When journalists decided (and J-schools started teaching) that their role was to be advocates for a cause, rather than to honestly report the news, any semblance of "journalistic ethics" died.
He could probably get an extension on the class deadline under the circumstances, particularly if the mass panic persists. If no accredited CLE providers are running such a class within that timeframe, for example, and he timely (and accurately) notifies the court that this is the case, the time to comply would likely be extended. But if he's going to tell the court that, he'd better be really sure it's the truth--because you can bet the judge (or his clerk, more likely) will be checking.
Odds that all of this will happen? Given his history, I'd say 20:1 at best.
Substitute "former and likely future employer" if that helps you understand. The situation under discussion sounds very similar (thankfully minus the unsafe working conditions on return) to what happened with my wife:
Her office shut down for about a month.
During that time, nobody got paid.
All employees were eligible for, filed for (actually, the company filed on their behalf), and received unemployment benefits. However, all understood that when the office reopened, they'd go back to work as before. They all had jobs, in a sense (assuming the company didn't go under), but they weren't working or getting paid, so they were treated as unemployed.
Last week, the office did reopen, albeit on a part-time basis. Everyone went back to work. Now that they're getting paid from the job, they aren't collecting unemployment any more.
This is in Georgia, not Ohio, but it sounds like a similar situation in general.
So I'm a moron for not paying $15/mo for HBO. Even ignoring the possibility of alternative methods of obtaining HBO's content, why would I? AFAIK, I've never watched a HBO show--I know I've never watched Game of Thrones, and that's the only title that comes to mind. So why would I want to pay $15/mo for access to a network I've never needed or wanted before?
It's well past time to file a formal complaint with the California Bar about whether or not this extensive "analysis" of lawsuits and litigants goes beyond simple opinion and into UPL.
Well, no, it isn't, because that would be a simply idiotic position to take. Not that anything's stopping you--if you seriously believe this is the case, file the complaint, don't blather nonsensically here about how someone else should.
Discussing a case is not practicing law. Commenting on a case is not practicing law. Giving legal advice to particular parties (which, though I am an attorney, I'm not doing here) is practicing law. Nothing I've seen here (and I've been following the posts since the days of Rakofsky v. The Internet, so I've seen a lot) is even in the same county with practicing law.
I reject your premise that Zuckerberg, Facebook, Twitter, etc., are violating anybody's (well, any users') rights. You have no right to use any of those services, thus preventing you from using them violates no right. What part of this is too complicated for you to understand?
Since Mark Zuckerberg is neither the government nor an agent of the government, he's not capable, as a matter of law, of violating either the First or Fourth Amendment rights of anybody. Neither is Twitter, neither is YouTube, neither is any other non-government individual or company. This really isn't a difficult concept, to the point where it's pretty much impossible to believe your feigned ignorance of it is anything other than deliberate.
As far as we can tell, COVID-19 originated in China. How the hell is it racist, then, to refer to it as a "Chinese virus"? It's a perfectly accurate description--it describes where the virus came from. It makes no assertion about the brutal totalitarian regime ruling the nation of China, about the people of that nation, nor about people of Chinese descent.
But that good news is tempered by Turner's own statements, where he declared he had arrested students as young as seven, which would have broken the same rules that got him fired for this arrest.
According to what you quoted directly above this, Turner couldn't arrest anyone under 12 without authorization from his watch commander. Unless you have more information than you're sharing, you don't know whether that applies to the arrest(s) of the seven-year-old(s) or not.
In many states, having more than $10,000 in cash in public is illegal in and of itself.
Name just one of those states, and identify the section of the state's statutes that says this.
I'd agree that in most cases carrying large amounts of money around isn't very smart, but I'm not aware of any place in the US where it's illegal.
Are the detainees lawful immigrants? Illegal aliens (oh, I'm sorry, "undocumented immigrants")? Or an undifferentiated group of non-citizens? The answer to this question matters a great deal, and basic journalistic competence would have indicated you should have answered it in the article. If you know the answer but didn't say, that's outright dishonest.
You know that among the duties of the Attorney General is to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, right? Because your posts on the subject don't demonstrate any awareness of this fact. He is not a representative of the people, and he isn't supposed to be--he's a member of the President's Cabinet, part of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the general responsibility of that branch is to (1) implement the president's policies, and (2) duly execute the laws of the country.
Prager a racist? Do tell. He's certainly inconsistent on the subject of free speech (as, unfortunately, are many people), but what has he said or done that's racist?
As evidenced on page 4-6, exhibit #2 of that very same link that YOU JUST FALSELY CLAIMED THAT YOU READ ENTIRELY!
Pages 4-6 of that document aren't evidence, and aren't part of any exhibit. Exhibit 2 only consists of two pages. Try again (or better yet, don't).
John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge withheld a non-disclosure / non-circumvent agreement that these clients attorneys did, in fact, prepare on behalf of their former clients that John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge concealed from being disclosed to the court. As evidenced in Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Selakovic et al. civil case #9:18-cv-81104 Docket entry 102 page Exhibit #7.
Exhibit 7 (at least, the two pages of that four-page letter that were included) doesn't say that. It says Plaintiffs provided no sufficient evidence that the James Ryan, Michael Ryan, or Ryan Law ever represented them, and as a result PB would not pursue that claim further. It advises Plaintiffs to drop that part of the suit, and says PB will withdraw from representing Plaintiffs if they do not.
But really, what I think doesn't matter--I'm not the judge. How did the court rule on that motion?
Fair enough; I inferred that from Juan/Susan/Polly's posts and apparent passion about the case. But it's possible, I guess, that he/she/it/they is/are simply disinterested observers who hate Pierce Bainbridge for unrelated reasons. In that case, "you" (and variants) should be substituted with "Greenway" in my posts above.
unsolicited legal advise
Since you don't know what legal advi[c]e is, it's to be hoped that you aren't involved in a law firm in any serious way. I advise my clients, who fortunately have nothing to do with the word salad that is the linked pleading (or, to my knowledge, with anything else that's discussed on this site).
It's entirely possible for two things to simultaneously be true:
John Pierce is an asshole
John Pierce was substantially in the right in the actions that resulted in the nonsensical mess linked above being filed with the court
I don't have any particular opinion on the first; I certainly wouldn't argue against it and could easily believe it to be true. As to the second, I believe it to be true from what I can see in those very documents. I also find it telling that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has made any attempt to demonstrate that I'm wrong (which is certainly possible).
Well, I am a lawyer, and I do get paid--but I have no connection whatsoever with Pierce Bainbridge, and don't even recall that I'd heard of the firm before this post.
Yes, exhibit 15 is blunt. It's rude. It's something that I wouldn't ordinarily expect the managing partner of a well-known firm to write to a client. And you're misquoting it, in that the two phrases you quote as a single sentence actually weren't.
But, however rude it is, the substance of it is correct. You engaged PB to sue (among others) your alleged former lawyers. They (foolishly) believed you when you said they were your former lawyers. When those lawyers pushed back, PB asked you to provide evidence, which you were unable or unwilling to do. There's one piece of evidence, which you absolutely would have if it existed, that would prove this point: an engagement/representation agreement signed by both you and them. You didn't give them that document. As a result, they reached two important conclusions:
They could not pursue the claim against your alleged former lawyers without placing their own licenses, their own finances, and your finances in jeopardy, and
They needed to fire you as a client, because you lied to them about a matter of critical importance to the case
As much as you blather about counterfeit software, it had nothing to do with your case--the case was dealing with your own product being sold improperly. No doubt your confusing these completely unrelated issues added to Pierce's frustration.
And, since you're apparently confused on this subject, pages 4-24 of that 150-page mess aren't evidence of anything--they're simply your claims.
It's important to note that I don't have (or claim) any independent knowledge of your case--everything I'm writing is drawn from the documents you linked to.
I expected the link would consist of the word salad typical of pro se filings. I was not disappointed. Every piece of evidence attached to that monstrosity of a pleading supports Pierce Bainbridge's position, not yours.
That isn't what conversion means in a legal sense--conversion is a civil action for their taking your physical property. IOW, it's a civil action for theft. Vandalism, possibly. Something under the CFAA, perhaps. Some form of trespass to chattel, maybe. There's an action out there for this, but conversion isn't it.
Re:
Is that the Hoople campus? Near the Turtle Mountain Naval Base?
When journalists decided (and J-schools started teaching) that their role was to be advocates for a cause, rather than to honestly report the news, any semblance of "journalistic ethics" died.
Re: Re: Now if that can go from the exception to the norm...
He could probably get an extension on the class deadline under the circumstances, particularly if the mass panic persists. If no accredited CLE providers are running such a class within that timeframe, for example, and he timely (and accurately) notifies the court that this is the case, the time to comply would likely be extended. But if he's going to tell the court that, he'd better be really sure it's the truth--because you can bet the judge (or his clerk, more likely) will be checking. Odds that all of this will happen? Given his history, I'd say 20:1 at best.
Re: Re: Re:
Substitute "former and likely future employer" if that helps you understand. The situation under discussion sounds very similar (thankfully minus the unsafe working conditions on return) to what happened with my wife:
- Her office shut down for about a month.
- During that time, nobody got paid.
- All employees were eligible for, filed for (actually, the company filed on their behalf), and received unemployment benefits. However, all understood that when the office reopened, they'd go back to work as before. They all had jobs, in a sense (assuming the company didn't go under), but they weren't working or getting paid, so they were treated as unemployed.
- Last week, the office did reopen, albeit on a part-time basis. Everyone went back to work. Now that they're getting paid from the job, they aren't collecting unemployment any more.
This is in Georgia, not Ohio, but it sounds like a similar situation in general.HBO?
So I'm a moron for not paying $15/mo for HBO. Even ignoring the possibility of alternative methods of obtaining HBO's content, why would I? AFAIK, I've never watched a HBO show--I know I've never watched Game of Thrones, and that's the only title that comes to mind. So why would I want to pay $15/mo for access to a network I've never needed or wanted before?
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
I reject your premise that Zuckerberg, Facebook, Twitter, etc., are violating anybody's (well, any users') rights. You have no right to use any of those services, thus preventing you from using them violates no right. What part of this is too complicated for you to understand?
Re:
Since Mark Zuckerberg is neither the government nor an agent of the government, he's not capable, as a matter of law, of violating either the First or Fourth Amendment rights of anybody. Neither is Twitter, neither is YouTube, neither is any other non-government individual or company. This really isn't a difficult concept, to the point where it's pretty much impossible to believe your feigned ignorance of it is anything other than deliberate.
Racist?
As far as we can tell, COVID-19 originated in China. How the hell is it racist, then, to refer to it as a "Chinese virus"? It's a perfectly accurate description--it describes where the virus came from. It makes no assertion about the brutal totalitarian regime ruling the nation of China, about the people of that nation, nor about people of Chinese descent.
Rules...
According to what you quoted directly above this, Turner couldn't arrest anyone under 12 without authorization from his watch commander. Unless you have more information than you're sharing, you don't know whether that applies to the arrest(s) of the seven-year-old(s) or not.
Re:
Who are these "immigrants"?
Are the detainees lawful immigrants? Illegal aliens (oh, I'm sorry, "undocumented immigrants")? Or an undifferentiated group of non-citizens? The answer to this question matters a great deal, and basic journalistic competence would have indicated you should have answered it in the article. If you know the answer but didn't say, that's outright dishonest.
You know that among the duties of the Attorney General is to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, right? Because your posts on the subject don't demonstrate any awareness of this fact. He is not a representative of the people, and he isn't supposed to be--he's a member of the President's Cabinet, part of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the general responsibility of that branch is to (1) implement the president's policies, and (2) duly execute the laws of the country.
Re:
Prager a racist? Do tell. He's certainly inconsistent on the subject of free speech (as, unfortunately, are many people), but what has he said or done that's racist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
- John Pierce is an asshole
- John Pierce was substantially in the right in the actions that resulted in the nonsensical mess linked above being filed with the court
I don't have any particular opinion on the first; I certainly wouldn't argue against it and could easily believe it to be true. As to the second, I believe it to be true from what I can see in those very documents. I also find it telling that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has made any attempt to demonstrate that I'm wrong (which is certainly possible).Re: Re: Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
Well, I am a lawyer, and I do get paid--but I have no connection whatsoever with Pierce Bainbridge, and don't even recall that I'd heard of the firm before this post. Yes, exhibit 15 is blunt. It's rude. It's something that I wouldn't ordinarily expect the managing partner of a well-known firm to write to a client. And you're misquoting it, in that the two phrases you quote as a single sentence actually weren't. But, however rude it is, the substance of it is correct. You engaged PB to sue (among others) your alleged former lawyers. They (foolishly) believed you when you said they were your former lawyers. When those lawyers pushed back, PB asked you to provide evidence, which you were unable or unwilling to do. There's one piece of evidence, which you absolutely would have if it existed, that would prove this point: an engagement/representation agreement signed by both you and them. You didn't give them that document. As a result, they reached two important conclusions:
- They could not pursue the claim against your alleged former lawyers without placing their own licenses, their own finances, and your finances in jeopardy, and
- They needed to fire you as a client, because you lied to them about a matter of critical importance to the case
As much as you blather about counterfeit software, it had nothing to do with your case--the case was dealing with your own product being sold improperly. No doubt your confusing these completely unrelated issues added to Pierce's frustration. And, since you're apparently confused on this subject, pages 4-24 of that 150-page mess aren't evidence of anything--they're simply your claims. It's important to note that I don't have (or claim) any independent knowledge of your case--everything I'm writing is drawn from the documents you linked to.Re: PIERCE BAINBRIDGE SCAM!!! ...
I expected the link would consist of the word salad typical of pro se filings. I was not disappointed. Every piece of evidence attached to that monstrosity of a pleading supports Pierce Bainbridge's position, not yours.
Re: Re: Re:
That isn't what conversion means in a legal sense--conversion is a civil action for their taking your physical property. IOW, it's a civil action for theft. Vandalism, possibly. Something under the CFAA, perhaps. Some form of trespass to chattel, maybe. There's an action out there for this, but conversion isn't it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution