Posted on 01/14/2005 5:57:02 AM PST by hdrabon
The ACLU's "constitutional" lawsuit with this Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration is a three-way taxpayer hit:
1. By act of Congress, the ACLU is allowed to bill (likely at the highest rate possible) the government/taxpayers for the costs of bringing the suit, and automatically is paid, regardless of the suits' outcome.
2. By operation, the cost of defending against the suit is charged to the taxpayers, again, likely at the highest rate.
3. By function, the cost of hearing and adjudicating the suit is at taxpayer expense.
Of course, it was members of the legal industry, Congress's largest and only functional built-in lobby, who made the law!
Our imperial legal industry -- Minor risk and guaranteed high return. The setup against liberty is becomming more and more clear.
Hubert D. Rabon
Cute I am. Legal industry advocate you are.
Your position will trump any I can give, cute or otherwise. I've accepted that my conclusions are faulty and based on useless heresay. I've made that as public as necessary.
Exactly when, though, did I begin attacking you, or anyone else personally? My adversity is with the legal industry overall. You are a worthy proponent of that industry.
By the way, I meant to say that the legal industry and its individual components present the public a generous blend of arrogance and whining in order to help faciliktate its many agendas.
I would be contrite about all of this if the legal industry was not so organically disingenuous.
Neither you, nor anyone else has to agree with me, regardless of whether my research, conclusions, or whatever else are accurate.
Be a lawyer, I don't care. Regardless of my reasons, I don't care for your industry and think it is the foundation of all that is wrong in America. Otherwise, our founding fathers would not have spoken so much on not allowing the legal industry as much sway in our govenmental operations as we have, unfortunately, sleepily allowed.
HDR
No, I guess I don't know what most lawyers do.
Your defensiveness is quite understandable, by the way. That IS coming from an obvious dumb-ass.
ME -- HDR
Your interest in little-old-nobody me is no less than astounding.
Though I cannot pull a rabbit out of my hat as quickly as you would like, I will go back through some old stuff and see if I can entertain your lust for continual batterment.
There ain't nothing like how an attorney can abuse a person. I've been the subject of more client-abuse than you can imagine.
Go on, make me the bad guy. . . .
From the imperial mouth of the legal industry. . . .
Thank you for wasting so much time on me. It is a privilege to be hated by one more member of the legal industsry.
Sorry my comments don't measure up. You can keep writing if you wish, but I'll no longer respond until I get the founding father stuff together for you, which will probably be a big waste of my time since you will spend your time helping me understand what I have read improperly read and understood.
Who else but a lawyer will take their precious time to do that?
Why are we still FUNDING the ACLU? Under what charter do they operate that allows them this luxury? Who are the people who oversee this funding? We need to ACT!
OUCH! Coming from a lawyer that hurts SO BAD.
You certainly have me over a barrel, and amazingly concerned now about my position regarding your industry. I will certainly spend hours and lose sleep as I reconsider -- Job well done!
Please read Javelina's posts -- She's a worthy advocate of the legal industry and will take great diplomatic strides to set you straight.
HDR
And congress consists of a bunch of lawyers!
MR. Javelina -- I've read your profile now, and have a greater understanding than ever.
"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law."
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).
In a government by the People and for the People, it is to the People that accountability must be enforced, and the legal industry has no bona fide accountability to the People. . . .
This is just a start, but as promised -- Maybe I just don't have the legal and common sense capacity to understand it, which is the problem with being no more than a mere dumb-ass.
HDR
very interesting! Any comments on my post #46?
| Fiscal Year |
96-97
|
97-98
|
98-99
|
99-00
|
00-01
|
01-02
|
02-03
|
03-04
|
| Bar Population |
56,379
|
58,108
|
59,741
|
61,014
|
62,722
|
62,999
|
*72,933
|
*74,874
|
| Fees |
11,712,230
|
11,853,617
|
12,153,000
|
12,532,469
|
12,859,897
|
17,756,501
|
18,592,995
|
19,186,482
|
| Cost of Disc. |
5,993,790
|
6,531,585
|
6,719,843
|
7,149,218
|
7,765,503
|
8,320,650
|
8,427,258
|
8,562,449
|
| %Dues to Disc. |
51.18 %
|
55.10 %
|
55.29 %
|
57.05 %
|
60.39 %
|
46.86 %
|
45.32%
|
44.63%
|
| Cost Per Member |
106.31
|
112.40
|
112.48
|
123.83
|
123.81
|
140.49
|
115.55
|
114.36
|
| Disbarments |
36
|
32
|
29
|
35
|
38
|
20
|
40
|
43
|
| Suspensions |
127
|
150
|
144
|
132
|
155
|
133
|
116
|
121
|
| Public Reprimands |
66
|
60
|
49
|
43
|
57
|
69
|
43
|
46
|
| Disciplinary Resignations |
36
|
38
|
44
|
30
|
38
|
29
|
26
|
20
|
| Admonishments |
88
|
62
|
66
|
57
|
70
|
52
|
70
|
65
|
| Probations |
71
|
73
|
71
|
93
|
114
|
109
|
88
|
36
|
| Injunctions |
4
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
| Total Final Orders |
428
|
417
|
403
|
391
|
472
|
414
|
384
|
331
|
| Cost Per Sanction |
14,004
|
15,663
|
16,675
|
19,323
|
16,452
|
21,482
|
21,945
|
25,868
|
| Files Opened |
9,436
|
9,317
|
9,101
|
9,491
|
9,280
|
8,691
|
8,671
|
8,820
|
Individual cases are publically displayed at:-
http://www.flabar.org/TFB/TFBPublic.nsf/WNewsSubject?OpenView&Start=1&Count=400&Expand=4#4
As strange as it seems the disciplinary process is working in our state.Remember each case of lawyer misconduct is ajudicated in the State Supreme Court. I cannot see where public input will enhance the system.
Are you suggesting that the self-policing process should continue to be hidden from public view in any one case? If so, what is the justification for keeping the process (not the results of the process) hidden, when such is not the case for anyone in any other industry?
HDR
I understand that you have a beef with the system...for what ever reason.
Contrary to public opinion, lawyers are held to a higher standard than any other profession. I do not see how more open it can get!
If you compare it to a criminal investigation,or a complaint about a police officer,or a manager in any buisness examining employee wrong doing, or an AMA hearing, it is more open.
Lets look at the process:-
1. You file your complaint directly with the Florida Supreme Court. (This is the weak link in the system as most people
do not supply enough evidence for a full investigation )
2.A file is opened on that complaint and an investigation is
initiated.
3.The complainant is informed of the result of the investigation.
4.If there is a case to answer, there is a public hearing in the Supreme Court.
5.If there is disciplinary action against an attorney, it is by court order and strictly enforced.
6.The evidence used at the disciplinary hearing is published and can be used in a Civil action.
It may not be 100% perfect but it is FAIR to both parties.Remember the weakest link and if you have a complaint,copies of all documents exchanged,recordings of telephone conversations, and any fiscal transactions need to be submitted, this gives the investigators a platform to address your case.
It appears that FL is light-years more interested in public perceptions of the legal industry than is North Carolina.
I would be glad to give you as many details of MY story, and how I came to despise the industry.
How about investigations into judges/Clerks of Court/judicial processes/etc. Is it not true that by law these cannot be publicized in any way, that a gag-order exists by fiat?
HDR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.