Botnst-

No offense taken, I like to mix it up, have a good sense of humor and thick skin. Hence, I went to law school to become a litigator.

However, I am trying to be one of the good ones, if there is such an objective standard. The law, like any other profession, has a majority of good actors, and a minority of bad actors which bring down the perception of the profession.

Jim B.-- Be fair now, I never wrote, "Only" anywhere in my post. And, no I don't believe... so I am not 100% wrong. YOU are misrepresenting my remarks. If anybody else sees where I wrote the word, "ONLY" please put down the crack pipe.

As you wrote, and in which I agree, there are many ways to be in contempt. Yes, a judge would issue an order to show cause (your disclosure hearing) on why someone will not pay a judgment or risk being in contempt, or a motion to compel a party to do or pay something. For instance, if you fail to pay child support, a judge could threaten you with jail time/contempt of court.

Then, Jim B. wrote, "There were never debtor's prisons. I know that. To say so was an ignorant remark,..."

Never?

Oh Jim, I hope you were not sober when you wrote that because there were debtors prisons in our country in the eighteenth century, brought over to our country from English law of course. But, as a clerk, I am sure you already knew that.

Do not belittle me or my status as a "newly minted" attorney. I am proud of my accomplishments. Somehow, despite your comments and opinions regarding my legal knowledge, I managed to work my way through law school (making Dean's List twice) and pass, arguably, the hardest bar in the country.

Anytime you want engage in intelligent debate or discussion, or, to test my knowledge of the law, feel free. However Jim, be careful in what you say regarding my professional competency here. I am sure as a previous clerk you understand legalese such as, libel per se.

It is true that in 1833 the United States reduced the practice of imprisonment for debts at the federal level, but not all states followed that practice. Nevertheless, there were debtor's prisons. That is clear in the historical record of this country as well as the mother country.

I ask that you retract your personally offensive comment that my remark was "ignorant", unless you have historical facts to counter.

If you do not, then YOU sir, are the one making an ignorant remark.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday

But I need someone to explain the "legal basis" for suits as below.

Recently 6 women were shot at a Lane Bryant store, well the "lawsuit" hasn't been filed, but an attorney has got a court to preserve all evidence.
Well we know where this is leading too, but what liability does Lane Bryant have ????

We had a bunch of kids, and cars crossing railroad tracks cases last year.
Kids took shortcuts through fences.
Cars going around train gates.

In every case the train line paid out big $$$

If you cut across a train track and get hit by a train, why are they liable ?

Well, other attorneys may have better explanations, but let me try giving it a shot:

In the first example (and I have not read anything about the details, nor seen the complaints but) you would be dealing with premises liability. Basically, what duty you would owe to people on your property or under your control. In the case of shopkeepers dealing with "invitees" (a.k.a. the public) they would have the highest duty of care.

I would think (since Holmes' view is the prevailing theory) that Lane Bryant would be liable if the shootings were somehow forseeable. For example, is the crime rate in the immediate area high, have there been similar events in other shops or Lane Bryants. I don't know what kind of store that is, but you get the idea.

At any rate, without more details, that's the best I can do.

In the second example, again premises liability issue. The argument would go something like, "Well Mr. Railroad owner, you KNEW people are illegally crossing the tracks on foot and by car, (that's why they built the fences and gates) and the measures you took to prevent them from doing so were inadequate. The fences/gates should have been higher, stronger, etc.

The counter-argument may be, "Well Mr. Sue Deep-Pockets, you knew of the danger, saw the gates/fences and were "assuming the risk" or "comparatively negligent". Or the railroad could argue that the kind of measures needed to prevent such accidents are not economically feasible, and if we lose these cases we will have to raise the rates we charge our customers to ship products on our railroads. A public-policy defense, if you will.

So basically, you get a sympathetic jury to give the poor (insert kids, pregnant women, homeless) some kind of big-bucks judgment to help pay for hospital bills, pain and suffering, etc. and the railroad passes on the costs.

So the people, you and I, eventually, will end up footing the bill with an increase in our products that are shipped by railroad.

I am sure there are many other potential arguments with more facts in the hypothetical, but that's the best I can do off the top of my head. Maybe there are more experienced tort lawyers out there that can analyze other issues or disagree with my off-the-cuff analysis.

Hope that helps a little.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday

OH WOW.


A topic is posted up on "Open Discussion" and a lawyer - one who, everyone here should know, I had a very cordial lunch with, a couple of months ago and who then helped guide me home afterward - thanks Troy!!) jumps in with a lightly veiled threat to sue me for "libel per se"

I went to law school to become a litigator"

"However Jim, be careful in what you say regarding my professional competency here. I am sure as a previous clerk you understand legalese such as, libel per se."

I ask that you retract your personally offensive comment that my remark was "ignorant",

I am sorry you took offense at that, (and also, the "newly minted" remark, which, for the record, you have not denied; as you just passed the Calif. bar last year didn't you?)

With your remarks you might run the risk of being perceived around here as a lawyer just itching to sue everyone that looks at him funny or makes an offhand remark that you don't like.

Discussing Holmes and Mrs Palsgraf is one thing, but legal axioms are worth a look now and then too.

I'd respectfully suggest a look at this one:
"De Minimus Non Curat Lex"

And honestly, a word about damages. If you are going to sue someone, you had better be able to prove them. If someone said you made an "ignorant remark" - even if you could prove it factually wrong - can you prove that it upset you so much that you could not sleep at night, thought about it all the time, lost your ability to concentrate, woke up in the morning, and vomited, etc.

I would never want to do that to you. I regret it if you think I would

You said,
No offense taken, I like to mix it up, have a good sense of humor and thick skin I went to law school to become a litigator.



Seems to me like your skin might not be quite thick ENOUGH just yet.

But that should come in good time

No slur
or disrespect was intended as to your accomplishments or academic qualifications.

It seems to me quite a stretch to see that in anything I said.

Just my humble opinion. Maybe we all (including me) should lighten up a bit more....

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Jim-

You're right about lightening up. If I didn't know you personally, I wouldn't have cared about your "ignorant remark" remark.

Seeing how I know you personally, it got through my "thick skin" (we all care what our 'friends' think of us, even us reptilian attorneys)

Re: libel per se, look it up Jim, damages are presumed, and your comment to me regarding my "ignorant remark" (that there were debtor's prisons, which you have not addressed your denial of) was not the object of the potential libel per se. IF you had made a remark regarding my professional competence (i.e. you are an ignorant lawyer) then that is one of the libel per se utterances (again, look it up). Again, damages would be presumed.

At any rate, my threat was not veiled at all. It was in the open. I have spent years getting my degree, and a good reputation is all we have in this life. I protect my reputation as I would protect my family, since my family depends on my reputation, so that I can be a successful attorney. Are you starting to understand my offense?

And no, I am not "denying" that I am a newly-minted attorney. Why would I? But your phrasing of that seemed to imply that it was a slur.

At any rate, you are still wrong about the debtors prisons, but more importantly, you have not retracted your remark, even though you are clearly wrong.

That is more troubling to me.

I apologize if I have interpreted your comments too personally, I thought you were or could have been a 'personal friend'.

I hope we can put this behind us and discuss the object of this thread; lawsuits, either a hypothetical lawsuit or my hypothetical lawsuit against you for libel per se (just kidding)

Again, let me be the first to apologize to you for any offence either way.

I think you are an asset to this forum, and a nice guy despite your conduct heretofore.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday

Well, thank goodness for another lawyer on the OD forum . . . now the others can take a breather for a bit . . .

With all these lawyers, I feel sorry knowing that somewhere there's an ambulance going unchased.

Good one Botnst, don't worry, I have one eye on the computer screen and the other on looking out on to the street!

Speaking of lawsuits, I think one of the more frivolous ones filed that I have heard of is the one by a judge against some drycleaner for ruining his pants!

Ridiculous, and should be sanctioned if not disbarred.

I think most bar associations could be more harsh with their discipline and watchdog functions.

At least Clinton was disbarred for his perjury in a federal court.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday

Its only natural that lawyers would be attracted to a MB forum. I bet if you took a poll of jobs 1/4 of out members are in that field.

__________________
2006 CL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2026 Genesis GV70
2007 Tiara 3200

Or pursued by it.

"You picked a fine time to get banned JD, four hungry lawyers and some bans to take place."

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

Yeah that too. Its certianly a different demographic then the average Chevy forum.

__________________
2006 CL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2026 Genesis GV70
2007 Tiara 3200

There was a book out years ago, maybe Legal Terroism, but I may be confusing titles of books. Anyway, the idea was that the legal system was being used as a barrier to entry in industry, politics and anywhere money in sufficient quantites was involved.

It is really kinda scary. We tell the world that we have a better way partially because we have a society based on the rule of law. At the same time we have a society that is based on fallacy, not substance.

Leaders of this country since Jefferson have been warning the populace of the impending dangers of powerful groups in this country becoming too powerful. Few listened and down we went. The unit of political power in this country was meant to be the vote, now it is the dollar, maybe the euro, or the yuan.

Even songs about it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu-6IppcvRo&feature=related


Its every lawyers theme song!

__________________
2006 CL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2026 Genesis GV70
2007 Tiara 3200