This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
This Is What's Wrong With The Legal System In America
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
What else could we have done with the billions of dollars squandered on regulatory friction and the pursuit of questionable claims of damage?
Behind the public-relations facade of "advocacy" and "justice," much of the American legal system is unproductive regulatory friction and the pursuit of extortionist rentier skims. I recently received an email that reflects many aspects of this systemic reality.
The letter blares legal threat in its upper-case title: TRADEMARK VIOLATION. Not possible trademark violation or alleged trademark violation, but a declaration of the unquestioned guilt of the recipient.
The email then proceeds to the accusation:
We recently visited your website and discovered that you are using the phase “From the Garden to the Table” on your website.
This is not an accurate statement. I used the phrase once within a longer string of words: from the garden to the table in 20 minutes. I am not "using the phrase on my website," I wrote those words once as a description of my individual actions, i.e. harvesting vegetables from my garden and preparing a meal with them in 20 minutes.
Next, the email lists the URL to the offending page on my site, but when I clicked on the link, it led to some other website:
This URL http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/chard2-14.html led tohttp://experimentalstation.org/garden-to-plate-for-carnegie-elementary-s..., a page of the Chicago-based organization experimental station.
In other words, this threatening legal letter was filled with errors both subtle and egregious. Anecdotally, such sloppiness is hardly unique in American law--especially when it comes to issuing veiled threats and enforcing rentier skims. The basic approach in America is unleash a tsunami of questionable threats and demands and then see what sticks.
The email then declared: Please take formal and Legal notice that the phrase “From the Garden to the Table” is a TRADEMARKED NAME of a California based non-profit organization. This registration is listed under #3118945 in the US Patent and trademark office.
At this juncture, we have reason to believe that your utilization of the trademark may be an oversight, and as such, we are sending you this notice to request that you immediately remove this phrase from your website. (emphasis in the email)
Would any judge declare my single use of this phrase in the context of a longer phrase a violation of trademark law? It's difficult to see how my writing the plain English descriptive phrase from the garden to the table in 20 minutes harms the trademark or the holder of the trademark, from the garden to the table, a non-profit organization whose slogan is Eat & Live Green.Perhaps the organization has trademarked that phrase as well, so please be cautious in your use of eat & live green as well as from the garden to the table.
You see the Orwellian absurdity of a non-profit promoting growing and eating healthy food devoting resources to threatening individuals and other organizations that share these same goals with unproductive and nonsensical accusations of trademark violation.
If I were a donor of from the garden to the table, I would be wondering if devoting scarce resources to absurd attacks on obviously innocent uses of a trademarked phrase was really a good use of my money.
I would also wonder if such poorly executed "enforcement of trademark" is really the best possible use of the money I donated to further the goal of Eating & Living Green. Wouldn't donors' funds be better spent reaching out to these individuals and organizations, rather than harassing them with bogus accusations of TRADEMARK VIOLATION?
But none of this--the sloppiness, the scattershot accusations, the threatening tone of presumed guilt, the money squandered that could have been spent on something productive--is unique: it is standard practice in America.
We might also ask: why is it even possible to trademark such a phrase? What possible benefit is created by enabling the trademarking of virtually any common phrase, or the patenting of practices such as "photography against a white background"?
The practice of law in America boils down to two activities: enforcing extortionist rentier skims (for example, patent trolls who buy broad patents and then threaten everyone under the sun with questionable patent violations) or seeking extortionist compensation for alleged damages from anyone or any entity with insurance and/or cash to plunder.
The rest of the nation's unproductive legal churn is devoted to complying with the tens of thousands of conflicting and overlapping regulations imposed by layer upon layer of government. Common sense suggests some regulations benefit the broad public, but much of what is passed as "protecting the public" is actually designed to protect established businesses from competition and hide parasitic skims behind complexity fortresses.
All this generates two kinds of extortion: you need to pay legal firms to protect you from frivolous claims of damage (or else bad things happen), and you also have to pay them to "vigorously defend" whatever intellectual property you might own, lest the circling legal sharks snatch it all away (i.e. bad things happen).
This unproductive edifice of legalized extortion, threats, scattershot claims of damage and regulatory friction has a very high opportunity cost to society and the economy. How many potential entrepreneurs decide not to start a business once they see the horrendous costs of complying with overlapping regulatory complexities, and how many close down rather than face the uncertainties and high costs of legal jousting with attorneys whose own costs of filing accusations and threats is near-zero?
What else could we have done with the billions of dollars squandered on regulatory friction and the pursuit of questionable claims of damage? Some estimate the cost of legal extortion and regulatory compliance at $1.9 trillion a year--roughly 12% of the nation's GDP. There is no question we could have done something productive with all this treasure. Instead we have a system of parasitic make-work that incentivizes legalized extortion.
Yes, there are plenty of honest, hard-working attorneys. The problem is not the individuals trapped in the system, the problem is the system itself.
»
- 13508 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Lawyer: A man who will fight valiantly for your estate, then keep it for himself.
Legalese is THE problem.
We do not have the code. That is why we stumble through the legal system. Legalunease is the Backwords joke on us.
Someone actually owns the copyrighth to legalese.
It is an extension of the banking system, Bench = Bank. Etymologically.
Butt, who is "paying" attention. Are you "paying" attention?
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/the-deep-perversion-of-language/
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/are-you-with-me/
"Law" used to mean something - now it's just bullshit spewed by politicians.
A long read but clearly articulates The Myth of the Rule of Law in America. It's pretty eye opening.
The Mises Institute, Lew Rockwel, and Peter Schiff have all recently either spoken or written about the same topic as well.
A quick search on Google gave me these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+myth+of+the+rule+of+law&rlz=1C1CHFX_...
Highly recommended.
It used to be based on common morality, rather than negative right exclusion and postivism.
This is nonsense. It is and always has been based upon creating a sifter whereby privileged classes get to pick through the findings. Any desperate attempt to create sanity in bygone eras is merely ancestor worship.
Further, I'm not sure why you would think that morality is a fixed philosophy... it changes over time, just like the law. I'm not remotely certain that the law doesn't reflect our current moral values.
I think you're wrong. There's some very basic tenants of morality that remain valid from generation to generation. The non agression principle as an existence. This country is ruled now by positive law which is why it is failing. Some lite reading -
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/positive_and_negative_governme.html
http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/natural-law-vs-positive-law/
The best, Walter Williams - http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/walter-e-williams/masking-totalitarianism/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
The fact that morality changes over time isn't inconsistent with the proposition that some aspects of it remain very similar between generations...
MachoMan is correct in that the legal framework of the western world was inherited, largely wholesale, from the Roman Empire (which is why it is repleat with latin phrases and terms to this day). In Rome, the legal system was the means by which the patriachs and well to do resolved conflicts and disagreements (with hired proxies....aka barristers or lawyers) between themselves, i.e. purchasing "just us" and judgement from a tribuneral/triumberate. The poor would settle matters with knives in an alley. Such crass brutality and swift resolve would not do for the powerful and wealthy.
With regards to illegal immigration, you seem to have a problem with the rule of law yourself, yet you sit here and cast stones.
Hypocrite, thy name is Ch1
LOL... rule of law... that died a LONG time ago.
So, you believe in magic lines on maps? Action on one side is good and the same action on the other side calls for violence?
Interesting theory.
Hmmm...
You had better trademark the Greek lowercase "p" unless you want to be sued.
For 200 years America was the most fertile country in the world to sow capital.
Today capital is worthless in the USA. The licensing, insurance, regulation and taxation-all developed and promulgated by attorneys is the reason
Be sure not to use the word "Apple" in your future writings, either, Charles.
You've been warned.
Why do you pick Apple? Do you like Macinstosh? One time I was on a Safari in Yosemite and we had some Macintosh Apples. I did not like them so we took the Apples to the zoo and fed them to the Leopard and Tiger they had there. It wasn't really a Darwin like thing to do. It's all just Smoke and Mirrors anyway. I think I'll have myself a SixPack.
Sosumi.
so remove it, big deal. all the injustices in the world and this is what outrages you the most?
Sir: This is to inform you that I own the phrase "big deal" and you are now in "big trouble" (which I also own). Also, that question mark at the end of your sentence-- MINE. Send me the deed to your house and we'll call it even. Yours Truely--etc etc.
the author admitted using a quote made by someone else. admitted where he got it. for whatever reason they don't want him using it. common courtesy dictates that an ethical blogger, especially a for-profit blogger, should remove it. if the quote was inconsequential to his post the author should have no problem complying with such a simple request.
Are you fucking serious?
yes. i guess you believe that bloggers who write for free are "fair game" for anyone trying to make a quick buck off their work or to advance a cause contrary to their goals?
What's to stop me from "trademarking" every phrase in the English language? I'll let you have the last word. You're gonna need it.
okay, it looks like i may have misread the post the first time. if the author came up with that on his own then i apologize for my previous comments.
Please edit your post to remove the words "whatever reason" as it is owned by a band I just now randomly found on the internet. If you don't I will be forced to contact them to report your infringement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSW8HQw2EGM
First off, a quote that is not a duplicate is not a quote at all.
Second, a non profit, by definition, has no profit to protect, therefore cannot show harm or loss.
This is a shit throwing monkey with a suit instead of a tire swing.
I will simplify it.
It's a Criminal system, owned by Criminals & run by Criminals.
It's a big club and you and i aren't in it.
and ironically, you may soon be considered a criminal for pointing that out.
Hmmm….
The Trial Lawyers Assoc. is often considered the largest and most powerful in America. Approximately two thirds of all the lawyers in the world work here.
They make money off the conflict and the churn. The rules become the chains that only they can unlock after lengthy and expensive procedures.
I forgot to add, that since we are a "nation of laws" it is natural that we would have a healthy number of lawyers, generally to advise. However, I do not think anyone in their right mind at the founding thought we would become a nation of nearly a half million pages of law with approximately one to two thousand new pages each month.
This is the source of their power.
Of course they did... this is why numerous of the founding fathers expected the system to be scrapped in 20 years and reborn. They understood that every system of laws suffers the same fate, ultimately becoming a victim of its own success.
Right now the real money making opportunities are in liquidating companies and in stealing whatever wealth is left in America.
http://youtu.be/m2VxpTMAbas
The main problem with the legal system is that the government has a monopoly on it. Without any kind of competition that the free market could provide with law, you're stuck with low quality saddled with high prices.
I find it amusing how Western civilization prides itself on the rule of law, but rule of law does jack shit when you have only one entity able to enforce it and everyone is forced to abide by that one entity's decision.
Polycentric law, bitchez.
So, are you advocating the admissibility of Sharia law?
Multiplying the systems and enforcers of law doesn't help. The more entities you have enforcing the law, and the more arcane codes you have floating around that no one understands, the more shakedowns you get, and the more people you have who think themselves entited to enforce those shakedowns.
We already have an unhealthy number of legal systems. There are federal, state, and local laws. There are criminal and civil laws. The tax code is generally separate from the other codes of the various levels of jurisdiction, although in importance and size it's comparable, and alien functions like healthcare enforcement are being added to it. These are different law codes enforced by different branches of the government (often in turf wars with each other) and tried before different judges in different courts. We already have polycentric law and it sucks.
Legal systems are most just when they are simplest. If the legal code is not short and simple enough that the average citizen can comprehend its entirety, then it's inherintly unjust to hold him accountable to that code. Likewise, in a just system of simple laws, the average citizen should be able to defend himself in court competently, without the aid of lawyers. That lawyers exist to specialize in the law and know arcane, obtuse details that ordinary people do not, is a sign that the legal codes are too complex to be just. That lawyers have specializations and that no one lawyer knows all the laws, but that some know the tax laws and other the criminal code and so forth, shows that the system is so overgrown that even the lawyers could not defend themselves against any and all possible charges.
It's better than it was, since we no longer have competing secular and ecclesiastic jurisdiction like Europe did back in the middle ages and Renaissance. It's instructive to see what people living under polycentric systems of law wrote: check out Thomas More's Utopia (all of it, not just the second book that everyone reads). The Utopians, in contrast to Europe's constant manufacturing of new laws, have a single legal system that is so small that the citizens actually understand its contents. This, because More (himself a lawyer) recognized the inefficiency and injustice of massive legal codes.
SO by your post you think that there are only two alternatives... That is called absolutism.
That's a brief enough response that I suspect that you're simply trolling: what did I suggest that was absolutist or binary?
I disagree with your fundamental premise. HUMANS DO NOT FOLLOW LEGAL SYSTEMS. Simply put, we follow our own, individual wiring. It tends to coincide with the law, but if push comes to shove, then we tend break the law. This has been proven time and time again regarding the philosophical bases for a legal system. Deterrence isn't high on the list of things the system can actually complete.
All else equal, a simpler system is probably a more just one... however, the devil of every system is in the details. Most people, even legal scholars, can't draft for shit.
What you say about the individual motive is very true, but I wonder if the idea of deterrence isn't overblown in the existing legal system. It would be simpler if restitution were the main focus rather than deterrence: don't punish victimless crimes to deter behavior, but do require restitution for actual damages. If someone breaks a store window, have him pay for it; if someone raids segregated customer accounts to cover his failed prop trading desk, he should also pay back his customers in some way instead of going free to start his own hedge fund. That's basic equity. On the other hand, if someone does no actual harm but just happens to grow on his own property a plant that society frowns upon, or if he fails to wear a seat belt, he owes nothing in the way of restitution and shouldn't be punished in order to change his behavior (deterrence).
Restitution is good, and is essentially the poor man's mechanism for civil grievance, since most everything is illegal. Pursuing criminal charges against someone for restitution tends to lend far better net results than a civil lawsuit against someone for effectively the same charge. The problem, of course, is that our country is filled with turnips and imposing restitution on people is little more than a concession of sovereign immunity. They can't pay the fine and end up in jail... the cost to society is actually greater than the cost to the individual if nothing was ever done. You also have to answer a pretty difficult question in whether the state should impose itself and incarcerate people for innocuous crimes (e.g. failure to pay rent).
I think we can all admit that rehabilitation is laughably absurd and that experiment has long since died its liberal death.
The better justification for the legal system is retribution.
PS, the main justification at this point for punishment is to continue the status quo and ensure that the prison complex keeps churning... that the criminal system is largely just a treadmill for indigents and idiots... mostly through being a trap for the unweary.
So, are you advocating the admissibility of Sharia law?
If people are silly enough to choose it, sure!
As for imposing it on peolpe... you might want to go back to the Surging's use of the word "monopoly."
"So, are you advocating the admissibility of Sharia law?"
No, it's a matter of accepting the admissibility of Shari Law, along with Girl Scout law or whatever a particular community, or subset thereof, voluntarily agrees to within the confines of the non-aggression principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
That works for ideally small communities of ideally informed citizens who voluntarily enter into agreements. I would concede that, if a community, consciously desiring to achieve a polycentric legal system, were fully versed in Sharia law and decided voluntarily to accept it in addition to the secular laws in which they were fully versed, it would be right for them so to do: but that scenario is a fantasy, since you won't find a real-world community with such legal knowledge.
My problem is with the overcomplexity of real, existing law codes: when none of the citizens knows the full extent of the law, it is impossible for him to voluntarily accept and follow the law. So long as the law is too large and complex for the average citizen to understand, I fail to see how he can be held to have voluntarily accepted it, or how it could be in his interest to multiply the centers of legal authority and enforcement. The US tax code alone is thirteen thousand pages; add to that the criminal and civil codes and regulations issued by the executive branches at the federal and state levels, and toss in the municpal codes, and you have a mass that even lawyers do not understand in its entirety (hence why you don't hire a DUI lawyer to handle your taxes): is it right to suggest that citizens have voluntarily entered into an agreement to obey what they cannot have read and understood? Would it not be better to pare back those laws to a more reasonable size than to add whole new legal centers?
Legislation and enforcement are not a market, and competition would not simplfy law but complicate it. While voluntary, private arbitration can settle some disputes more rapidly than the public legal system, that simply points to the need to refactor the legal system into something more comprehensible and streamlined. Arbitration is a band-aid on a bigger problem that needs to be solved rather than circumvented.
When "none of the citizens knows the full extent of the law," it is because the law has metastasized into lawlessness (as of course is has):
That said, the "ideal" manifests itself all the time, the world over, as a matter of course, without which our species would have long ago become extinct:
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuSEPBbayQ
Text: https://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf
Tacitus wisely observed 2 millenia ago that "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws."
Fuck the state and fuck law. Anarchy is the only freedom. Libertarians who believe in a government monopoly on force and that protects property "rights" would have us slaves just as the socialists, conservatives, etc would.
The moment you abdicate ANY aspect of your life to government you are a slave. Whether wealthy or poor you're "rights" are now in the hands of a third party. In other words, you no longer have any rights.
"Libertarians who believe in a government monopoly on force and that protects property "rights" would have us slaves just as the socialists, conservatives, etc would."
True libertarians believe no such thing:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
And what rights do you have in a state of anarchy? . . . and for how long?
You have unlimited rights and you have them forever. Because though someone may take your life, property or freedom it is NEVER with the backing/legitimization of the state. under our current system .gov can take EVERYTHING from you and it is all quite legitimate according to "law"...
I personally detest the use of the word anarchy to describe a stateless society. After all, society can't exists without governance of some kind, i.e., without a rule of law, and that's what the first definition of anarchy is. Worse, the other defintions refer to the kind of chaos or disorder one equates with Katrina and the like, so those who apply the term to the libertrian ideal are only assuring that the general public will never accept it and will in fact be repulsed by it.
As for rights in a stateless society, I see no way of codifying them unless there is a real social contract (based on the non-aggression principle) that each adult member of society must sign, else there can be no legal system to protect their life, liberty, and property. With such a social contract in place, however, I see no reason why a stateless society couldn't grow essentially without limit, as neighboring states (provinces), recogniizing the immense benefits of "coopertive rule," vote to secede from their their central governments.
Freedom exists solely to the extent you have the power to protect it. There are plenty of lawless lands on this world, however, I can assure you that even in such lands, you'll still need to kiss someone's ring.
Europe gets a lot of things right-probably because of the lack of lobbying and special interests. I think it's a good decision on their part and I wish they would do it here.
My International Business prof. at UCLA said that the U.S. was much harder with people in regards to financial affairs than London is, which is why international people deal with London more than NYC. Germany did great when they slapped Google on the wrist with a fine for some violation instead of using the law to caused financial damage (for the benefit of competitors in the way Apple hired "MoFo" with revolving doors to the US court system to go after Samsung).
Special interest is scary when the U.S. Legislative system abides by "COMMON" vs. "CIVIL" law. The US uses "COMMON" law approach whereas Geramny uses "CIVIL" law.
Civil law is harder to study and it's "inflexible"- but you know what to expect. And it's much more fair.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-10
These countries seem to be trying to correct problems, not ruin livelihoods. Look at how nice it's handled without conflicts of interests and bought off politicians in the way!
In the U.S. it seems like corporations buy off Congress to destroy competition and of course nobody gets called out on the 8th Amendment violation.
With Common Law (that includes bought off courts-thank you Morrison and Forrester that has revolving door with the courts)... violating the 8th Amendment on behalf of lobbyists and special interest becomes a conflict of interest against the citizens and their businesses (livlihoods) in the ol' grand U.S. of A.
Now citizens of Europe are exercising their rights to privacy. Look at how well it's working out.
Google (probably shouldn't take the money) but they free up server space and lose libel liabilities. I think it's a good decision on their part and I wish they would do it here.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2014/05/30/right-to-be-forgotten-webform/
interestingly (using the word loosely) Louisiana operates under Civil Law.
combatsnoopy Europe gets a lot of things right-probably because of the lack of lobbying and special interests. I think it's a good decision on their part and I wish they would do it here.
---
Really?
http://corporateeurope.org/blog/lobby-power-surfaces-eu-election-campaig...
Lobby power surfaces as EU election campaign theme.
The EU is looking to pass transparency laws. Just great. Obama and Pelosi promised the most transparent government. Don't hold your breathe.
Multi national corporations have lobbied heavily on both sides of the pond and still do today.
Your UCLA prof is a moron. All Germany had to do is say, cut it out, or we cut YOU out period. Instead they took the money. Youi can debate whether it was a government shake down or a Google bribe. Neither had to happen.
If you think Europe's politicians aren't bought off, I beg to differ and think you are naive and have soaked into much liberal clap trap. Courts can be bought off under civil law too.
Civil law is more inflexible. LOL. You have obviously never testified in a civil lawsuit, ever been deposed or worse been involved a lawsuit. And first of all, at $400/hour when your 2 lawyers talk to their 3 lawyers its $2,000/hour. Believe me, after a few years the legal bills will be well into the millions and every email, statement, whatever gets totured to the point of being reedickuluszzz.
Lawyers do not care, they are in it for the pay.
It's just like a hospital bill, it's just a negotiating starting position... I find that the people who have a problem with large legal bills are the same people who tend to be passive and fail to assert appropriate boundaries elsewhere in their lives. Every service provider takes advantage of these types of people. Don't be a victim. Don't give your lawyer a blank check and require them to give you updates as to the time spent. If they won't comply, then go to someone else, it's a buyers market.
How about they, the plaintiffs, can eat shit and bark at the moon? Hows'boutdat?
Is that trademarked?
Sometimes, those stuffy artiste foodies just plain suck. Lousy bastards. Dumbasses.
Eat decent food and prepare decent meals.
I'm going to trademark that.
I am shocked that legal system in the freeeeeeest of the countries could be abused.
Completely shocked: http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/05/30/1518238/zazzlecom-thinks-depi...
In closing…
. .
And you know what?
I am really not exercised by this because I know the law and I found it all very amusing.
This is the kind of mentality that runs the global IP process.
I am copyrighting everyone's name and avatar. I now legally own all of you, thank you very much.
Warning: you don't want to infect yourself with this shit.
"The mathematical symbol "pi" is a registered trademark"
What the fuck? No seriously, what THE FUCK?
Go and ask the morons who junked me, they are living examples of how this becomes possible.
This should be more than enough proof that government of any kind is the most UNnecessary eViL imaginable...
The letters 'e' and 'i' are also mathematical symbols. Anyone see a problem here?
Haven't found a lawyer worth 2 cents.
"Haven't found a lawyer worth 2 cents."
Until you need one. I'm 43 -1 w/the courts (No criminal) and while some of them suk balz they have prevaled for me.
Major shout-out to Gory-Julian and Assoc. in Edwardsville,Ill. on my Mesothelioma case.(Fathers wrongful death suit)
Blah blah blah...my father died from asbestos and after many years in the legal system his life was worth pennies on the dollar. As the large corporations covered their ass in liability and they the lawyers got their cut at 33 percent too. Thank God my dad was a smart man and did not have any debt otherwise my mom would have lost everything. Which by the way the bastard lawyers made her sign off any future claims and she too died a year later.
And the lawyers held a gun to your head and made you file a wrongful death suit? If you wanted, I'm sure you could have paid them by the hour instead of on a contingency... probably couldn't pony up the retainer though, but still want to complain that someone else fronted his money and wants to get paid on an uncertain outcome.
You found one worth .02. Well done.
we pay these arseholes incredible money, and they raely look at their briefs until
the day of trial, sitting outside the courtroom.Happenend to me yet again just last week
in a contract dispute.If you don't do the legwork they rarely will.
Rules of procedure down here in Florida preclude businesses from representing themselves.
Nice little racket they have going on.
Just watched an episode of "Arrested Development" where Henry Winkler (the Fonz) plays the family attorney. He brings in a 3 inch binder with their settlement and tells then that they need to take it and that they will not get anything better. Michael Bluth asks him if he read it and the attorney says "no", and refers to how thick it is and who in their right mind would read it.
Yes it is a racket and usually the average joe is not part of it. However the average joe can do some research and get results without the expense. I have dealt with various attorneys fr non criminal issues in my life and haven't seen one worth a damn.
Many attorneys suck shit through a straw... Just like doctors... just like repairmen... just like every profession. You don't think that because someone can graduate college and get a certificate that they're "good" at anything, right? Hell, any decent sophomore in highschool could pass the bar exam after a barbri prep course.
You have to keep sifting through them til you find one worth a shit that doesn't charge you an arm and a leg. It is a difficult process and you'll probably get burned a few times, but you will eventually find the one you're looking for if you actually take the time to look. It's no different than anything else in life.
And yes, many lawyers, especially trial lawyers, tend to do virtually no preparation and go into the case and wing it. These are people who you can only afford to pay if they're dirt cheap... you pay your attorney to prepare and it's an incredible dishonor to you if he doesn't. Rest assured though, whether he does or not, he'll probably charge you for it. And the judge will likely protect your attorney by dragging him through the case.
Never seemed to make any difference what I have paid, from
instructing lawyers in the High Court in London, to lawyers(will not call them counsel) in the county court in
Florida.Same shit, different container.
Barristers are different and often good, but only as good as their brief from the lawyers.
But they are not lawyers per se, can be, but its not a requirement.They are articled to
a chambers ie they serve a five year hands on apprenticeship before coming to the bar.
Not book learning.A law degree does not admit you to the High court bar,only
articles.
Thats another nice scam, only a lawyer can instruct counsel, so you get both fees.
We've already been put on notice, the law is whatever you're willing to enforce at the end of a gun. By governmental actions they've told us indirectly the law is not longer in effect. If it doesn't apply to them, it no longer applies to anyone. In short, the rule of law is dead.
Act accordingly!
What's wrong with the legal profession/system/progressives is lack of ethics, lack of morals, lack of honor, lack of honesty, lack of adherence to their oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic; with a few grammatical and spelling errors thrown in, from their table to yours.
I believe copyright protection also extends to cover comments made containing quotes from other sources on for-profit websites. A short quote with a link back to the source is usually not challenged but lengthy quotes (especially repeated over time violations) or quotes without attribution can be successfully challenged in court and damages can be sought if the situation is not remedied. I always claimed fair use because none of my blogs made a dime and never had anyone ask me to remove anything but would have in a heartbeat even though I was exempt. If someone doesn't want me using their shit so be it imo.
Send a letter to IRS demanding that they revoke tax-exempt status from that so-called "non profit" scam shop. The basis for the action would be the frivolous expenditures that have nothing to do with the "non-profit's" stated purpose: whaever it might be, it's not to hire a law firm to "protect" a very commonly used phrase.
Good luck with that. Virtually all authorities have a "hands off" policy towards "charities".
That Form Letter was probably billed for several hours of attorney time despite being the result of a mail merge of some sort. I advise clients that receive these ridiculous letters rife with errors to focus their anger in writing a cathartic letter to both the attorneys (because they are idiots) and the client (so they know that their attorneys are churning and billing them for inadequate work.)
I then bill them for an hour of my time.
Probably an entirely automated process. Run a spider over the Web, identify all hits on the text, and email a 'cease and desist' to every hit. No human intervention required.
I'm thinking those 'reputation' companies you see advertised might be doing this. At least as a sideline.
bingo. There are plenty of services that do this as an automated issue... especially with copyrights.
Send it to your spam email folder, and flag the address (and all future correspondence) as spam. Then ignore it. Problem solved.
This kind of trolling is almost entirely automated now. Play the same game.
It is a meaningless bluff. "Puffery" is a well established legal protection. Look it up.
Edit. I am an idiot. This is a frivolous trademark case not a false advertisement case. I should read more carefully
the third branch is more corrupt than the first two branches put together.
Well we could always coerce 60 billion a year out of some goy and build a shitload of nuclear devices and threaten the world if we dont get our way.
I got a bid that was wildly out of line for some routine carpenter work.
"Why so high?" I asked.
He told me the job required the use of a very dangerous 'cellulose bifurcation apparatus'.
"Which is?"
"A Skilsaw. I figured if it works for lawyers, it might work for me."
rimshot
I once worked for a local attorney for several weeks. Liked him immensely, wonderful guy. He gave me some free advice - "always do what your attorney tells you to do".
Once I didn't check with an attorney before making a decision and the matter turned into a lawsuit. I didn't win but I didn't lose. Oddly, the opposing attorney asked me if I always did what my attorney said. Now I do!
Right. How many times have you seen a lawyer make a claim of an inlienable right?
What we have is an identy crisis. The people have forgotten who they are. They have forgot that they created government to serve them. Branches of government are forced to assume that the other branches are acting properly, and within their scopes of power and authority. The people then do not correct the error of that assumption, and unkowingly agree to a lesser position.
I would seek to exact disproportionate, cruel, and merciless revenge against the plaintiff and the lawyer, myself.
From the Garden to the Table
I dug up and washed em tators. Took em From the Garden to the Table. Now some lawyer fella come round asking not to be speakin that way and I'm ready to make him quiet for good.
The Q99X2 use telepathy. Fuck lawyers. We have pyramids for them.
I like civil disobedience of this sort. Copyrights are to protect trademarks and essentially protect attributions to companies or groups, not to tie up large parts of the languare.
Just make sure you pay royalties to the proper parties the next time you sing "Happy Birthday."
You only got two out of three of the primary activities of the American "Justice" system.
The third is to supply a steady stream of bodies to our massive prison gulag either to serve as a profit source for privitized prisons or to keep politically powerful prison guard unions fully employed.
We are "The Land of The Free", yet with 5% of the world's population we have 25% of the world's total prison population.
Don't complain.
It keeps the price up of green baloney.
The Chinese shoot a good portion of their criminals so it helps keep their prison population percentages down.
I trademarked Bitchez for my dog porn magazine.
Pay me.
Here's 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a dollar for use of Bitchez.
American justice system IS a state sponsored Mafia organization. Every State Bar association touts its self-policing responsibilities of its members but then practices OMERTA. Every attorney knows if they report unethical behavior to the State Bar, their career is finished.
Every court assumes the attorney ONLY speaks the truth and every attorney abuses this priviledge. If everyone lies, justice will never be rendered. I had an attorney tell me that I was striving for truth and Federal Judge Leonard's court room had NOTHING to do with truth. Is this what they now teach in Law School?
Reporting unethical behavior isn't a death sentence in my community... It happens all the time... If anything, I would say the ethics committees for virtually every profession are overzealous. Their fault isn't pursuing matters, it's actually administering some material punishment... usually restitution + fines + continuing ed + probation + a record that the public can search. The problem is that many attorneys aren't really capable of practicing worth a damn.
However, you are correct regarding the court presuming attorneys speak the truth. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. Judges tend to not issue sanctions to lawyers who make frivolous arguments, perpetrate discovery shenanigans, or request ridiculous continuances.
But, regarding lies... there is one other fundamental truth that seems to be slipping by... The justice system isn't designed to learn the truth, rather it tends to simply weigh one side versus the other. If both are liars, then the liar with the most plausible story or sincere testimony tends to win. I have no explanation for it, other than witnessing it every day... somehow... the end result tends to be the correct one, especially in jury trials.
PS, you can't ever know the truth... that's not the goal... you have two sides who dispute the facts of what happened... unless you have perfect video of everything, then there's going to be a lot of guessing. The rules of evidence and civil procedure are largely designed to ensure that the most likely truth is the one who wins. Just look at the requisite levels of proof... preponderance of the evidence... clear and convincing... beyond a reasonable doubt... no where in there is "truth"... it's all just guess work, but guess work that tends to be correct.
Macho,...I appreciate your feedback. One point I failed to communicate with this being Truth. I agree humans seldom know the truth, but the courts must strive for the truth and per your statement-- "Judges tend to not issue sanctions to lawyers who make frivolous arguments, perpetrate discovery shenanigans, or request ridiculous continuances"--judges have failed the system but allowing the attorneys run the judge's court room. If judges removed the obvious lying abuse, I believe the system will come closer to the Truth.
If you do not mind telling me, what state are you from? I am discussing my experience in NC which I believe has a reputation for being one of the most corrupt states. Hell, NC state Bar allows John Edwards to continue to practice after reviewing his Grievance case.
I belive this is still true. "The US has the highest number of lawyers per capita than any other country".
Lawyers are a complete waste of money, except divorce lawyers of course, which I have used frequently.
During my first meeting with my last divorce lawyer he said he was $900 per hour. I said, "Let me be brief".
What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
The Answer to my and lots of peoples prayers
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Not enough
I've decided to rename my business "The".
Then, I'm going to sue the entire internet.
The problem with the American legal system is that they work from a theory that the law is for the protection of property, not people. Thus, rulings that are outrageous to real people are perfectly reasonable to the artificial people, corporations, that form the bulk of its clients. We're considered nothing but grit in the gears of their materialistic machine.
Lawyers and judges will have to completely turn around their thinking until things like using criminal law to enforce copyrights and dismissing citizen freedoms in the name of business convenience are seen as the offenses against morality they are. Or, just hang the lawyers. Shakesperian solution.
Some years ago the 9th circuit cunt ruled that Microsoft did not infringe on the copyrights of Borland when they copied the IDE. The judge's opinion in that case was that since MS did not copy the code, they did not steal, and because they created more "options" for "consumers" it was a good thing.
Boycott the h1b tax clippers. In fact, fuck spectator sports. Its like paying to be the manager of a bunch of well selected, highly motivated experts who do not require supervision.
the lawyers are part of a guild in a way that even union's cannot replicate.
to be a lawyer you MUST be in a bar(guild) of a state/federal entity.
to be a laborer you do not NEED to be in a union for that labor unless is is a 'public' union. in which case, to be a public servant you are automatically part of any 'union' that is a 'public union'.
the point is , institutions gain tremendous 'price fixing' and 'contract arrangement' power for the people in the institutional membership. , union members and lawyers both have a huge advantage over counterparts ( non-union labor and legal secretaries/paralegals )-------because they get to use their power to force governments to provide large contracts and regulations that result in massive amounts of unnecessary work to be done, and massive amounts of higher priced work to be done than otherwise would be.
the result is individuals families and 'outsider' individuals and groups lose to the guilds and unions.
the sad part is that if you are a lawyer or a union memeber and you educate yuorself enough to see how totally screwed up there is , the only reward you get is feeling alienated from the groupthink mindset of nearly everyone in the profession guild/union you are a member of. and truly---almost ALL lawyer , even the unhappy ones, are in a mental bubble about what exactly it is they do and why they should be able to earn a living doing it.
if you let yourself get to messed up about how it is, you wind up losing your career.
ignorance is bliss?
Leges Sine Moribus Vanae ("of what avail empty laws without [good] morals
A cult of lies called government are murders. No box cutters needed.
Google "XXX gangbang" to see Eric Holder's failure.
We are on our own. Man up.
What is it that a duck can't do but a swan can do, that your lawyer should do all the time?
Shove his bill up his ass.
But, but....more lawsuits means more spending and more GDP. Didn't Krugman teach you anything? Break more windows!