A warning on internet stalkers.

[Gob]

We have a solicitor already engaged. (and a Barrister.)

He is already working on my claim for compensation for my bike accident.

[Sean]

Shotgun, Bastard & Dribble, Attorneys at Law?

[Gob]

Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel.

[Sean]

Well I've retained Matlock just in case...

[The Hen]

I doubt we will need them. But it is good to have them should any further faeces be flung from afar, or any lawsuit based on fiction be delivered.

[TPFKA@W]

Matlock is dead. You must have his zombie working your case.

[Sean]

That would explain a lot...

[Jarlaxle]

When you type "NSW Lawyers" in google, Maurice's site is the first paid advertisement that pops up. Not saying anything else but .... That's interesting.

Does the same thing happen if you type in "NSW crooks"? Or does that bring up pictures of politicians?

[Andrew D]

Now I'm no lawyer as you know Andrew...

But I would imagine that you would look at a case differently with a defendant as a client than you would if hired by the other side.

Not if I am doing my job.

Many of my conversations with my clients have begun "Well, if I were the judge ...."

Maybe representing insurers has given me a more balanced perspective. Some plaintiffs' lawyers must by now be gagging, but hear me out.

On any given day, any major insurance company confronts a jillion claims -- not (yet) lawsuits, just claims (as when a tree falls on your house, and you submit a claim to your insurer). Many of those claims are self-evidently valid; many of them are self-evidently crap; and many of them are in the grey zone of maybe-valid-and-maybe-not.

A typical plaintiff has only one case. The only thing that matters to that plaintiff is the outcome of that one case. But the typical insurer-defendant confronts a host of cases. That client must make decisions about whether it is worthwhile to pursue a particular claim in light of the many other claims which that client confronts.

I don't do tree-falls-on-the-insured's-house claims; I do things more like the-insured's-chemical-fertilizer-plant-blew-off-the-face-of-the-planet claims.

But the point is the same: Many times, my advice is "Pay the claim." My client says "But isn't this claim subject to exclusion III.B.2.a(iii)?" And my answer, having analyzed the applicability of that exclusion is "No. Pay the claim. Pay it now, before you end up in deep doo-doo."

Most of the time, my clients take my advice. Sometimes they do not. The choice is theirs. I advise; they decide.

The quality of my advice depends on my objectivity. If I present to my client a view of the facts that favors my client's view of the matter, then I am not doing my job. If my considered opinion is that exclusion III.B.2.a(iii) does not apply to the claim, then my duty is to tell my client so. If I allow my considered opinion to be colored by what my client wants to hear, then I am breaching not only my duty to my client but also my duty as an officer of the court and my duty to the public to whom I owe the existence of my job. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I choose not to do that.

[The Hen]

I would have thought Lo's Chief could not have been considered a "neutral counsel" either.

Now a Complaints Commission .....

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's odd because he looks like a neutral

[wesw]

that s nutria, meade.

wow. I was looking for who called isis "a few dozen" nutjobs and I stumbled across this thread. I had heard references to this stuff here, and I had seen some thread about banning LOCOchick (sorry, but I often give written names my own little spin when I read them), but this thread was a surprise to me.

I decided to post because it is relevant to what is on my mind, and my fears about being here.

I have given enough info here, publicly and privately, for my identity to be easily found by anyone with half a brain. and there are a lot of people with half a brain here (sorry ).

anyway, when sue said that she should "take the gloves" off, referring to me, I took it to mean that she was gonna come after me for real, not just in her arguing methods.

I am a vulnerable person financially. if some pitbull of an attorney decided to make my life hell and interfered with my Soc Sec some how , it would devastate me. I don t have a nest egg. I don t have any relatives to fall back upon (except my son), I already sold everything of value except my tools when I stopped working in 2012, and I am no longer able to practice my trade, or be a reliable employee to anyone.
I don t like to talk about it, but I have tolerated as much pain as I am able in my life, I was a tough guy for too long, now I am weak. my physical pain is tremendous everyday.

so, when I answered sue, I had planned to disappear from this board out of fear for myself, and my families security.
I decided to stay and have faith that it would be ok, but I was, and am scared. I up until a few short years ago I would have never shown my fear or weakness to anyone, that was stupid, but it was a defense mechanism, I think.

anyway..., guin, I won t pretend that your loss of respect for me does not bother me, it does. I will not kow tow to any PC crap tho, just to go along to get along. I do think that our rights are threatened and I will speak out.

someone has done some annoying things and my S.S. was screwed up somehow, I got it straightened out, but it makes me wonder.
I don t know if the SS was a coincidence, but I know that the people who have shown up at my door were directed here by someone. I don t have any idea who or where we know them from. I don t know of any recent enemies.

anyway, I hope locochick doesn t come after me......

glad gob and hen emerged from it ok

wes

[MajGenl.Meade]

Uh, wesw - I know what the animal is. It was a play on Hen's use of the word 'neutral' right above

As to your post above, here's a song for you:

[wesw]

it was a joke meade, I knew that you knew, but you didn t know that I knew that you knew, no?

and I m not gonna listen to your song, I already know that I am nuts.

eta- apparently , from this thread, people do take this stuff seriously enough to go after people in real life.

I don t hold grudges like that, revenge is pointless to me.

when I played sports, and gambled, I would always rather play against a superior opponent than to beat a lesser one. even the losses improve you.
in debate it is much the same for me.

[BoSoxGal]

It's disgusting that you would even insinuate that Sue U would go after you in a personal fashion, off-board.

She is one of the most ethical persons here; I've communicated with her regarding an IRL situation, and I have no doubt about her character and integrity.

Beyond that, she couldn't possibly care less about your accusations and smears here at Plan B, except that she has every right, if she has time and/or interest, in refuting them soundly and making you look the obvious idiot you are in the process.

Really wesw, that post was ENTIRELY inappropriate.

[wesw]

oh shut up bigsky.

I didn t accuse sue of anything, I said that I took it that way, I meant to add most probably wrongly, which is why I did not disappear.

when you are weak you see threats that are not there sometimes, when you are weak you become more defensive.

just as when you are insecure you see slights everywhere.

eta- I meant to give you my condolences on the loss of your canine friend, she had a good run.

[Guinevere]

OFFS. No words. None.

As for my post about respect, please go read it again because you completely missed the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with "being PC."

[wesw]

I should have messaged sue privately.

...and your loss of respect doesn t bother me that much...., it s mutual.

[BoSoxGal]

buh-bye!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, one thing this past-raking has done is remind me of how many we've more or less lost over the last four-five years. Sean, Hen, Darkblack, AGD... others. Shame.