Truth be told! Plea Bargain attorneys abound regardless of innocence in povertyville.
On Feb 8, 11:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > One notes that in all the plethora of lawyers, access to justice is > poor if you are poor. > > On 9 Feb, 02:58, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On the other hand, relocation may cause problems too. My father was > > attorney general of a mid-western state for a while. A few years > > later, he relocated to Florida. They told him outright that he would > > never pass the bar there because they already had plenty of lawyers. > > They were right. . . and he even had a photographic memory! Politics. > > > On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A quick look through the yellow pages in your city will give you an > > > idea of the competitive edge you either have or don't have concerning > > > the status of your legal expertise, if 1/3 of the pages are attorney > > > listings, it's not looking too good. Many attorneys get stuck on the > > > pro bono and public defender carousel. My daughter is extremely lucky > > > as having passed the CA. bar the second time around and then finding a > > > position as assistant DA. However the position is temporary and > > > subject to termination at any time. Sometimes relocation is the answer > > > to increasing your chances of success. I had a friend once that > > > wouldn't leave his area in order to stay with his family, the result > > > was a PhD working at the supermarket instead of his chosen field. My > > > wife and I are alone at home now with all the kids living out of > > > state. The upside is a reason for great road trips. > > > > On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well it makes me feel better knowing that I'm not the only legal > > > > personality wasting my time on the internet. ;) > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:05 pm, RichardM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > As a law professor, I find this highly illuminating. > > > > > > On Feb 8, 12:34 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't know how to take that comment KC, but yes it was a CP. > > > > > > However, I do have some experience writing legal contracts, imagine > > > > > > that! > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 9:55 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Slip, > > > > > > > Please tell me you copied and pasted that. I can't imagine how > > > > > > > long > > > > > > > that would have taken you to write otherwise. > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 10:29 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I guess the answer is no, KC, so let me explain; > > > > > > > > > Such number as may be deemed necessary to perform the stated > > > > > > > > task in a > > > > > > > > timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the > > > > > > > > following > > > > > > > > agreement. Whereas the party of the first part, also known as > > > > > > > > 'the > > > > > > > > lawyers' and the party of the second part, also known as 'the > > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > > bulb' do hereby agree to a transaction wherein the party of the > > > > > > > > second > > > > > > > > part (light bulb) shall be removed from the current position as > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, > > > > > > > > i.e. the > > > > > > > > lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area > > > > > > > > ranging > > > > > > > > from the front (North) door, through the entryway, terminating > > > > > > > > at an > > > > > > > > area just through the primary living area, demarcated by the > > > > > > > > beginning > > > > > > > > of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > party of the second part (light bulb) and not required by the > > > > > > > > aforementioned agreement between the parties. The aforementioned > > > > > > > > removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the > > > > > > > > following steps: > > > > > > > > > 1. The party of the first part (lawyer) shall, with or without > > > > > > > > elevation at his option, by means of a chair, step stool, > > > > > > > > ladder or > > > > > > > > any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part > > > > > > > > (light bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (light > > > > > > > > bulb) in a > > > > > > > > counter clockwise direction, said direction being > > > > > > > > non-negotiable. Said > > > > > > > > grasping and rotation of the party of the second part (light > > > > > > > > bulb) > > > > > > > > shall be undertaken by the party of the first part (lawyer) to > > > > > > > > maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > (light bulb), notwithstanding the aforementioned failure of the > > > > > > > > party > > > > > > > > of the second part (light bulb) to perform the customary and > > > > > > > > agreed > > > > > > > > upon duties. The foregoing notwithstanding, however, both > > > > > > > > parties > > > > > > > > stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > (light bulb) may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to > > > > > > > > perform and in such case the party of the first part (lawyer) > > > > > > > > shall be > > > > > > > > held blameless for such structural failure insofar as the non- > > > > > > > > negotiable directional codicil (counter-clockwise) is observed > > > > > > > > by the > > > > > > > > party of the first part (lawyer) throughout. > > > > > > > > > 2. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part > > > > > > > > (light > > > > > > > > bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part > > > > > > > > ('receptacle'), the party of the first part shall have the > > > > > > > > option of > > > > > > > > disposing of the party of the second part (light bulb) in a > > > > > > > > manner > > > > > > > > consistent with all applicable state, local, and federal > > > > > > > > statutes. > > > > > > > > > 3. Once seperation and disposal have been achieved, the party > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > first part (lawyer) shall have the option of beginning the > > > > > > > > installation of the party of the fourth part ('new light > > > > > > > > bulb'). This > > > > > > > > installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse > > > > > > > > procedures described in step one of this self same document, > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise > > > > > > > > direction, said direction also being non-negotiable and only > > > > > > > > until the > > > > > > > > party of the fourth part (new light bulb) becomes snug in the > > > > > > > > party of > > > > > > > > the third part (receptacle) and in fact becomes the party of the > > > > > > > > second part (light bulb). > > > > > > > > > Note: The above described steps may be performed, at the option > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > party of the first part (lawyer), by said party of the first > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > (lawyer), or by his or her heirs and assigns, or by any and all > > > > > > > > persons authorized by him or her to do same the objective being > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity of the > > > > > > > > aforementioned front (North) door consistent with maximization > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > 'The Firm'. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 8:39 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Do you know how many lawyers it takes to change a light bulb > > > > > > > > > KC? > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 4:09 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok Slip, I don't know if your joking now or not, so I'll > > > > > > > > > > let you know, > > > > > > > > > > I was joking. I thought my sarcasm and humor was pretty > > > > > > > > > > thick, but > > > > > > > > > > maybe not. > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:07 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You know I was thinking it too? Wow! > > > > > > > > > > > > Truthfully, I was not thinking any such thing not even > > > > > > > > > > > remotely, get > > > > > > > > > > > a grip my friend! > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps this is self revealing and something that you > > > > > > > > > > > should examine > > > > > > > > > > > about yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Paranoia is a bad thing KC. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:55 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was only replying to your comment because you > > > > > > > > > > > > identified the author, > > > > > > > > > > > > my comment was really aimed at Fran. BUT I know you > > > > > > > > > > > > were thinking it > > > > > > > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:53 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you perceive my identification of the quote as > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > implication?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you implying something about me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:39 pm, Kierkecraig > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the implication that I am a Nazi? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2:32 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's from Hitler’s Zweites Buch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 3:19 pm, frantheman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Feb., 21:51, Don Johnson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor david hanson? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM, frantheman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Feb., 01:29, frantheman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Nietzsche was a genius, and very troubled > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> man. He can be mined for all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> sorts of ideas and inspirations and much > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of it is misrepresentational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Personally, I've never been convinced of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> his glorification of Homeric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Greece and Sparta, as well as his working > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of the master-slave theme, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> although others have found it inspiring: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> "At one time the Spartans were capable of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> such a wise measure, but not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> our present, mendaciously sentimental, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bourgeois patriotic nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The rule of six thousand Spartans over > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> three hundred and fifty > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
