Yes Neil, you are correct. And, it has always been that way. The poor receive little or no justice in most cultures. Today, in the west, it isn't as bad as it has been in many eras. Not justification, just the truth. And, something to fit into our discussions about an ideal culture
On Feb 8, 9:03 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
