Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Evilsanta said:
JDKJ said:
Evilsanta said:
JDKJ said:
Evilsanta said:
ShadowsofHope said:
..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.
This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.
Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?
I really hope that is not possible...If it is I am going on a lawyer rampage, Who is with me?

Ah...USA the land of oppurtunitys indeed...
So what are you saying? That the City should be free to ignore its responsibility to properly maintain the sidewalks (a responsibility paid for in advance by collecting taxes from the hard-working citizens of New York) and if injuries are caused by that failure, that's not the City's fault and they shouldn't be held responsible? If you live in a city where your local government is free to leave a huge pothole in the sidewalk deep enough for you to have to be rescued from it like a Chilean miner should you happen to fall into it and you don't get to sue for the time spent waiting to be rescued, then I'm wondering why you'd ever want to go anywhere near those sidewalks.

Where do you live? In Sweden? The Land of Jenky-Ass Sidewalks with Potholes a Mile Deep and Where You Can't Sue Your Own Goverment?
Hmm...I think i missunderstod you. Or you me. Anyways i was talking more about if i tripped on the sidewalk and sueing the city for that. Not big cracks or potholes. That is something the goverment can be sued by over here. I think. And there arent any here...The only thing that is annoying here now is the god damn snow.
Then don't ever go to New York City in the winter. It's The Land of the Six-Foot Snow Drifts. : ]

And where we might have missed each other is the key element of "fault." If you trip on the sidewalk owing to your own fault (e.g., that you're a clumsy oaf), then you can sue the City all you want, but if you can't prove that the City was somehow at fault, then you ain't gettin' a dime.
 

Evilsanta

New member
Apr 12, 2010
1,933
0
0
JDKJ said:
Evilsanta said:
JDKJ said:
Evilsanta said:
JDKJ said:
Evilsanta said:
ShadowsofHope said:
..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.
This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.
Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?
I really hope that is not possible...If it is I am going on a lawyer rampage, Who is with me?

Ah...USA the land of oppurtunitys indeed...
So what are you saying? That the City should be free to ignore its responsibility to properly maintain the sidewalks (a responsibility paid for in advance by collecting taxes from the hard-working citizens of New York) and if injuries are caused by that failure, that's not the City's fault and they shouldn't be held responsible? If you live in a city where your local government is free to leave a huge pothole in the sidewalk deep enough for you to have to be rescued from it like a Chilean miner should you happen to fall into it and you don't get to sue for the time spent waiting to be rescued, then I'm wondering why you'd ever want to go anywhere near those sidewalks.

Where do you live? In Sweden? The Land of Jenky-Ass Sidewalks with Potholes a Mile Deep and Where You Can't Sue Your Own Goverment?
Hmm...I think i missunderstod you. Or you me. Anyways i was talking more about if i tripped on the sidewalk and sueing the city for that. Not big cracks or potholes. That is something the goverment can be sued by over here. I think. And there arent any here...The only thing that is annoying here now is the god damn snow.
Then don't ever go to New York City in the winter. It's The Land of the Six-Foot Snow Drifts. : ]

And where we might have missed each other is the key element of "fault." If you trip on the sidewalk owing to your own fault (e.g., that you're a clumsy oaf), then you can sue the City all you want, but if you can't prove that the City was somehow at fault, then you ain't gettin' a dime.
That was what i meant with stupid. Because of clumsiness and suing the city because of that just sounds ridiculous.

And six foot high snow piles eh? Build some snow forts.
Damn snow...It just wont stop over here.
 

Lightslei

New member
Feb 18, 2010
559
0
0
Alright after reading this whole topic I'm confused. Suing or Sanctions, exactly what is the problem here? I really don't get it.
 

mew4ever23

New member
Mar 21, 2008
818
0
0
This lawsuit should be immediately dismissed. What exactly is so wrong about helping people defend themselves in court?
 

scott pilutik

New member
Nov 29, 2010
3
0
0
JDKJ said:
Double A said:
So... apparently, they firmly believe it's illegal to sell people self-help stuff to defend yourself in court?

Can someone PM me when they start making sense and stop acting like assholes?
Actually, that's not at all what they're saying. What they are saying is that if you use a legal form to file a motion and you fail to include in that motion a part required of all motions and which therefore renders your motion defective, then you and the person who sold you the legal form and instructions to complete it should have to reimburse them for the cost of responding to your jenky-ass motion.
Is there a link to the USCG sanctions motion anywhere? I'd prefer not to have to resort to PACER if possible. At first glance, the claim that the drafter of a form should have to reimburse plaintiff's attorneys for the form(s)' failure to include certain boilerplate, albeit statutory, language, seems dubious, unless perhaps the attorney/form-drafter signed the form as an affirmant. How else would Blumberg stay in business? Moreover, if it's accurate that the defect is as you describe, it's also easily curable. Pro se litigants (especially defendants) are often granted a wide degree of procedural latitude and are rarely sanctioned for defects of the type described here.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
scott pilutik said:
JDKJ said:
Double A said:
So... apparently, they firmly believe it's illegal to sell people self-help stuff to defend yourself in court?

Can someone PM me when they start making sense and stop acting like assholes?
Actually, that's not at all what they're saying. What they are saying is that if you use a legal form to file a motion and you fail to include in that motion a part required of all motions and which therefore renders your motion defective, then you and the person who sold you the legal form and instructions to complete it should have to reimburse them for the cost of responding to your jenky-ass motion.
Is there a link to the USCG sanctions motion anywhere? I'd prefer not to have to resort to PACER if possible. At first glance, the claim that the drafter of a form should have to reimburse plaintiff's attorneys for the form(s)' failure to include certain boilerplate, albeit statutory, language, seems dubious, unless perhaps the attorney/form-drafter signed the form as an affirmant. How else would Blumberg stay in business? Moreover, if it's accurate that the defect is as you describe, it's also easily curable. Pro se litigants (especially defendants) are often granted a wide degree of procedural latitude and are rarely sanctioned for defects of the type described here.
Here ya go:

http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/

Agreed. I assume that, other than trying to taking advantage of the defects to thereby get the motions summarily kicked and to send the movant back to start over from Square One, Plaintiff's counsel is just trying to rattle their cage and convince them to throw away their lil' package of legal forms. And perhaps convince Syfert to stop supplying them. But thinking that they'll actually come out $5000 ahead is a bit of a pipe dream.

But, at the same time, the latitude granted pro se defendants, while wide, is not without limits. Keep fumbling your way through the process and the Court could easily grow weary of your fumbling ass.

And I doubt Mr. Syfert's services are comparable to a well-respected and well-used service provider like Blumberg. There's an air of "fly by night" about him.

And a more important distinction may be that Blumberg doesn't hold themselves out as attorneys. On their face, they're just a provider of legal forms. I imagine they're smart enough to cloak the provision of their services with "the provision and use of our forms in no way constitutes legal advice and should not to be taken as a substitute for retaining the services of an attorney" disclaimers. Therefore, they wouldn't be subject to 28 USC 1927 sanctions (which are limited to parties and their counsel). On the other hand, I do believe that Syfert is associating himself in his capacity as an attorney with the provision of his legal forms. It may be a stretch to seek the imposition of sanctions upon him in this case, but it ain't entirely laughable, either.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
...You lost me there.

But seriously, I don't trust (most) lawyers or copyright laws, though I might show this to my brother, who has aspirations to become a lawyer himself.

Lord knows we need a few good lawyers anyway...
 

superluser

New member
Sep 30, 2010
8
0
0
Haakong said:
Quick question regarding this: Is it so in the US that you can sue a person for anything? I mean, can I get sued for selling a bit of paper saying "its cheaper to be bald than have long hair", since that kind of info might harm sales for shampoo companies? Isnt there some kind of protocols you have to go through to make your case valid before you sue someone?
There are no protocols in place to prevent stupid lawsuits. There are, instead, robust mechanisms for punishing people who make profoundly dumb lawsuits. First, if an officer of the court (aka an attorney) makes a frivolous suit, that suit can be thrown out and the person filing it can be fined (I believe that this is also true of suits filed pro se, but the one frivolous pro se case [http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/conspiracy.html] I am aware of actually refunded her filing fee).

The opposing parties can ask for payment for their attorney time or make counterclaims against the losing plaintiff. Then the professional associations get involved, imposing sanctions for unethical behavior, up to and including fines and losing the ability to practice law. If USCG is incorporated, they may face a shareholder revolt for initiating a frivolous suit.

Most likely, what will happen is that the judge will simply dismiss the case with prejudice and might give Syfert the opportunity to make counterclaims (which may go nowhere).
 

scott pilutik

New member
Nov 29, 2010
3
0
0
JDKJ said:
scott pilutik said:
JDKJ said:
Double A said:
So... apparently, they firmly believe it's illegal to sell people self-help stuff to defend yourself in court?

Can someone PM me when they start making sense and stop acting like assholes?
Actually, that's not at all what they're saying. What they are saying is that if you use a legal form to file a motion and you fail to include in that motion a part required of all motions and which therefore renders your motion defective, then you and the person who sold you the legal form and instructions to complete it should have to reimburse them for the cost of responding to your jenky-ass motion.
Is there a link to the USCG sanctions motion anywhere? I'd prefer not to have to resort to PACER if possible. At first glance, the claim that the drafter of a form should have to reimburse plaintiff's attorneys for the form(s)' failure to include certain boilerplate, albeit statutory, language, seems dubious, unless perhaps the attorney/form-drafter signed the form as an affirmant. How else would Blumberg stay in business? Moreover, if it's accurate that the defect is as you describe, it's also easily curable. Pro se litigants (especially defendants) are often granted a wide degree of procedural latitude and are rarely sanctioned for defects of the type described here.
Here ya go:

http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/

Agreed. I assume that, other than trying to taking advantage of the defects to thereby get the motions summarily kicked and to send the movant back to start over from Square One, Plaintiff's counsel is just trying to rattle their cage and convince them to throw away their lil' package of legal forms. And perhaps convince Syfert to stop supplying them. But thinking that they'll actually come out $5000 ahead is a bit of a pipe dream.

But, at the same time, the latitude granted pro se defendants, while wide, is not without limits. Keep fumbling your way through the process and the Court could easily grow weary of your fumbling ass.

And I doubt Mr. Syfert's services are comparable to a well-respected and well-used service provider like Blumberg. There's an air of "fly by night" about him.

And a more important distinction may be that Blumberg doesn't hold themselves out as attorneys. On their face, they're just a provider of legal forms. I imagine they're smart enough to cloak the provision of their services with "the provision and use of our forms in no way constitutes legal advice and should not to be taken as a substitute for retaining the services of an attorney" disclaimers. Therefore, they wouldn't be subject to 28 USC 1927 sanctions (which are limited to parties and their counsel). On the other hand, I do believe that Syfert is associating himself in his capacity as an attorney with the provision of his legal forms. It may be a stretch to seek the imposition of sanctions upon him in this case, but it ain't entirely laughable, either.
Thanks. I realize that the analogy to Blumberg isn't entirely apt, but I've not scrutinized the forms in question either; but I would expect USCG to have drawn attention to the lack of a similar disclaimer in its motion and I didn't see that. It seems like the kind of thing any attorney would, by instinct, naturally include. (Whenever I post anything in any internet discussion that might be construed as advice, I make sure to disclaim, as do most attorneys).

I see your point about Syfert possibly holding himself out as an attorney, but a few things argue against this, the first being the low cost of these forms. I don't think a litigant can reasonably expect to have received legal advice for $19.95. The second is that, generally speaking, whatever cause of action may or may not exist against Syfert belongs to the purchaser of the forms, not the USCG--just as the USCG would have no cause of action against me if I was a relative of a defendant and wrote, say, a friendly email to that litigant advising what steps he/she should consider taking. And the proper forum for that cause of action/petition is most likely a bar association complaint/petition/grievance.

And without knowing the actual content of the form motions filed by the defendants, I'm going to also guess that they contained more basis in law than the USCG admits in its response, given the overreaching tactics employed by the more-leveraged copyright attorneys in similar cases thus far. As an even more general observation, I think courts are going to be skeptical of the new law-firm business model employed by the USCG, which is kind of like a reverse class-action in which the class is defendants instead of plaintiffs, and be unlikely to allow them much leeway, though judges will obviously differ.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
scott pilutik said:
JDKJ said:
scott pilutik said:
JDKJ said:
Double A said:
So... apparently, they firmly believe it's illegal to sell people self-help stuff to defend yourself in court?

Can someone PM me when they start making sense and stop acting like assholes?
Actually, that's not at all what they're saying. What they are saying is that if you use a legal form to file a motion and you fail to include in that motion a part required of all motions and which therefore renders your motion defective, then you and the person who sold you the legal form and instructions to complete it should have to reimburse them for the cost of responding to your jenky-ass motion.
Is there a link to the USCG sanctions motion anywhere? I'd prefer not to have to resort to PACER if possible. At first glance, the claim that the drafter of a form should have to reimburse plaintiff's attorneys for the form(s)' failure to include certain boilerplate, albeit statutory, language, seems dubious, unless perhaps the attorney/form-drafter signed the form as an affirmant. How else would Blumberg stay in business? Moreover, if it's accurate that the defect is as you describe, it's also easily curable. Pro se litigants (especially defendants) are often granted a wide degree of procedural latitude and are rarely sanctioned for defects of the type described here.
Here ya go:

http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/

Agreed. I assume that, other than trying to taking advantage of the defects to thereby get the motions summarily kicked and to send the movant back to start over from Square One, Plaintiff's counsel is just trying to rattle their cage and convince them to throw away their lil' package of legal forms. And perhaps convince Syfert to stop supplying them. But thinking that they'll actually come out $5000 ahead is a bit of a pipe dream.

But, at the same time, the latitude granted pro se defendants, while wide, is not without limits. Keep fumbling your way through the process and the Court could easily grow weary of your fumbling ass.

And I doubt Mr. Syfert's services are comparable to a well-respected and well-used service provider like Blumberg. There's an air of "fly by night" about him.

And a more important distinction may be that Blumberg doesn't hold themselves out as attorneys. On their face, they're just a provider of legal forms. I imagine they're smart enough to cloak the provision of their services with "the provision and use of our forms in no way constitutes legal advice and should not to be taken as a substitute for retaining the services of an attorney" disclaimers. Therefore, they wouldn't be subject to 28 USC 1927 sanctions (which are limited to parties and their counsel). On the other hand, I do believe that Syfert is associating himself in his capacity as an attorney with the provision of his legal forms. It may be a stretch to seek the imposition of sanctions upon him in this case, but it ain't entirely laughable, either.
Thanks. I realize that the analogy to Blumberg isn't entirely apt, but I've not scrutinized the forms in question either; but I would expect USCG to have drawn attention to the lack of a similar disclaimer in its motion and I didn't see that. It seems like the kind of thing any attorney would, by instinct, naturally include. (Whenever I post anything in any internet discussion that might be construed as advice, I make sure to disclaim, as do most attorneys).

I see your point about Syfert possibly holding himself out as an attorney, but a few things argue against this, the first being the low cost of these forms. I don't think a litigant can reasonably expect to have received legal advice for $19.95. The second is that, generally speaking, whatever cause of action may or may not exist against Syfert belongs to the purchaser of the forms, not the USCG--just as the USCG would have no cause of action against me if I was a relative of a defendant and wrote, say, a friendly email to that litigant advising what steps he/she should consider taking. And the proper forum for that cause of action/petition is most likely a bar association complaint/petition/grievance.

And without knowing the actual content of the form motions filed by the defendants, I'm going to also guess that they contained more basis in law than the USCG admits in its response, given the overreaching tactics employed by the more-leveraged copyright attorneys in similar cases thus far. As an even more general observation, I think courts are going to be skeptical of the new law-firm business model employed by the USCG, which is kind of like a reverse class-action in which the class is defendants instead of plaintiffs, and be unlikely to allow them much leeway, though judges will obviously differ.
What if, as USCG claims, Syfert is the undisclosed attorney of Defendants and who, rather than file notice of appearance, is, instead, lurking behind his legal forms? If so, that would, I think, be at least a colorable claim under 28 USC 1927. Sec. 1927 does state that the attorney of the party who files the frivolous motion can be personally made to reimburse the costs and fees of the opposing party. Don't ask me how USGC plans to prove that Syfert's a lurking attorney, but if they can . . . .

And that only an idiot would think that $19.95 buys them actual legal advice, while perhaps absolutely true, ain't a winning argument, I don't think. There're a slew of court opinions holding that the provision of cheap legal forms equals the provision of legal advice (and further holding that such provision in certain circumstances amounts to the unauthorized practice of law). Quicken got *****-slapped by a Texas court for doing just that (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/1999031701.html).
 

scott pilutik

New member
Nov 29, 2010
3
0
0
Snipped previous quotes in deference to virtual trees.

JDKJ said:
scott pilutik said:
What if, as USCG claims, Syfert is the undisclosed attorney of Defendants who, rather than file notice of appearance, is, instead, lurking behind his legal forms? If so, that would, I think, be at least a colorable claim under 28 USC 1927. Sec. 1927 does state that the attorney of the party who files the frivolous motion can be personally made to make reimbursement to the opposing party. Don't ask me how USGC plas to prove that, but if they can . . . .

And the "only an idiot would think that $19.95 buys them actual legal advice." while perhaps absolutely true, ain't a winner, I don't think. There're a slew of court opinions holding that the provision of cheap legal forms equals the provision legal advice (and further holding that such provision in certain circumstances amounts to the unauthorized practice of law). Quicken got bitched slapped by a Texas court for doing just that (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/1999031701.html).
Interesting case, thanks. As the article states, Texas is something of an outlier with regard to interpreting what constitutes the practice of law. I suspect the DC Circuit would approach the question less paternalistically though I could be wrong (and I'm not even clear on the question of applicable law, being that defendants range from all over. Syfert appears to practice in FL and GA).

As for USCG's claim that Syfert is somehow 'actually representing' defendants (I'm taking your word for it, I didn't see that claim in the motion), I think their only chance to demonstrate same would be for the court to grant them leave to conduct a fishing expedition, which would naturally include deposing all the defendants who used his form, etc. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see that happening.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
scott pilutik said:
Snipped previous quotes in deference to virtual trees.

JDKJ said:
scott pilutik said:
What if, as USCG claims, Syfert is the undisclosed attorney of Defendants who, rather than file notice of appearance, is, instead, lurking behind his legal forms? If so, that would, I think, be at least a colorable claim under 28 USC 1927. Sec. 1927 does state that the attorney of the party who files the frivolous motion can be personally made to make reimbursement to the opposing party. Don't ask me how USGC plas to prove that, but if they can . . . .

And the "only an idiot would think that $19.95 buys them actual legal advice." while perhaps absolutely true, ain't a winner, I don't think. There're a slew of court opinions holding that the provision of cheap legal forms equals the provision legal advice (and further holding that such provision in certain circumstances amounts to the unauthorized practice of law). Quicken got bitched slapped by a Texas court for doing just that (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/1999031701.html).
Interesting case, thanks. As the article states, Texas is something of an outlier with regard to interpreting what constitutes the practice of law. I suspect the DC Circuit would approach the question less paternalistically though I could be wrong (and I'm not even clear on the question of applicable law, being that defendants range from all over. Syfert appears to practice in FL and GA).

As for USCG's claim that Syfert is somehow 'actually representing' defendants (I'm taking your word for it, I didn't see that claim in the motion), I think their only chance to demonstrate same would be for the court to grant them leave to conduct a fishing expedition, which would naturally include deposing all the defendants who used his form, etc. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see that happening.
I have to take that back. They're not claiming that Syfert's lurking (don't ask me from where I got that kernel of untruth). They're claiming that by merely supplying the forms, he's -- to distill it into a word but not to quote the motion -- "facilitating" the filing of the allegedly frivolous motions. Which does make it extremely difficult to see him as the attorney in fact behind the filing of the motions and therefore difficult for me to understand why they think he should be on the hook for sanctions.

It may not be just Texas that'll *****-slap a form seller. I believe that there are more than a few jurisdictions willing to do the same. California has precedents similar to Texas' (and which should therefore encompass more than half the practicing attorneys in the U.S. (just kidding, but that is more than 250,000 active attorneys)). If you're interested in the subject, for a somewhat dated but thorough survey of state decisions, see Patricia Jean Lamkin, Annotation, Sale of Books or Forms Designed to Enable Laymen to Achieve Legal Results Without Assistance of Attorney as Unauthorized Practice of Law, 71 A.L.R.3d 1000 (1977; Aug. 1998 Supp.).

More recently, the bar of Connecticut issued an advisory opinion stating that LegalZoom, by virtue of offering their forms and kits in the State, is engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. So I'd imagine that if you filed a complaint against LegalZoom for UPL with Connecticut's bar, they'd be more than willing to take that ball and run with it into LegalZoom's end zone, do a little victory dance, and spike it down their throat.
 

KiKiweaky

New member
Aug 29, 2008
972
0
0
Wut??? He's being sued for showing people how to defend themselves against some nob in a suit using words us mere mortals can't even begin to understand?

FO and get real. A judge (well i hope) would fling them out on their ass.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
In short, lawyers' time is expensive. This is the sledgehammer that gets used over and over again by the big bads to crush their opposition and get what they want. However specious a claim may be, however ridiculous the demand, there are a lot of people who simply don't have the financial wherewithal to go ten rounds in court with a Tim Langdell or a MPAA or an RIAA.

I don't feel heaps of sympathy for the pirates, but they still have a right to a defense. That's a R-I-G-H-T, as in, something that's supposed to be inherent and can't be taken away from them. It sounds like Syfert put a speedbump in what was expected to be a nice, smooth, automatic steamrollering process, and put the shoe on the other foot by making the big guys put more lawyer time ($$$) into their process than they wanted or desired to.

Good for him, and shame on them for trying to punish him for it. It seems like they're seeking vengeance because he did for the defendants exactly what they tried to do to the defendants- throw scary paperwork that the opposition couldn't be expected to handle.
 

DevilWolf47

New member
Nov 29, 2010
496
0
0
I've always been wary of the people that "We should be looking up too." Sure it sounds hypocritical for me, a doctor, to say that a lot of doctors can't be trusted, but this isn't out of a matter of competition. Men who claim to be doctors but who specialize in elective procedures like nose jobs missed the entire fucking point of med school; but when i say this and also say that i have absolutely no trouble with walk-in free clinics people look at me like I'M the crazy one. What, doctors, saving lives?! BULLSHIT!!
Lawyers have been met with a similar degree of greed onset decay. They should be the driving force behind our legal system making sure we remain objective in our investigations to ensure that the right person is punished for the crime, but now you've got piece of shit attorneys like Jeff Weaver suing a defense attorney for offering legal advice which is HIS FUCKING JOB!!! With pieces of shit like Jeff Weaver in the world, you really start to see the appeal of anarchy, yes?
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Heres an interesting development in this particular news item

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1928938/anti-p2p-lawyers-committed-racketeering-copyright-misuse-unjust-enrichment-fraud

The irony is so delicious I may not be able to eat for the rest of the day.
 

Mcface

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,266
0
0
This just proves these people are way out of line. Good on anon for fucking with their business. These people are bigger crooks than pirates are.

This is what we call Racketeering.