Another legal question

[BillB]

This one is a "hypothetical."

Let's say you are a lawyer practicing family law. You get a call from a social worker at the local hospital who says she has a client who needs your help. You go to the hospital and meet with your prospective client. She is in a hospital bed with a fresh cast on her arm and has been beaten black and blue. Her eyes are not only blackened, but swollen shut. She has other cuts and contusions all over her face. She explains that her husband, an alcoholic with a long list of alcohol related convictions, including several for spousal assaults, came home from work, apparently drunk, and immediately flew into a rage because dinner wasn't ready and because she was visiting with two female friends. Without any provocation he started beating the crap out of her in front of her friends. One of her friends called 911, but by the time the police and an ambulance arrive the husband has already fled the scene.

Her friends are also at the hospital and say they are willing to sign eyewitness affidavits confirming that's exactly what happened. The beaten woman says there are no children from the relationship, and she finally wants to leave this abusive relationship and move in with her mother. You agree to act for her and tell her the first step should be to get an emergency ex parte restraining order, ordering the husband to refrain from directly or indirectly contacting her, or coming within 500 yards of her mother's house. She says she has no money for a lawyer and you tell her not to worry about that.

The next day you attend the hearing for the ex parte order armed with the police report, affidavits from your client and the two eyewitnesses (all giving virtually identical accounts of the incident), and an affidavit from the attending physician detailing your client's rather extensive injuries, with photographs of the injuries attached to the affidavit as exhibits.

Is it correct or incorrect for the judge to grant your application for the temporary ex parte restraining order under these circumstances?

Answer carefully, always keeping in mind that our two resident legal geniuses* pickle and vanek assert there are no correct answers in law.

*******************

*pickle has "43 major jury trials" under his belt (which he can't name and for which there are no public records)

*vanek was the first legal scholar in America to figure out that Trump wasn't really impeached (twice).

[risky biz]

TLaP/DNR (Too Long and Phantasmagorical/Did Not Read)

[BillB]

In other words, riskytard has no clue. Expected result.

[BillB]

pickle...? vanek....? Aren't you going to weigh in? Tell us again about there being no correct or incorrect answers in law. The weird thing is, I handled *several* cases similar to this back in the day, and I was always able to tell my clients in advance the inevitable outcome of the application, and I was never wrong. Am I brilliant, or just incredibly lucky?

Geez...radio silence. Go figure. I hope they are both okay! LOLOL

Idiots.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<ce56b2b0-11ba-4c46...@googlegroups.com>):

> This one is a "hypothetical."
>
> Let's say you are a lawyer practicing family law.

Like you claim you did way back when? So this is all about you?

> Without any provocation he started beating the crap out of
> her

Is this part about you, too?

> She says she has no money for a lawyer and you tell her not to worry about
> that.

Okay, this part is definitely not about you.

> *vanek was the first legal scholar in America to figure out that Trump wasn't
> really impeached (twice).

You might want to check your records on that one. You have it backwards. You
might want to criticize one of your liberal friends for that one.

[BillB]

Dodge noted. All of a sudden they have nothing. Go figure. lolol

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<c8e2b943-05e5-495f...@googlegroups.com>):

It’s not interesting, that’s all. Baldwin is in the news. You aren’t.
Let’s see how interested you are in these little games:

A 2 story condo owner in LV throws some clothes in the washer, and then goes
out shopping. She comes home, and the entire place is flooded from the
washer. Who pays for all of the damage?

[BillB]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 7:03:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<c8e2b943-05e5-495f...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 5:24:43 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<ce56b2b0-11ba-4c46...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > This one is a "hypothetical."
> > > >
> > > > Let's say you are a lawyer practicing family law.
> > > Like you claim you did way back when? So this is all about you?
> > > > Without any provocation he started beating the crap out of
> > > > her
> > > Is this part about you, too?
> > > > She says she has no money for a lawyer and you tell her not to worry about
> > > > that.
> > > Okay, this part is definitely not about you.
> > > > *vanek was the first legal scholar in America to figure out that Trump
> > > > wasn't
> > > > really impeached (twice).
> > > You might want to check your records on that one. You have it backwards. You
> > > might want to criticize one of your liberal friends for that one.
> >
> > Dodge noted. All of a sudden they have nothing. Go figure. lolol

> It’s not interesting, that’s all.

Interesting is not the test. But can we assume your answer is "flip a coin" because there are no correct answers in law? lol

Baldwin is in the news. You aren’t.
> Let’s see how interested you are in these little games:
>
> A 2 story condo owner in LV throws some clothes in the washer, and then goes
> out shopping. She comes home, and the entire place is flooded from the
> washer. Who pays for all of the damage?

I would need more information.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<ce56b2b0-11ba-4c46...@googlegroups.com>):

I decided to humor you, just because I can bash you once again. Is the judge
obligated by law to grant the order? Is there any chance, however remote,
that he will deny it? You see, you are not talking about correct/incorrect,
you are talking about probabilities. That’s very different. This is another
demonstration of why you failed at law.

[BillB]

More fantasies?

Is the judge
> obligated by law to grant the order? Is there any chance, however remote,
> that he will deny it?

We can fairly call it zero. But that has nothing to do with if he would be correct in doing so. There are remedies in place if a judge makes an incorrect decision, but I can't imagine that happening in 100 lifetimes in this fact scenario.

>You see, you are not talking about correct/incorrect,

Yes, we are. I specifically asked you if the judge would be correct or incorrect to grant the order under that fact scenario. But your answer is there is no correct answer, right? It's just one big mystery to you, right?

> you are talking about probabilities. That’s very different.

I am talking about what's correct. pickle specifically said there are no correct answers in law, and you instantly backed that ridiculously stupid statement.

This is another
> demonstration of why you failed at law.

More fantasies about me?

[da pickle]

You forgot the "other" evidence that everyone (except for the husband)
was lying about the "accident" ... there was a video.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<efa489eb-7d80-4f96...@googlegroups.com>):

You remain a child. What makes a decision “correct”? The fact that nearly
everyone would agree with it? Nearly everyone agrees that you are a troll. So
that’s correct? It’s like I said, you are talking about probability of a
decision, not correctness.

> > you are talking about probabilities. That’s very different.
>
> I am talking about what's correct. pickle specifically said there are no
> correct answers in law, and you instantly backed that ridiculously stupid
> statement.

“No correct answers in law” has a meaning that someone with a brain could
understand, meaning you can’t. It is referring to the interpretation of
laws, not the judgement of a particular judge when making a decision that is
not clearly dictated by existing law. Or are you arguing that there is a law
stating that the judge *must* grant the order under those precise
circumstances? Please cite it. You can’t, of course, but if you tried real
hard too would find plenty of cases where TRO’s were denied, leaving some
people quite distressed, and sometimes ending badly for the requesting party.
Judges do not all think exactly like you, thank God.

> This is another
> > demonstration of why you failed at law.
>
> More fantasies about me?

Just stating a fact. Your rigid thinking precludes any success at practicing
law. Or maybe I’m just talking about a very high probability.

[BillB]

You are not stating any "fact". You are stating a lie based on your obvious jealousy and trying to project your failure in life onto my overwhelming success. You don't think people can see right through that? You couldn't achieve 1/50th of what I have if your life depended on it.

[BillB]

Tell us what could be incorrect about protecting a horrifically abused woman from a drunken violent abuser with a restraining order. I am sure everyone would love to hear your "reasoning." lol What a fucking donkey.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<b44de049-80ad-4983...@googlegroups.com>):

My, what a brilliant litigator you could have been. I say it’s not a matter
of correct/incorrect, and you ask for an example of when it would be
incorrect! Astounding! BTW, is concrete male or female?

>
> > > This is another
> > > > demonstration of why you failed at law.
> > >
> > > More fantasies about me?

More fantasies about people having fantasies about you? Please keep me out of
your fantasies. It’s icky.

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> This one is a "hypothetical."

Didn't I tell ya? You corner, embarrass, prove him wrong, and BackupBillB
"Will Run & Hide & pop-up to start another thread..

And that ain't "hypothetical..."

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

Hell, you can't name, address, link, number, of the owner of that law firm that hired you as a lawyer because they loved you.

Run away again....

[VegasJerry]

No, in YOUR dodging and embarrassing words, because that is NOT what he said in ANY words.
Expected results from you.

[BillB]

It is a matter of correct or incorrect. Pickle is the one who made the moronic claim about "there are no correct answers in law.". You jumped in like the ass-licking sycophant you are to defend him. And I asked what the correct decision would be in the fact scenario I presented. Any fucking moron would know the answer, but not you. And I specifically made it so you didn't need to be a lawyer to know the correct answer. Anyone with an IQ over 60 would know the correct answer. But you apparently don't. That's why you refuse to answer. Either that or you do know the blindingly obvious answer, but once again you are too ashamed to admit you were proven wrong.

I'll ask you one more time so you can humiliate yourself one more time by running away from it. On the fact scenario I presented, what could possibly be incorrect about granting a temporary restraining order? Now run away again, you lowlife POS coward.

> > > > This is another
> > > > > demonstration of why you failed at law.
> > > >
> > > > More fantasies about me?
> More fantasies about people having fantasies about you? Please keep me out of
> your fantasies. It’s icky.

The facts speak for themselves. You fantasize about me constantly. Making up things about me in your imagination with absolutely no basis in fact is a fantasy. All three of you stooges do exactly the same thing. You haven't noticed nobody else does it but you three idiots?

[VegasJerry]

And notice he did. His reply, above, he ranaway.

GOT YA!

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:26:37 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:

> > Hell, you can't name, address, link, number, of the owner of that law firm that hired you as
> > a lawyer because they loved you.

Hello? BackupBillB? Hello? .................

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<0d74d5f6-581f-4174...@googlegroups.com>):

Ah. Gainsay! Well that does it, I guess.

> Pickle is the one who made the
> moronic claim about "there are no correct answers in law.".

I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t know.
I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course, you
argued. You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges do
whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
quite the opposite. Who do you suppose a sane person would believe? There is
no question in my mind that you really did fail at law, and this is surely
one of the reasons. When you think you know what’s going to happen in a
courtroom, you are doomed. As soon as it doesn’t happen, you are caught
flat-footed. That won’t work for someone with your rigid thinking. My God,
you still believe and repeat all that shit you learned in a sociology class
100 years ago.

> I'll ask you one more time so you can humiliate yourself one more time by
> running away from it. On the fact scenario I presented, what could possibly
> be incorrect about granting a temporary restraining order?

And I’ll ask you one more time: is concrete male or female? Are you going
to run away again?

[BillB]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t know.

I don't need you to tell me what something someone else said means. It's plain fucking English. If he wants to correct himself, HE can. But he won't, because he has been making the same dumbass claim for 20 years.

> I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course, you
> argued.

What are your qualifications?

You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
> lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
> tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges do
> whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
> quite the opposite.

I am a real lawyer and I was in court almost every working day for years. And yes, I could predict outcomes with overwhelming accuracy, and my record of overwhelming success reflected that. People were lined up out the door to hire me because I didn't take dog cases to court only to lose so I could pad my billing hours. I found other ways to get the best possible result for my clients, negotiation.

Who do you suppose a sane person would believe? There is
> no question in my mind that you really did fail at law, and this is surely
> one of the reasons.

More fantasies about me. I have made a great living in the legal field for close to thirty years. Failure is not in the DNA of people like me. You are projecting again.

When you think you know what’s going to happen in a
> courtroom, you are doomed.

I know what my record of accurate predictions is. You don't. All you have is fantasy. A big part of any good lawyer's job is making accurate predictions. Remember when you said the prosecution in the Chauvin case was embarrassing itself by charging second degree murder? I told you the facts were on all fours with the definition of second degree murder in Minnesota and that Chauvin would be easily convicted of same. Who was right?

As soon as it doesn’t happen, you are caught
> flat-footed. That won’t work for someone with your rigid thinking. My God,
> you still believe and repeat all that shit you learned in a sociology class
> 100 years ago.

You don't know the first thing about being a litigator, yet you just keep spewing like you really believe you do.

> > I'll ask you one more time so you can humiliate yourself one more time by
> > running away from it. On the fact scenario I presented, what could possibly
> > be incorrect about granting a temporary restraining order?

> And I’ll ask you one more time: is concrete male or female? Are you going
> to run away again?

I don't know what that means, but I do know you ran from my question again, as I correctly predicted you would.

[BillB]

There is no "other" evidence in an ex parte application, you idiot. Stick to negotiating leases on crawdad ponds.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<0a942be8-26a2-4814...@googlegroups.com>):

My God you are fucking dense.

[BillB]

You have nothing. Pickle didn't even know what an ex parte application is. That's your legal hero. lol

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<90aeee9f-f58f-430f...@googlegroups.com>):

I’m pretty sure he does, and that was the point he was trying to make. You
think there might be judges somewhere that are uncomfortable with ex parte
requests? I’ve already told you, and you know, that judges have made some
pretty unusual decisions, and some had pretty bad outcomes. Maybe they are
perfect in Canada, but not around here.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<2dc64a0c-bfe4-40d2...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t
> > know.
>
> I don't need you to tell me what something someone else said means. It's
> plain fucking English. If he wants to correct himself, HE can. But he won't,
> because he has been making the same dumbass claim for 20 years.
>
> > I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course, you
> > argued.
>
> What are your qualifications?

Being told that by lawyers who actually practice law, and divorce court and
traffic tickets. Also by Chicago ASA’s.

> You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
> > lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
> > tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges
> > do
> > whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
> > quite the opposite.
>
> I am a real lawyer and I was in court almost every working day for years.

Yep, who gets that real nice vase in the front room?

> And
> yes, I could predict outcomes with overwhelming accuracy, and my record of
> overwhelming success reflected that. People were lined up out the door to
> hire me because I didn't take dog cases to court only to lose so I could pad
> my billing hours. I found other ways to get the best possible result for my
> clients, negotiation.
>
> Who do you suppose a sane person would believe? There is
> > no question in my mind that you really did fail at law, and this is surely
> > one of the reasons.
>
> More fantasies about me. I have made a great living in the legal field for
> close to thirty years. Failure is not in the DNA of people like me. You are
> projecting again.
>
> When you think you know what’s going to happen in a
> > courtroom, you are doomed.
>
> I know what my record of accurate predictions is. You don't. All you have is
> fantasy. A big part of any good lawyer's job is making accurate predictions.

You were a fucking divorce lawyer. You already agreed that those cases are
pretty darn predictable. Go into criminal law, insurance/contract law, and
then get back to us.

> Remember when you said the prosecution in the Chauvin case was embarrassing
> itself by charging second degree murder? I told you the facts were on all
> fours with the definition of second degree murder in Minnesota and that
> Chauvin would be easily convicted of same. Who was right?

I never said he would not be convicted. Your predictions were based on the
politicization of the case, not the facts, not the law.

>
> > And I’ll ask you one more time: is concrete male or female? Are you going
> > to run away again?
>
> I don't know what that means,

You don’t? You can’t understand that neither answer makes sense? Kind of
like correct/incorrect in your little scenario? BTW, what was the point of
that gratuitous mention of the victim having no money, and being told not to
worry about it? Were you trying to portray yourself as a caring lawyer doing
pro bono work? Were you a partner? No, you weren’t. So you get paid
regardless. It’s the firm doing her a favor, not you.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, Bill Vanek wrote
(in article<0001HW.27263F8A0...@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

> Being told that by lawyers who actually practice law, and divorce court and
> traffic tickets. Also by Chicago ASA’s.

“And not” divorce court...

[BillB]

And I already told you it is irrelevant if judges sometimes make mistakes or (more often in US courts for certain) make legal decisions based on political alliances. None of that changes the fact that correct and incorrect do exist in law. And in the real world, judges do make the correct decision a very large percentage of the time. If they didn't, there is obviously no way I could predict the outcome of cases with the stunning accuracy I can. If there were no correct or incorrect outcomes, nobody could do better long-term than 50% in their predictions. Everything would be a coinflip. Then there would be no point in getting advice from a lawyer on the strength or weakness of one's case.

No lawyer will absolutely guarantee a win to a client, nor are they allowed to, but I can assure you that experienced lawyers know if they are backing a winner or a dog. You don't think Chauvin's lawyer knew he had virtually no chance of winning? Of course he did, as did I. If you watched the trial and are attuned to these things, it was plainly obvious he knew. But everyone is entitled to a defense, so he stepped up. I don't envy that position. I had a trial like that once, where I knew there was actually no way to win, but the government was taking such a hard line that my client literally had nothing to lose. I tried to negotiate any kind of resolution, and they would not budge, because they knew they were backing a winner. It sucks, but that's life in the trenches. And yes, I did tell my client she couldn't win, was going to lose her kids permanently, and that she should consider trying to find a lawyer who believed in her case. She declined. And sure enough, after a three week trial in which I fought like hell, she lost, just like I told her she would. She thanked me profusely afterward because it was obvious I gave it all I had. It didn't help that we were up against another great lawyer who now sits on the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

[BillB]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:27:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<2dc64a0c-bfe4-40d2...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> >
> > > I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t
> > > know.
> >
> > I don't need you to tell me what something someone else said means. It's
> > plain fucking English. If he wants to correct himself, HE can. But he won't,
> > because he has been making the same dumbass claim for 20 years.
> >
> > > I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course, you
> > > argued.
> >
> > What are your qualifications?

> Being told that by lawyers who actually practice law, and divorce court and
> traffic tickets. Also by Chicago ASA’s.

In other words, you have no qualifications at all, but it's clear you really think you do.

> > You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
> > > lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
> > > tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges
> > > do
> > > whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
> > > quite the opposite.
> >
> > I am a real lawyer and I was in court almost every working day for years.

> Yep, who gets that real nice vase in the front room?

I don't know what that means.

The correct answer in my scenario is the order is granted, all day, every day. If you don't know that, it's just yet another example of how little you know.

BTW, what was the point of
> that gratuitous mention of the victim having no money, and being told not to
> worry about it?

Because that is typical, almost universal, in those sort of cases.

Were you trying to portray yourself as a caring lawyer doing
> pro bono work? Were you a partner? No, you weren’t. So you get paid
> regardless. It’s the firm doing her a favor, not you.

Another clear example of how very little you know about the practice of law. Associates have billable hour and gross collected fee targets they have to meet, and they are onerous. If I did something for free, that was on my time. And I did A LOT for free or at huge discounts which is why I was working 60-70 hours a week to keep up. I HATED giving people 30k bills. It's one of the main reasons I left. I saw grown men cry over legal bills.

[BillB]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:27:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:


> You were a fucking divorce lawyer. You already agreed that those cases are
> pretty darn predictable. Go into criminal law, insurance/contract law, and
> then get back to us.

I worked for a small, busy, general practice firm. I did mostly criminal and family law, but I also did personal injury, business disputes, employment disputes, insurance claims, real estate transactions, foreclosures, government agency work, child protection cases and anything else that was thrown my way. You have no clue.

> > Remember when you said the prosecution in the Chauvin case was embarrassing
> > itself by charging second degree murder? I told you the facts were on all
> > fours with the definition of second degree murder in Minnesota and that
> > Chauvin would be easily convicted of same. Who was right?

> I never said he would not be convicted.

Nor did I say you did. I said you claimed pursuing 2nd degree murder was an embarrassment, and I told you that's what he would be convicted of. Is that what happened, or not?

Your predictions were based on the
> politicization of the case, not the facts, not the law.

It was based on the video, which clearly depicted a 2nd degree murder to anyone with the first fucking clue. That did not include you.

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:48:49 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> I could predict the outcome of cases with stunning accuracy....
> People were lined up out the door to hire me...

"Yet I cant give you the name, address, link, number, owner of that law firm that hired me as a lawyer because they loved me."
"While at the same time I was self employed."

WHA! HA~ha!

Backup&RunBillB puking up more bullshit for Vanek to choke on.


//NEXT THREAD//

[BillB]

Sorry man, I don't give out that kind of personal information to freaks like you. There is no upside for me. Hope you understand.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<88aa3c8c-ed9c-4ce4...@googlegroups.com>):

LOL. Honestly, that’s the “correct" response...

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<a395e6ff-3072-4f05...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:27:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<2dc64a0c-bfe4-40d2...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > >
> > > > I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t
> > > > know.
> > >
> > > I don't need you to tell me what something someone else said means. It's
> > > plain fucking English. If he wants to correct himself, HE can. But he
> > > won't,
> > > because he has been making the same dumbass claim for 20 years.
> > >
> > > > I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course,
> > > > you
> > > > argued.
> > >
> > > What are your qualifications?
>
> > Being told that by lawyers who actually practice law, and divorce court and
> > traffic tickets. Also by Chicago ASA’s.
>
> In other words, you have no qualifications at all, but it's clear you really
> think you do.

I learn from others, just like most people. I listen, unlike you. Those are
my qualifications.

> > > You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
> > > > lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
> > > > tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges
> > > > do
> > > > whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
> > > > quite the opposite.
> > >
> > > I am a real lawyer and I was in court almost every working day for years.
>
> > Yep, who gets that real nice vase in the front room?
>
> I don't know what that means.

You’ve never handled a divorce? I wouldn’t be surprised.

You were on salary, right - errr, correct? You got paid either way. Or are
you going to tell me they dock your pay if you don’t meet your targets?

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<3a066493-cb15-481d...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:27:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > You were a fucking divorce lawyer. You already agreed that those cases are
> > pretty darn predictable. Go into criminal law, insurance/contract law, and
> > then get back to us.
>
> I worked for a small, busy, general practice firm. I did mostly criminal and
> family law, but I also did personal injury, business disputes, employment
> disputes, insurance claims, real estate transactions, foreclosures,
> government agency work, child protection cases and anything else that was
> thrown my way. You have no clue.

And you have no clue about law in the US. You either had very predictable
sorts of cases, or things are very different up there.

> > > Remember when you said the prosecution in the Chauvin case was embarrassing
> > > itself by charging second degree murder? I told you the facts were on all
> > > fours with the definition of second degree murder in Minnesota and that
> > > Chauvin would be easily convicted of same. Who was right?
>
> > I never said he would not be convicted.
>
> Nor did I say you did. I said you claimed pursuing 2nd degree murder was an
> embarrassment, and I told you that's what he would be convicted of. Is that
> what happened, or not?
>
> Your predictions were based on the
> > politicization of the case, not the facts, not the law.
>
> It was based on the video, which clearly depicted a 2nd degree murder to
> anyone with the first fucking clue. That did not include you.

Once again, you fail to understand that there is not a correct outcome. If it
had been clear, there would have been no trial at all.

[BillB]

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 11:26:13 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<a395e6ff-3072-4f05...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 6:27:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<2dc64a0c-bfe4-40d2...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I already told you what that means, and I’m not surprised you don’t
> > > > > know.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need you to tell me what something someone else said means. It's
> > > > plain fucking English. If he wants to correct himself, HE can. But he
> > > > won't,
> > > > because he has been making the same dumbass claim for 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > > I said it here long ago, “law is one big gray area”, and, of course,
> > > > > you
> > > > > argued.
> > > >
> > > > What are your qualifications?
> >
> > > Being told that by lawyers who actually practice law, and divorce court and
> > > traffic tickets. Also by Chicago ASA’s.
> >
> > In other words, you have no qualifications at all, but it's clear you really
> > think you do.

> I learn from others, just like most people. I listen, unlike you. Those are
> my qualifications.

You don't listen and learn from me, and I am very likely the most knowledgeable lawyer you have ever encountered.

> > > > You argue, but I hear it all the time from actual practicing lawyers,
> > > > > lawyers that actually appear in courtrooms in front of judges, lawyers who
> > > > > tell me what ridiculous things might happen in a proceeding because judges
> > > > > do
> > > > > whatever they want. So you say one thing, and real lawyers say something
> > > > > quite the opposite.
> > > >
> > > > I am a real lawyer and I was in court almost every working day for years.
> >
> > > Yep, who gets that real nice vase in the front room?
> >
> > I don't know what that means.

> You’ve never handled a divorce? I wouldn’t be surprised.

Oh, you are talking about division of family assets? Why would that have to be a divorce? More evidence of your ignorance.

LOL...he STILL doesn't get it. Hopeless case.

[VegasJerry]

Because I've proved you a liar before.

> There is no upside for me.

There never has been.

> Hope you understand.

That's why you can't do it.

Gotcha!

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<159b5be9-9b9e-4eba...@googlegroups.com>):

> I am very likely the most knowledgeable lawyer you have ever encountered.

Not even close. The only lawyers I have encountered in real life actually
practiced law. Since I knew them face to face, it was clear which ones could
think on their feet, and which ones would likely need the luxury of Googling
everything as you do. Most of them were quite good since I normally dealt
only with the top 3 lawyers in their area of practice in southern NV. But
some of the others sucked. And some were arrogant assholes like you,
including one of the top three.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:28:03 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<159b5be9-9b9e-4eba...@googlegroups.com>):
> > I am very likely the most knowledgeable lawyer you have ever encountered.
>

>Not even close.

Ya, as if you are in a position to judge.

The only lawyers I have encountered in real life actually
> practiced law. Since I knew them face to face, it was clear which ones could
> think on their feet, and which ones would likely need the luxury of Googling
> everything as you do.

I don't google shit about the law, except maybe to find a quote I can paste to confirm something I already knew. I am a walking encyclopedia.

Most of them were quite good since I normally dealt
> only with the top 3 lawyers in their area of practice in southern NV. But
> some of the others sucked. And some were arrogant assholes like you,
> including one of the top three.

Top 3 lawyers? What does that even mean? It's all hype. There were "top 3 lawyers" in the city where I practiced too. They weren't any better than any other experienced lawyer in that practice area. There are TONS of great lawyers out there. If you graduated from a tier one school, had an LSAT and GPA good enough to get in, then you are smart as fuck and you'll be a great lawyer so long as you put in some effort. Like I have said 100 times, most cases turn on the facts and the law, there IS a correct answer, and it doesn't matter who your lawyer is (well, you definitely don't want pickle, but other than that...). I can't tell you the number of times I saw people lose with "Top 3" lawyers (including to me) because the facts and law just were not on their side. They would have better off to represent themselves and save 50k. I have also seem people win with "Top 3" lawyers who would have had exactly the same outcome if they represented themselves. Don't believe the hype.

[Bill Vanek]

On Oct 26, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<d7cd94da-d200-4112...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:28:03 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<159b5be9-9b9e-4eba...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > I am very likely the most knowledgeable lawyer you have ever encountered.
>
> > Not even close.
>
> Ya, as if you are in a position to judge.

I know a whole lot more about them than about you. All I see from you is
childish back and forth with trolls who know exactly how to trigger you. The
lawyers I know act like adults. Everything you say is from behind a computer
display with all the world’s info at your fingertips. When I talk to any of
those other lawyers in person, they either know something or they don’t,
and it’s quite obvious. They don’t get to run to Google.

> The only lawyers I have encountered in real life actually
> > practiced law. Since I knew them face to face, it was clear which ones could
> > think on their feet, and which ones would likely need the luxury of Googling
> > everything as you do.
>
> I don't google shit about the law, except maybe to find a quote I can paste
> to confirm something I already knew. I am a walking encyclopedia.

Of course. More words with no way to falsify them. Your forte.

> Most of them were quite good since I normally dealt
> > only with the top 3 lawyers in their area of practice in southern NV. But
> > some of the others sucked. And some were arrogant assholes like you,
> > including one of the top three.
>
> Top 3 lawyers? What does that even mean? It's all hype.

They were the most respected in my industry in their area of practice. They
also charged the highest hourly rates, which is admittedly less useful in
judging them. They also impressed me much more than all the others I had to
deal with. And one of the others was a lot like you. He actually threatened
to file a complaint against me with the state agency that regulated me, all
over personal shit. He coincidentally had one of the lowest hourly rates, and
rather abruptly “parted ways” with his employer after I had a little talk
with the managing partner, who was also an asshole, just like you. He had one
of the highest hourly rates. He’s also the one who dismissed my concerns
about some advice he had given and some actions he had taken, and then called
me to whine that he could lose his fucking license over those very same
issues. He fucked up. That reminds me of you.