Cliques?

[Andrew D]

Interesting, how words get twisted.

You might have noticed, Sean, that Little Jimmy accused me of professional incompetence ....

I, for one am semi-outraged that Jim attacked your professional integrity.

For the record, I was not challenging Andrewdriver's professional "integrity"....

How did "incompetence" morph into "integrity"?

Little Jimmy attacked my ability to do my work:

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

He cannot support what he posted, so he wants to have posted something different.

Typical.

[Andrew D]

... you are/were in fact one of the best attorneys that ever entered a court room ....

Are those my exact words?

Or just the words which you wish that I had posted?

There are thousands -- there may well be tens of thousands -- of attorneys who have had the experience which I described.

Am I better than them? I do not recall having made that claim. But perhaps you can refresh my memory.

[Andrew D]

Still true:

And in this whole episode, not once has anyone done what rationality requires:

Quote my exact words, and state exactly why you consider them dishonest.

Not once.

Never.

Not even a single time.

Still true.

[Lord Jim]

Jim stated his belief that you are not very good at your job.

Point of clarification on that as well...

In all fairness (he certainly doesn't deserve fairness, but I'm going to try be fair to him any way; I've been fair in my criticism, so I should also be fair in defense)

To the best of my knowledge, acting as a trial attorney is not Andrew's "job"...

As I understand it, his "job" consists primarily of doing case law research and analysis in specific areas of law, (working alone from home) which he may very well be quite good at...(at least presumably good enough to keep a roof over his head)

I don't know that he has ever acted as the lead attorney in an actual trial court proceeding....

Again, my observation in response to Joe's comment had to do with imagining Andrew trying to act as a lawyer on behalf of someone in a trial court setting ( and not as he might have been when he first got out of law school, or 20 years ago.... but as we know him today.... )

And as I said I find the image that conjurers up quite amusing.

A good trial court lawyer has to be disciplined, organized, and above all effective at being persuasive...able to construct a compelling and credible narrative.....

These are not character traits that immediately leap to mind when I think of Andrew in his current incarnation....

[Andrew D]

I've been fair in my criticism ....

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

[Lord Jim]

Another quality which a good trial lawyer needs to possess is to know when it's in their best interest to shut up.....

A skill which Andrew appears to have become a complete stranger to....

[Andrew D]

In the civil arena, the cases which to to trial are the cases which have already gone to shit.

Anyway, can you imagine being represented by Little Jimmy?

[Andrew D]

Another quality which a good trial lawyer needs to possess is to know when it's in their best interest to shut up.....

If Little Jimmy knew when it was in his best interest to shut up, he'd have shut up when his mother first told him to.

[Joe Guy]

... you are/were in fact one of the best attorneys that ever entered a court room ....

Are those my exact words?

Did I say those were your exact words?

[Andrew D]

No.

Of course not.

Why do you have such a problem with my exact words?

Why do you feel it necessary to get on me about things which I did not post rather than about things which I actually did post?

God -- if there is a God -- knows that I have posted a great deal. Surely there is something in my actual words which you can use as ammunition.

Or is there not?

[Sue U]

In the civil arena, the cases which to to trial are the cases which have already gone to shit.

Hey! Not always!

[Joe Guy]

Why do you have such a problem with my exact words?

Home come I possess an unsettled question in relation to your precise phraseology?

I don't, really.

It's the impression that you convey to the majority that is at issue.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, now how many multiple replies will we now see in a row?

3? 4? 5? more?

[Andrew D]

It's the impression that you convey to the majority that is at issue.

No.

It is the impression which you are inventing that you wish were at issue.

[Andrew D]

Okay, now how many multiple replies will we now see in a row?

3? 4? 5? more?

If your attention span could accommodate a single carefully outlined posting, multiple replies would not be necessary.

[Joe Guy]

It's the impression that you convey to the majority that is at issue.

No.

It is the impression which you are inventing that you wish were at issue.

Okay, Andrew. Is the following what you would call one of your "Honest" posts...?

WARNING:

This guy wants to swindle you.

[A picture of a troll was placed here which any reasonable person would interpret as Andrew's intended representation of Lord Jim]

If you value your bank accounts, ignore him.

First, tell me if I'm misinterpreting what you wrote above. I see it as a statement that the author (you) is claiming that Lord Jim wants to swindle people. Then you further warn that people should ignore him in order to avoid losing money.

Please explain how that post is honest.

Definition of HONEST: free from fraud or deception

Definition of FRAUD: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting

[Andrew D]

In the civil arena, the cases which to to trial are the cases which have already gone to shit.

Hey! Not always!

No. Just mostly.

As in the Stites case. Of course, it did not hurt that the defendant was already in prison for doing what my clients were claiming that he had done.

That's what I do: I keep my clients from having to go to trial. And with respect to my insurance-company clients, I sometimes do that by saying (in more polite words) "Shut the fuck up, and pay the damn claim!"

As I may have mentioned before, in what is now more than two decades of practicing law, the total number of words which I have ever said to a jury in open court is two: "Good morning."

I do not talk to juries. I have no desire to attempt to persuade juries on factual questions. And no sane client would suggest me as the person to do so. (Does "pedantic" sound familiar?)

You would do, I think, what I cannot. You would relate to the jurors; you would come across to them as understanding them.

I would not. I would come across to them as a pedantic prick with a broomstick up my ass.

That may be due to the fact that I am a pedantic prick. (Last time I checked my ass, there was no broomstick there, but maybe I missed something.)

Which is why I am good at what I do. When the issue is "whether a party other than the United States may take advantage of offensive collateral estoppel in a civil RICO case," what the judges need is a pedant.

Which is also why I would suck at what you do. No jurors are going to find me empathetic. Unless they are completely delusional.

Oh, wait ....

[Andrew D]

A picture of a troll was placed here which any reasonable person would interpret as Andrew's intended representation of Lord Jim]

The picture of the troll was his.

His.

His.

Any reasonable person would interpret it as his intended representation of me.

[Joe Guy]

A picture of a troll was placed here which any reasonable person would interpret as Andrew's intended representation of Lord Jim]

The picture of the troll was his.

His.

His.

Any reasonable person would interpret it as his intended representation of me.

I know that Jim was the one who posted the troll originally. But you turned it around and made it look as if he were a troll who is trying to swindle people. You added that people should stay away from him if they value their bank accounts.

Are you going to avoid the question and argue about who posted the image first?

Again...Is that post of yours an honest one?

[Andrew D]

Please explain how that post is honest.

Okay.

It is honest, because I honestly believe that "free cash machine" is a scam.

Do you seriously believe that there is such a thing as a "free cash machine"?

It is honest, because another of his schemes was taken down by the host:

The domain you are trying to reach has been disabled for violations of our TOS/AUP.

That is a fact.

A straight-up honest fact.

Any further questions?