On Nov 13, 6:50 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:22 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:That's the difference -- the vehicle code is not the Internal Revenue
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:34:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> > > > Have you and Mionske talked about this? I'd be curious to hear what he tells you.
> > > Thankfully, and I may be believing in the tooth fairy here, but I
> > > (like to) believe the courts will *not* gush over any personage (as
> > > you seem to), and instead "weight" all information FWIW.
> > Dan, it's not gushing over a personage. It's expertise in an area of law.
> Sure looked like you were gushing to me. *You* said something about
> > We have a young lawyer in the extended family. He recently started with a new firm, dealing with cases in a different area than those he was previously familiar with. He's come home in awe of the firm partners and their expertise in that area, noting that despite his years of good experience elsewhere, he now has tons to learn.
> Duh. (So gushing runs in the [extended] family, does it? ;-)
> > It's like that with law, just as with most professions above the burger-flipper level: people develop a particular set of skills and knowledge. If you get hurt by a driver in a car-bike crash, or if you get an unjust ticket while riding, I'd advise getting a lawyer familiar with bike law, not one who specializes in real estate, divorce or bankruptcy.
> Shouldn't sway a judge (or jury) in the least if what they say is
Code. Most slackers represent themselves in traffic court. Challenge
that ticket . . . hope the cop doesn't show up.
Frank is right though -- there are some areas where dabbling can be
-- Jay Beattie.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.