From the description, it doesn't sound like my style. Give me Fuller's ESB or Ruddles County. The best American production that I've had was Absolution Ale in Charlottesville, VA.
He appears to merit the criticism, from my conversations which has addressed legal methodology at greater length than was displayed here.
Laci's very good at what he does; not all lawyers are, including some who participated in the Heller decision with some very silly pro-gun arguments (in contrast to the less silly pro-gun arguments).
Don't confuse political ideology and the practice of law, which is my impression of what leagle eagle does.
Laci's comment about "justice goes to the highest bidder" is right on. We have the crookedest Supreme Court of all time. (I just made that up, what do you think?)
DG said: "He appears to merit the criticism, from my conversations which has addressed legal methodology at greater length than was displayed here."
Do you have a law degree? If so, from where? If not, then it is only your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
As much as I dislike Laci's online personality, I will give him credit for 1) being a practicing lawyer, 2) being able to make a compelling argument (though I disagree with him).
If Laci and Legaleagle_45 were to have a displayed conversation and either could point out the fallacies of the others arguments, then others could reach there own opinions.
Dog Gone won't tell us what she does for a living or what she's qualified to do. It's funny that we're called fearful, and yet we're much more open about who we are.
I've told some of the people through this blog more about myself.
I support what I write on this blog with facts; what I do for a living is not important to those facts, since unlike you I haven't claimed my occupation as part of an argument for a post. You claim that you teach, including critical thinking, which is hilarious, given you are not yourself capable of it.
Many of your fellow gun nuts use pseudonyms. The claim 'we're much more open about who we are' is total crap. I suggest you look at the number of people here who use pseudonyms, and the greater number who use Anonymous.
As to how fearful that makes me? Don't be an ass. I have been threatened for what I write by you gun nuts, including a violent sexually explicit threat made on my Penigma blog, from Serr8d. I have other friends who blog, including one conservative blogger, who have been personally harassed, along with his family members, because he is a blogger and broadcaster. One of my co-bloggers had a threat on the lives of his wife and children.
I have every right and a good deal of wisdom in relying on discretion rather than firearms as my response to that experience. It is a good deal less deadly and a whole fuckuva lot less paranoid than you and your fetish object looking to blow goblins and presumably zombies and other fantasy criminals away at any moment because you are soooooooo afraaaaiiiid.
PJ, I do not have a law degree, nor do I in any way shape or form claim to be a practicing lawyer.
I have for a period of time however volunteered with our local legal aid provider, working with lawyers, effectively functioning as a legal secretary because I have an excellent grasp of legal terminology and I type really really fast, and because that was the kind of help they needed at the time to supplement their lawyer and paralegal staff. I have also worked with the top legal talent in the home office claims division executive office of one of the largest U.S. based insurance firms, which is multinational, in editing their presentations to their subordinate staff and hired attorneys.
So while not a lawyer, unless you count being schooled in the law, I have a working familiarity of it that allows me to recognize competent legal reasoning and research, from incompetent lawyering.
Laci has also been kind enough to allow me to use his legal search access here in the U.S. when I wish to dig into legal matters.
I'm not a playwright either, but I can deconstruct a screen play very well. I do not work for a publishing company, but several friends who are published authors of multiple very successful books do rely on my critique and comments as much as they do those of their professional editors (and their agents) when they make changes to their galley proofs.
So, frankly given the number of incompetent lawywers allowed to practice at the bar, my response to you is that not all opinions are equal, and that some opinions from those outside certain professions have more value than the incompetents in a profession.
Dog Gone, you keep telling me that I'm afraid. For once, would you please offer proof? Carrying a gun isn't proof. I don't fear going about my day. You have concluded, based on your prejudice, that I'm fearful, but you have no evidence.
But with regard to who you are, could it be that some of us are simply trying to have a regular conversation with you? I'm not asking for your home address or bank account. I also understand that you'd want some measure of privacy, although Democommie mocks me for not revealing all manner of things that you've never told about yourself. It's just that you could use some humanizing. You come off as bitter and dismissive.
Yes, Greg, in stating you carry a gun because you need it for self defense, you state that you are in fact fearful. It clearly is an indication that without a gun you feel unsafe, that you lack the personal abilities and resources to deal with a challenge to your safety except with a gun.
Further, it argues that you are fearful because you overestimate the risks for which a firearm is an appropriate and necessary weapon.
Thirdly, it emphasizes in context of your other decisions, like NOT carrying a cell phone or non-lethal resources, that you are fearful because you do not, by choice, have the desire or means to use less lethal force. THAT is a hallmark of someone who is fearful, the reliance on excessive force and only excessive force.
I am not here to charm you. I have spent enough time as a trophy person, that group of individuals of whom you have written disparagingly. That means in the use I've had applied to mean someone who strives for excellence in areas of substance - someone who actually WINS trophies for excellence (not just showing up) -- for a wellrounded spectrum of activities, where excellence and/or accomplishment is demonstrated, coupled with very accomplished social skills. I'm not here to be a trophy anything; been there, done that, don't need to do it again.
I don't see this blog as a social occasion in which I am the de facto hostess for MikeB, Laci, Democommie and Jade. It is not my job to see to it that you have a pleasant experience, and interact well with other guests here, to draw people out who are quiet, or to minimize any unpleasantness that someone experiences, or to smooth things over, or to cajole, charm or amuse. I've done that sort of thing, many times, beginning around age 5 at cocktail parties hosted by my parents, through filling in for my father after my mother died when I was in my teens at social events - a LOT of social events - through to present. It is a practical social skill which is frankly a lot of work, and which is usually performed at the expense of the enjoyment of the person - usually a woman more often than not - who ensures that others have a good time. Been there, done that; it is not my role here.
Rather I'm here to engage in substantive discourse.
I find that most of what comes from you Greg lacks tht sustance, is frequently intellectually dishonest (as when you misrepresent information or its signficance), and frequently shows an intellectual laziness as well - the case of not bothering to find out for yourself why it was true when Laci asserted that having a law degree did not itself equip someone to practice law because that was not taught in law school. You could, and SHOULD have looked that up for yourself.
I think very carefully about what I reveal and that about which I prefer to be more reserved. I'm not interested in being humanized. I'm interested in a better quality of discussion, and when I get less than that, I feel my intelligence has been insulted and my time wasted, due to their lack of effort.
I don't have a lot of patience with that lack of ability or effort. If you want to see a different side of me, do better.
To answer your question, The US Supreme Court does indeed have a bar and I am a member of said bar, as are all attorneys authorized to practice in front of it. As a lawyer you should know that already.
Here you go: http://www.supremecourt.gov/bar/barinstructions.pdf
I could not post a reply to your post because of some technical glitch, so I will respond here.
The information you seek from me I will not reveal. You need not even believe it if you so desire.
I agree that some of the briefs on both sides were poorly written and some of them even went so far as to violate rules established by SCOTUS.
For example, the writ of cert in Heller was strictly limited to the following:
"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
Yet the ASHA brief (aka, the Generals brief) filed in support of respondent did not discuss the question presented. Instead their whole argument was based upon an "implied premption" by federal law to promote civilian marksmanship and that the " D.C. Council has no authority to . . . [e]nact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any act of Congress which concerns the functions or property of the United States.”
It was a really weird argument which did not comply whatsoever to the limitations expressed in the writ. In essence it was asking SCOTUS to decide the case on issues which were excluded from review by SCOTUS.
But since you are so curious about me, I will provide the following:
1.) I do not own a firearm, never have, probably never will.
2.) I am quite liberal in my philosophy on many issues, being pro choice and pro gay marriage.
3.) My interest in the 2nd Amend is fueled by the words of former National Board Member of the ACLU, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
I see that all the time, dog gone. People who are normally quite in favor of individual rights will advocate that we employ a top secret list compiled by governmental bureaucrats to deny constitutional rights with no possibility of meaningful due process... because it involves guns.
I see people advocate for police use on the street and directed at the general public without a warrant of special infrared imaging devices which can see things under a persons clothes... because it is touted as a way to spot people carrying guns.
I fear for my Constitution, dog gone and thats why I do what I do.
Laci graduated from some of the top law schools - JD from one of the best law schools in the US, another law degree from one of the best law schools in the world. He's worked in multiple jurisdiction,and in more than one country, and passed multiple bar exams.
I fear for the tens of thousands of people who die every year from firearms, the people who have their right to be safe from that kind of violence violated. We can preserve the constitution, we can preserve real rights and freedoms, and still drastically improve on the status quo. I fear for the people shot by idiots through the laxer Castle Doctrine laws, who would never be either executed or maimed by due process ------ or are you only in favor of due process for gun owners, and the hell with everyone else? Nothing that any of us here have advocated is contrary to Heller, btw. All of it is well within the Heller boundaries.
I asked Leagle Eagle what law school you went to for your degree, and what amicus brief, because Laci and I were speculating on it being one of those low ranking schools like Liberty.
As for the amicus brief, unlike Greg who is not very discriminating, I'd like to read it and assess the quality of your lawyering for myself. I would expect you would be proud of that document from the way you presented it here.
For some reason, I still can not post a reply, so I will respond here.
I assure you that I did not graduate from any institution, such as Liberty. It is a highly regarded Law School attached to a major University which was founded in the 1880's.
I can also tell you that I graduated top man in my class out over 200 students in my graduating class (I will also tell you that there were 3 women in front of me, because I am honest). I went on to teach Jurisprudence and Property Law at law school before entering private practice.
I am the author of law review articles published in leading Law Journals, none of which involve the 2nd Amend, but one of which was picked and published in the Wall Street Journal (that was back in the 1980's well before Rupert Murdoch's purchase of same).
I am proud of my brief, but it is rather high brow... It was specifically designed to the center of the court. I believe it influenced Kennedy. I was hoping to to influence Ginsburg as well, but alas that did not come to pass.
I believe that the Court has changed the motto on its walls from:
ReplyDeleteEqual justice for all
To
Justice goes to the highest bidder.
From the description, it doesn't sound like my style. Give me Fuller's ESB or Ruddles County. The best American production that I've had was Absolution Ale in Charlottesville, VA.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering how long it would take for you to start disparaging legaleagle_45.
ReplyDeleteHe appears to merit the criticism, from my conversations which has addressed legal methodology at greater length than was displayed here.
DeleteLaci's very good at what he does; not all lawyers are, including some who participated in the Heller decision with some very silly pro-gun arguments (in contrast to the less silly pro-gun arguments).
Don't confuse political ideology and the practice of law, which is my impression of what leagle eagle does.
And yet Heller won, with the aid of his lawyers and supporters. It seems that others in this country view Legaleagle's position as the right one.
DeleteBut PJ's point is that none of you can politely disagree. You have to attack the person as well as the argument.
Laci's comment about "justice goes to the highest bidder" is right on. We have the crookedest Supreme Court of all time. (I just made that up, what do you think?)
ReplyDeleteDG said: "He appears to merit the criticism, from my conversations which has addressed legal methodology at greater length than was displayed here."
ReplyDeleteDo you have a law degree? If so, from where? If not, then it is only your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
As much as I dislike Laci's online personality, I will give him credit for 1) being a practicing lawyer, 2) being able to make a compelling argument (though I disagree with him).
If Laci and Legaleagle_45 were to have a displayed conversation and either could point out the fallacies of the others arguments, then others could reach there own opinions.
Dog Gone won't tell us what she does for a living or what she's qualified to do. It's funny that we're called fearful, and yet we're much more open about who we are.
DeleteI've told some of the people through this blog more about myself.
DeleteI support what I write on this blog with facts; what I do for a living is not important to those facts, since unlike you I haven't claimed my occupation as part of an argument for a post. You claim that you teach, including critical thinking, which is hilarious, given you are not yourself capable of it.
Many of your fellow gun nuts use pseudonyms. The claim 'we're much more open about who we are' is total crap. I suggest you look at the number of people here who use pseudonyms, and the greater number who use Anonymous.
As to how fearful that makes me? Don't be an ass. I have been threatened for what I write by you gun nuts, including a violent sexually explicit threat made on my Penigma blog, from Serr8d. I have other friends who blog, including one conservative blogger, who have been personally harassed, along with his family members, because he is a blogger and broadcaster. One of my co-bloggers had a threat on the lives of his wife and children.
I have every right and a good deal of wisdom in relying on discretion rather than firearms as my response to that experience. It is a good deal less deadly and a whole fuckuva lot less paranoid than you and your fetish object looking to blow goblins and presumably zombies and other fantasy criminals away at any moment because you are soooooooo afraaaaiiiid.
Chicken shit gun carrier.
PJ, I do not have a law degree, nor do I in any way shape or form claim to be a practicing lawyer.
DeleteI have for a period of time however volunteered with our local legal aid provider, working with lawyers, effectively functioning as a legal secretary because I have an excellent grasp of legal terminology and I type really really fast, and because that was the kind of help they needed at the time to supplement their lawyer and paralegal staff. I have also worked with the top legal talent in the home office claims division executive office of one of the largest U.S. based insurance firms, which is multinational, in editing their presentations to their subordinate staff and hired attorneys.
So while not a lawyer, unless you count being schooled in the law, I have a working familiarity of it that allows me to recognize competent legal reasoning and research, from incompetent lawyering.
Laci has also been kind enough to allow me to use his legal search access here in the U.S. when I wish to dig into legal matters.
I'm not a playwright either, but I can deconstruct a screen play very well. I do not work for a publishing company, but several friends who are published authors of multiple very successful books do rely on my critique and comments as much as they do those of their professional editors (and their agents) when they make changes to their galley proofs.
So, frankly given the number of incompetent lawywers allowed to practice at the bar, my response to you is that not all opinions are equal, and that some opinions from those outside certain professions have more value than the incompetents in a profession.
Dog Gone, you keep telling me that I'm afraid. For once, would you please offer proof? Carrying a gun isn't proof. I don't fear going about my day. You have concluded, based on your prejudice, that I'm fearful, but you have no evidence.
DeleteBut with regard to who you are, could it be that some of us are simply trying to have a regular conversation with you? I'm not asking for your home address or bank account. I also understand that you'd want some measure of privacy, although Democommie mocks me for not revealing all manner of things that you've never told about yourself. It's just that you could use some humanizing. You come off as bitter and dismissive.
Yes, Greg, in stating you carry a gun because you need it for self defense, you state that you are in fact fearful. It clearly is an indication that without a gun you feel unsafe, that you lack the personal abilities and resources to deal with a challenge to your safety except with a gun.
DeleteFurther, it argues that you are fearful because you overestimate the risks for which a firearm is an appropriate and necessary weapon.
Thirdly, it emphasizes in context of your other decisions, like NOT carrying a cell phone or non-lethal resources, that you are fearful because you do not, by choice, have the desire or means to use less lethal force. THAT is a hallmark of someone who is fearful, the reliance on excessive force and only excessive force.
I am not here to charm you. I have spent enough time as a trophy person, that group of individuals of whom you have written disparagingly. That means in the use I've had applied to mean someone who strives for excellence in areas of substance - someone who actually WINS trophies for excellence (not just showing up) -- for a wellrounded spectrum of activities, where excellence and/or accomplishment is demonstrated, coupled with very accomplished social skills. I'm not here to be a trophy anything; been there, done that, don't need to do it again.
I don't see this blog as a social occasion in which I am the de facto hostess for MikeB, Laci, Democommie and Jade. It is not my job to see to it that you have a pleasant experience, and interact well with other guests here, to draw people out who are quiet, or to minimize any unpleasantness that someone experiences, or to smooth things over, or to cajole, charm or amuse. I've done that sort of thing, many times, beginning around age 5 at cocktail parties hosted by my parents, through filling in for my father after my mother died when I was in my teens at social events - a LOT of social events - through to present. It is a practical social skill which is frankly a lot of work, and which is usually performed at the expense of the enjoyment of the person - usually a woman more often than not - who ensures that others have a good time. Been there, done that; it is not my role here.
Rather I'm here to engage in substantive discourse.
I find that most of what comes from you Greg lacks tht sustance, is frequently intellectually dishonest (as when you misrepresent information or its signficance), and frequently shows an intellectual laziness as well - the case of not bothering to find out for yourself why it was true when Laci asserted that having a law degree did not itself equip someone to practice law because that was not taught in law school. You could, and SHOULD have looked that up for yourself.
I think very carefully about what I reveal and that about which I prefer to be more reserved. I'm not interested in being humanized. I'm interested in a better quality of discussion, and when I get less than that, I feel my intelligence has been insulted and my time wasted, due to their lack of effort.
I don't have a lot of patience with that lack of ability or effort. If you want to see a different side of me, do better.
Hello Laci The Dog.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, The US Supreme Court does indeed have a bar and I am a member of said bar, as are all attorneys authorized to practice in front of it. As a lawyer you should know that already.
Here you go:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/bar/barinstructions.pdf
I can verify for you that Laci is well aware of the bar to practice in front of the Supreme Court.
DeleteHe is also well aware of gun law in DC, having worked for the DoJ on gun law.
Which law school did you attend, and which of the amicus briefs on Heller did you author or help author?
I understand that some of them contained pretty poor legal reasoning.
Hi dog gone
ReplyDeleteI could not post a reply to your post because of some technical glitch, so I will respond here.
The information you seek from me I will not reveal. You need not even believe it if you so desire.
I agree that some of the briefs on both sides were poorly written and some of them even went so far as to violate rules established by SCOTUS.
For example, the writ of cert in Heller was strictly limited to the following:
"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
Yet the ASHA brief (aka, the Generals brief) filed in support of respondent did not discuss the question presented. Instead their whole argument was based upon an "implied premption" by federal law to promote civilian marksmanship and that the " D.C. Council has no authority
to . . . [e]nact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any act of Congress which concerns the functions or property of the United States.”
It was a really weird argument which did not comply whatsoever to the limitations expressed in the writ. In essence it was asking SCOTUS to decide the case on issues which were excluded from review by SCOTUS.
But since you are so curious about me, I will provide the following:
1.) I do not own a firearm, never have, probably never will.
2.) I am quite liberal in my philosophy on many issues, being pro choice and pro gay marriage.
3.) My interest in the 2nd Amend is fueled by the words of former National Board Member of the ACLU, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
I see that all the time, dog gone. People who are normally quite in favor of individual rights will advocate that we employ a top secret list compiled by governmental bureaucrats to deny constitutional rights with no possibility of meaningful due process... because it involves guns.
I see people advocate for police use on the street and directed at the general public without a warrant of special infrared imaging devices which can see things under a persons clothes... because it is touted as a way to spot people carrying guns.
I fear for my Constitution, dog gone and thats why I do what I do.
Laci graduated from some of the top law schools - JD from one of the best law schools in the US, another law degree from one of the best law schools in the world. He's worked in multiple jurisdiction,and in more than one country, and passed multiple bar exams.
DeleteI fear for the tens of thousands of people who die every year from firearms, the people who have their right to be safe from that kind of violence violated. We can preserve the constitution, we can preserve real rights and freedoms, and still drastically improve on the status quo. I fear for the people shot by idiots through the laxer Castle Doctrine laws, who would never be either executed or maimed by due process ------ or are you only in favor of due process for gun owners, and the hell with everyone else? Nothing that any of us here have advocated is contrary to Heller, btw. All of it is well within the Heller boundaries.
I asked Leagle Eagle what law school you went to for your degree, and what amicus brief, because Laci and I were speculating on it being one of those low ranking schools like Liberty.
As for the amicus brief, unlike Greg who is not very discriminating, I'd like to read it and assess the quality of your lawyering for myself. I would expect you would be proud of that document from the way you presented it here.
Hi Dog Gone:
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, I still can not post a reply, so I will respond here.
I assure you that I did not graduate from any institution, such as Liberty. It is a highly regarded Law School attached to a major University which was founded in the 1880's.
I can also tell you that I graduated top man in my class out over 200 students in my graduating class (I will also tell you that there were 3 women in front of me, because I am honest). I went on to teach Jurisprudence and Property Law at law school before entering private practice.
I am the author of law review articles published in leading Law Journals, none of which involve the 2nd Amend, but one of which was picked and published in the Wall Street Journal (that was back in the 1980's well before Rupert Murdoch's purchase of same).
I am proud of my brief, but it is rather high brow... It was specifically designed to the center of the court. I believe it influenced Kennedy. I was hoping to to influence Ginsburg as well, but alas that did not come to pass.