Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

«‹›1201 »

SickZip: Jul 29, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

blarzgh posted:

Brutal self own, here. I'm glad you're getting an attorney.

That doesn't apply. "Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp. v. Division of New Jersey Real Estate Com. in Dep't of Ins., 121 N.J. Super. 228" strongly rejects the idea that activity of employees falls under the exemption and thats stood since the 70's. Their actions wouldn't even pass under the earlier weaker decisions about the matter. The exemption applies to the bonafide owner not to employees of the owner. Even if the the owner is involved, employees that are also involved have to be licensed.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:15

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Stop

Stop

Stop

You are not a lawyer.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:10

Turtlicious: Sep 17, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

I feel like you should listen to the lawyers, they are very helpful but will only tell you once.

E: the fact that everyone is calling you crazy is a bad sign.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:12

Vargatron: Apr 19, 2008; MRAZZLE DAZZLE

euphronius posted:

Don�t read court cases.

You literally do not have the training to understand them.

Hey come on now that's part of the entertainment.

I do like reading indictments when posted on local news for fun.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:13

Soothing Vapors: Mar 26, 2006; Associate Justice Lena "Kegels" Dunham: An uncool thought to have: 'is that guy walking in the dark behind me a rapist? Never mind, he's Asian.

euphronius posted:

Don�t read court cases.

You literally do not have the training to understand them.

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:13

A 50S RAYGUN: Aug 22, 2011

is this how those sovereign citizen guys get started?

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:13

Vargatron: Apr 19, 2008; MRAZZLE DAZZLE

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

I mean sure you can read the court cases and understand the words, but I highly doubt the average person understands enough about law theory and practice to actually comprehend how court rulings occur.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:16

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

SickZip posted:

My main actual legal argument from before I decided I should just hand it off:

-Contract is void by illegality. Contract as written is in noncompliance with NJ Real Estate Law. Contract would only be legal if both parties fell under the exemption and they don't
-Plaintiff's cannot collect damages due to the doctrine of clean hands. They committed fraud by omission by not disclosing material defects in the house, of their agents holding of a real estate license. They also committed fraud, both in the common law and consumer fraud act manner sense, in an entire litany of other ways
-Estoppel since the Plaintiff made several material claims about the property they later demonstrably reversed themselves on after I had taken actions based on their original claims
-A bunch of other stuff

The Sherman Antitrust Stuff was mainly for context on what a bunch of pieces of poo poo they are and how I'm pretty happy now that they're going to get owned on this because they greedily tried to push a case they shouldn't have. For awhile I was trying to think of a way I could slip in the "RE NEW JERSEY TAX SALES
CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST LITIG" connection to try to prejudice the judge. While it did have relevant matters (characterization of the relationship between the 2 as employee/employer), I decided that would probably come across as kind of transparent maneuver that might piss off the judge and should be left to someone who knows judge's temperaments and that kind of nonsense

I graduated law school a bunch of time ago and haven't practiced in a long time but I did once pass the bar in New Jersey, so here's some advice from a formerly NJ-qualified attorney:

lol

Adar fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:16

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

I take it you've never tried to actually read a court case. If you know the proper vocabulary, you can figure out the general ideas of the case, but it's still difficulty to follow unless you are a professional. There's a lot of vital context you will be missing.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:17

A 50S RAYGUN: Aug 22, 2011

also ianal but i do read a lot of history and that is not why it's called 'common law'

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:20

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

A 50S RAYGUN posted:

also ianal but i do read a lot of history and that is not why it's called 'common law'

if it's written down in a statute book then it isn't common law

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:23

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

SickZip posted:

That doesn't apply. "Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp. v. Division of New Jersey Real Estate Com. in Dep't of Ins., 121 N.J. Super. 228" strongly rejects the idea that activity of employees falls under the exemption and thats stood since the 70's. Their actions wouldn't even pass under the earlier weaker decisions about the matter. The exemption applies to the bonafide owner not to employees of the owner. Even if the the owner is involved, employees that are also involved have to be licensed.

pop quiz: explain, in your own words, the importance of the word "lot" to that decision

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:25

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

evilweasel posted:

pop quiz: explain, in your own words, the importance of the word "lot" to that decision

His counterparty is going to make a "lot" of money

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:35

A 50S RAYGUN: Aug 22, 2011

Alchenar posted:

if it's written down in a statute book then it isn't common law

i was responding to the guy who said 'common law' was called that because it was supposed to be understand by commoners

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:36

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

A 50S RAYGUN posted:

i was responding to the guy who said 'common law' was called that because it was supposed to be understand by commoners

Sorry, I was expanding on your point rather than contradicting.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:37

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

lmao

Vargatron posted:

I mean sure you can read the court cases and understand the words, but I highly doubt the average person understands enough about law theory and practice to actually comprehend how court rulings occur.

lol

fool_of_sound posted:

I take it you've never tried to actually read a court case. If you know the proper vocabulary, you can figure out the general ideas of the case, but it's still difficulty to follow unless you are a professional. There's a lot of vital context you will be missing.

lol

A 50S RAYGUN posted:

also ianal but i do read a lot of history and that is not why it's called 'common law'

lol

A 50S RAYGUN posted:

i was responding to the guy who said 'common law' was called that because it was supposed to be understand by commoners

lol

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:37

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

it's good someone is finally telling Soothing Vapors how the law works

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:38

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

A 50S RAYGUN posted:

i was responding to the guy who said 'common law' was called that because it was supposed to be understand by commoners

Oh God

Someone tell this guy about how he should try to plead benefit of clergy

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:41

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

I hate it when I have to get my boss to come down and do poo poo because employees can�t act as agents of their employers.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:42

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Vargatron posted:

I mean sure you can read the court cases and understand the words, but I highly doubt the average person understands enough about law theory and practice to actually comprehend how court rulings occur.

Theoretically there's nothing stopping a random smart person from putting in the work on their own to get a legal edumacation.

In practice though nobody who thinks they're qualified to do complex litigation pro se is ever the sort of person to have done that.

What law school teaches, theoretically, is how to spot valid issues, distinguish them from invalid issues, and then fit arguments together in a coherent way. Then hopefully while practicing you learn which arguments will actually work and which won't persuade.

Pro se litigants never do that kind of analytical seiving so they always kitchen sink it and have to hope that they get lucky.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:46

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Theoretically there's nothing stopping a random smart person from putting in the work on their own to get a legal edumacation.

In practice though nobody who thinks they're qualified to do complex litigation pro se is ever the sort of person to have done that.

What law school teaches, theoretically, is how to spot valid issues, distinguish them from invalid issues, and then fit arguments together in a coherent way. Then hopefully while practicing you learn which arguments will actually work and which won't persuade.

Pro se litigants never do that kind of analytical seiving so they always kitchen sink it and have to hope that they get lucky.

That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well.

I think the compounding element is the human tendency to insist that your circumstances are particular and unique when in reality there is nothing special about your life and the courts have seen it all a million times before.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 21:04

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Alchenar posted:

That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well.

I think the compounding element is the human tendency to insist that your circumstances are particular and unique when in reality there is nothing special about your life and the courts have seen it all a million times before.

Yup. It's basically impossible for human beings to do that kind of evaluative sieving about their own life/circumstances/arguments.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 21:07

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

Vargatron posted:

I mean sure you can read the court cases and understand the words, but I highly doubt the average person understands enough about law theory and practice to actually comprehend how court rulings occur.

That's right, you tell that ignoramus. But seriously I think pro se guy can handle this alone, he seems like a guy who loves to argue so he's as qualified as he needs to be.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 21:19

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Alchenar posted:

That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well.

I think the compounding element is the human tendency to insist that your circumstances are particular and unique when in reality there is nothing special about your life and the courts have seen it all a million times before.

yeah, coupled with that lawyers are probably not experts in whatever area of law they find themselves involved in and so they're just ordinary pro se people in that situation but with much less slack from the judge

like i'm not a criminal lawyer so if i get charged with a crime, i ain't doing myself any favors representing myself. i may be slightly better than the guy whose primary qualifications are a whole lotta law and order watching, but not by much

# ? Aug 10, 2018 21:24

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

SickZip, your dispute sounds like a big league case of fraud. Have you considered removal to federal court (where the big league cases belong)? Make sure to ask your attorney about this option, and hey, stay safe out there...

# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:08

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

Vox Nihili posted:

SickZip, your dispute sounds like a big league case of fraud. Have you considered removal to federal court (where the big league cases belong)? Make sure to ask your attorney about this option, and hey, stay safe out there...

this is a good idea. also throw in a RICO counterclaim, every district judge is looking for their shot to actually litigate one and your case sounds perfect

# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:26

SickZip: Jul 29, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

EwokEntourage posted:

what no assumption of risk? no doctrine of laches? no appeal to the best interests of public policy? Wheres accord and satisfaction? gotta step your affirmative defense claims up son

did you plead any of those in your answer?

...

have you filed an answer?

Not yet, I've have to submit my answer on Monday though.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:54

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

Marry me.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:59

baquerd: Jul 2, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

You do understand that the judge and opposing counsel are part of that protectionist guild of elitist pricks while the pro sec plaintiff is not? What do you think "protectionist" means in this context?

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:09

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

baquerd posted:

You do understand that the judge and opposing counsel are part of that protectionist guild of elitist pricks while the pro sec plaintiff is not?

All the more reason to bring one's own wits to bear and deliver a stinging defeat to those gilded, prancing Harvard elitists.

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:17

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

baquerd posted:

You do understand that the judge and opposing counsel are part of that protectionist guild of elitist pricks while the pro sec plaintiff is not? What do you think "protectionist" means in this context?

Right, which is why they (and the other lawyers in this thread) keep insisting that he hire one of their brethen. To them, it's like using scab labor since he's going around the guild.

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:25

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

baquerd posted:

You do understand that the judge and opposing counsel are part of that protectionist guild of elitist pricks while the pro sec plaintiff is not? What do you think "protectionist" means in this context?

It means request a jury trial. Make those elitist bastards squirm while you bring the common law to the people!

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:42

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

baquerd posted:

You do understand that the judge and opposing counsel are part of that protectionist guild of elitist pricks while the pro sec plaintiff is not? What do you think "protectionist" means in this context?

Yea but if you shout res ipsa loquitur three times before they stop you then you break their spell and they have to make a saving roll

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:44

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

Dude, regulations I ran estate agents are tough for a reason. I'm surprised you haven't hit upon the federal fair debt collections practices act FDCPA yet. The unlicensed agent is trying to collect guy debt from you using misleading practices against statute 1692. You really do bed to remove this to federal court and bring an fdcpa claim.

# ? Aug 11, 2018 00:55

null_pointer: Nov 9, 2004; Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop.

Hrrrrnnnn Jesus yes, this is the good poo poo

# ? Aug 11, 2018 03:06

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

Hahaha

Yeah that�s what common law means. It�s Joe Average law.

# ? Aug 11, 2018 03:51

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Phil Moscowitz posted:

lmao

lol

lol

lol

lol

Yes!

# ? Aug 11, 2018 07:50

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

My vapors are soothed.

# ? Aug 11, 2018 07:54

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

SickZip posted:

That doesn't apply. "Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp. v. Division of New Jersey Real Estate Com. in Dep't of Ins., 121 N.J. Super. 228" strongly rejects the idea that activity of employees falls under the exemption and thats stood since the 70's. Their actions wouldn't even pass under the earlier weaker decisions about the matter. The exemption applies to the bonafide owner not to employees of the owner. Even if the the owner is involved, employees that are also involved have to be licensed.

TLDR, but I'll ask you this: why would the statute create an exemption that a Court said would never apply?

# ? Aug 11, 2018 13:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:15

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

By this thread�s logic only attorneys should be allowed to post in the SCOTUS thread because no one else is qualified to understand the sacred relics that are the musings of our judicial overlords.

I support this notion. That thread is garbage.

# ? Aug 12, 2018 13:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

«‹›1201 »