic representation.
There is nothing I can ever say to you that will make you agree with my personal beliefs. So, if you TRULY, and HONESTLY, REALLY believe that there is no God of the bible, then I challenge you to do this one test:
Go somewhere tonight and find a perfectly secluded, quiet place, in the dark. Call out to God. Call to him and say, "OK, God of heaven and earth, here I am! You have my ear! What is it that you want me to hear? What will tell me?"
Give him two hours to respond to you in a real, definite way that would be enough for you. Really keep an open mind.
If he doesn't respond, then nothing changes. Life simply goes on and you can feel that much more certain there really never was any God.
But what if he does respond?
FAIL. Not if you're Christian. That's Old Law. This is New Covenant.
I doubt you care.
Oh, let me tell a story. Generally, I would agree with you, but the lesson I learned is that "no one is indispensable." The best you can do is to make it painful for them to get rid of you.
I was a senior technician for a company that sold software as a subscription service. Part of the software was billing and accounting. One day Development rolled out a new version that broke the billing part on systems using Windows 98. We now had 50 subscribers who could not access their billing data, though we were told an update would come soon. (It didn't come for 8 more months!)
So, 2 weeks after waiting for the fix, I reverse-engineered the updates and allowed the billing module to run on those Windows 98 computers, saving those customers. The customers would call in, and they were directed to speak only with me. Everyone was happy.
Our software also had a tendency to corrupt its database files, especially if on a network. I identified, and invented a process to find the source of the corruption, and fix the corrupted data files.
I was also Employee of the Month (out of over 100 employees at the company). It even had a cash award.
I was well-cherished in this company, and people liked me and liked working with me. So, do you think I was fairly indispensable?
Well, I was fired one day for being 2 minutes late -- by my manager who really liked me. I'm sure it was hard for him to do. It wasn't the first time I'd been a minute or two late over the past 3.5 years, but I'd certainly never been threatened with termination. So Why was I really fired? Because what we didn't know was that the company was downsizing, and the owner told every department they had to cut one person. In our department, I was the first one who screwed up in any way at all, and so I was the one let go.
Vindication: They called me several months later and asked if I would consider coming back to work for them. I'll let you figure out what I told them. A year later the company tanked and was sold. (Not so much from lack of me being there, though I'm sure it didn't help matters.)
The point is, I was pretty much as "indispensable" as you can get, I wasn't even the highest-paid, and yet I was fired for the minutest and trivial of reasons.
#7 ???
#8 Profit!!!
And make sure when they get cancer, you stop by every day to ridicule them for smoking. Great bed-side manner, there.
You're exactly the kind of IT manager I'm glad I don't have to work with -- you look for excuses why it isn't your fault and then provide no real help to anyone. You might have the preventative stuff covered, but when the shit hits the fan, you couldn't care less about others' problems.
So after they call you a prick behind your back, they'll bring it to me and I'll recover their stupid files; because for some of us, IT is a calling, not a job -- regardless of our job titles.
You, sir, are an asshole.
Please define rule of law.
Military? Or do you mean the Constitution, for which does not apply to them?
Well, 60% of her decisions have been overturned... some by the Supreme Court Justices she will join... so...
I'm just pointing out that it's a whacky thing for a judge to say. And that's not the only thing:
"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."
C'mon, really?
Correct, but if you read the whole speech she is saying that her experiences and culture will bias her judgement, whether she wants it to or not. I tend to disagree with this ideal; if you can't be impartial and disconnect yourself from your own experiences, then maybe you shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
-Judge Sonia Sotomayor
I'm no expert, and usually the last to cry "racist!", but that sounds pretty racially-biased to me.
I have, and still currently use, a 1991 Ensoniq EPS 16+ 16-bit sampler with a SCSI interface. I have it connected to a SCSI ZIP drive on one side, and the other side of the ZIP drive is connected to my PC. I then use a piece of software that can read/write to the ZIP disk (and can do other disk-utilty things). This allows me to search the net for any given sound effect/instrument wav file, convert it into an EPS 16+ instrument, write it to the disk, and then load it into the EPS 16+ and play it on the keyboard.
So I suppose I can say that it is connected to the Internet, in a small way.
I would have to argue that if you're spending that much on general litigation and procedure, you're being taken for a ride by your own attorney. Anyway, everyone knows its the paralegal that does all the work, and the attorney just signs it. So maybe enlist the help of an independent paralegal. My point is that there are ways to be frugal without sacrificing quality.
A corporation who is being sued by an individual (nuisance lawsuits) knows that they might spend $20,000 defending themselves (and know they'll win) against a frivolous suit. Nuisance lawsuit bringers also know this, so they tend to offer to settle for $15,000.
And the corps usually go for it.
Where does this notion come from that a lawsuit can drag on in perpetuity, draining all the funds from one party or the other? Please cite a reference (that doesn't involve incompetence on someone's part).
I hear this all the time, yet it doesn't really cost that much to file an answer to a brief every now and then -- hardly a "drain" at all, and it's quite impossible to drag a suit on for literally forever. Besides, I would think that has a tendency to piss most judges off and after ahile, they would just deny any brief attempting to do so.
Now you might be able to play a few delaying tactical games for some time (even 2 years is usual for most cases), but not indefinitely. And even so, it's not like you have to do something every day or you lose. It just doesn't work that way.
Also, perhaps it is a little known fact: all lawyers in Texas are required by the State Bar to do a certain amount of pro-bono work to be a member. (Yes, some weasel their way out of doing it.)
I believe the correct term is "colored people." At least that what 'CP' stands for in NAACP.
Heh.
Actually, some people voted for Obama multiple times. (Paid by ACORN.) It's a fact that one man registered to vote over 72 times because ACORN wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. I'd post a link, but you can google as easily as I can.
Yeah! And they elected Obama, too!
(stupid populace.)
It is a fact that you have a hunch... :-P
But there's a further problem with the analogy: If you are doing this in my town, I can call the local police and they have jurisdiction to stop that.
But call the police in your town to stop Yahoo? What 'police' DO you call?
I see your point and your logic is sound. However, remember that there may be no evidence that it is her ex-boyfriend who is the one doing this, thus no one to sue.
To use your analogy, it would be as if you hired a guy to hand out leaflets on your behalf, Bobb Sledd. Then I come along and say, "hey! stop that! I'm Bobb Sledd!" and the guy goes, no you're not! Bobb Sledd HIRED me!!! And he doesn't stop.
So I go to the parking lot owner, driver's license in hand, saying "Kick this guy off your property, he is handing out leaflets in my name, and I'm the real Bobb Sledd.
So, who really hired him? Should the parking lot owner really be involved? Who are you going to sue? Who can you sue?
You wrote the script, didn't you.