|
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 |
|
|
# ? Jun 4, 2024 10:09 |
|
Stop Stop Stop You are not a lawyer.
|
# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:10 |
|
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 |
|
euphronius posted:Don’t read court cases. 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 |
|
euphronius posted:Don’t read court cases. 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 |
|
is this how those sovereign citizen guys get started?
|
# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:13 |
|
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? 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 |
|
SickZip posted:My main actual legal argument from before I decided I should just hand it off: 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 |
|
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? 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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? 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 |
it's good someone is finally telling Soothing Vapors how the law works
|
|
# ? Aug 10, 2018 20:38 |
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
|
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. 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 |
Alchenar posted:That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Alchenar posted:That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 Not yet, I've have to submit my answer on Monday though.
|
# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:54 |
|
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?
|
# ? Aug 10, 2018 22:59 |
|
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? 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Hrrrrnnnn Jesus yes, this is the good poo poo
|
# ? Aug 11, 2018 03:06 |
|
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? Hahaha Yeah that’s what common law means. It’s Joe Average law.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2018 03:51 |
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao Yes!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2018 07:50 |
|
My vapors are soothed.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2018 07:54 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ? Jun 4, 2024 10:09 |
|
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 |