NationStates Jolt Archive

And need to remember Sinuhue still has a chance to retain her soul....
----------------------
Bill to Regulate the Hunting and Harvesting of Attorneys

370.01 Any person with a valid in-state rodent or snake hunting license may also hunt and harvest attorneys for recreational and sport (non-commercial) purposes.

370.02 Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of United States currency as bait, however, is prohibited.

370.03 Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for rabies, and vermin.

370.04 The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven in reverse. If an attorney is accidentally struck by a motor vehicle, the dead Attorney should be removed to the roadside, and the vehicle should proceed immediately to the nearest car wash.

370.05 It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a power boat, helicopter or aircraft.

370.06 It is unlawful to shout, "WHIPLASH", "AMBULANCE", or "FREE
SCOTCH" for the purposes of trapping attorneys.

370.07 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW, Mercedes or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday afternoons.

370.08 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, health clubs, country clubs, hospitals or brothels.

370.09 If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary to have a license to hunt, trap or possess the same.

370.10 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, accident victim, bookie, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

370.11 Bag and Possession Limits per day:


Yellow-bellied sidewinders, 2;
Two-faced tortfeasors, 1;
Back-stabbing divorce litigators, 3;
Horn-rimmed cut-throats, 2;
Minutiae-advocating dirtbags, 4;


NOTE: Honest attorneys shall remain protected under The Endangered Species Act until their numbers have stabilized to more than a dozen breeding pairs.

Yee Haw! I'm a movin' to your state, son.

Can I use my divorce papers as a natural blind?




EDIT - Did I mention my wife left me yesterday? :(

You mean to say that there still exist anyone that can be classified as "honest attorneys"?? :eek:

I find this somehow ... disturbing! :eek:

"NOTE: Honest attorneys shall remain protected under The Endangered Species Act until their numbers have stabilized to more than a dozen breeding pairs."

Can I use my divorce papers as a natural blind.

370.10 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, accident victim, bookie, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

I dunno.... One of the Yellow Bellied Sidewinder types (working for/with the Backstabbing Divorce Litigator) might declare that to be the "guise of an accident victim"....

That law is right up there with the prohibition of whale hunting in Oklahoma. Why tell them they can't hunt honest attorneys until we know if they exist?
Sorry, Cat-Tribe, you haven't proven you're a real live attorney yet. You could just be a figment of our collective imaginations.

370.02 Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of United States currency as bait, however, is prohibited.
What about Canadian currency, Euros, drugs, conflict diamonds, and shiny objects? Is it only US currency that is prohibited? :confused:

What about Canadian currency, Euros, drugs, conflict diamonds, and shiny objects? Is it only US currency that is prohibited? :confused:
Well, as this new hunting regulation is for a USian state....

Though I do think using conflict diamonds is pretty underhanded too.

370.10 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, accident victim, bookie, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

I dunno.... One of the Yellow Bellied Sidewinder types (working for/with the Backstabbing Divorce Litigator) might declare that to be the "guise of an accident victim"....
See my EDIT. It isnt a "guise" My wife actually left me yesterday. Shooting a few lwayers sure would make me feel better. However, they may be JAG attorneys, so it may be federal.

See my EDIT. It isnt a "guise" My wife actually left me yesterday. Shooting a few lwayers sure would make me feel better. However, they may be JAG attorneys, so it may be federal.

You should go hunting w/ Cheney.

I'm just glad to know I"m protected under the Endangered Species Act.

:p

I just need someone to breed with. ;)

It must suck to work in a profession that everyone hates.

It must suck to work in a profession that everyone hates.
The bastards knew what they were getting into.

The bastards knew what they were getting into.
Does it seem like they care? Or the politicians? Or the dentists? Or the professional baseball-players? That's the reason they earn the big buck$$$ :p

Let's try something that might shift this in a constructive direction.

I claim that the reason most people are unsatisfied with lawyers is that trial lawyers are unscrupulous. There is a reason that the phrase "ambulance chaser" exists and why it isn't applied to physicists and engineers. Now imagine if we changed the way lawyer's fees, court costs, and other associated charges were settled.

Yes, "Loser Pays". This should drastically reduce the number of suits that are brought solely to see what happens. For example, a malpractice lawsuit is filed and instead of being thrown out by the judge, it is tried.

The defendant goes to considerable expense to disprove the claims and the decision goes to him. Well, he's still out a lot of money for something that wasn't his fault. Make the loser pay all associated costs for the winner and I think there will be a number of those "One Call, That's All" type TV-ad running lawyers that might think twice about filing that lawsuit. It might also give the insurance companies the balls to defend an insured, instead of settling at the first hint of legal action.

@ OP - Well screw you.

Perhaps all present and future lawyers should agree to never contract with you, then throw you through the justice system and see you you fare.

You'll be crying for your lawyer, or your mommy soon enough.

I'd like to point out that if we kill ALL the lawyers then at our trial, we won't have adequate representation. :D

Perhaps we could limit law school admissions to people who got an LSAT score that is equal to the square of a prime number.

I, for instance, got a 169.

EDIT: See, the LSAT ranges from 120-180, and the only primes that square to that range are 11 and 13, giving scores of 121 or 169, and 121 is abysmal, so I'd...be able...to, you know...get into...Law School.

Okay, so its not funny. I don't have to impress you @#%ing people.

Well screw you.

Perhaps all present and future lawyers should agree to never contract with you, then throw you through the justice system and see you you fare.

You'll be crying for your lawyer, or your mommy soon enough.
Man, I didn't think loser pays was that offensive.

There isn't a self-respecting trial lawyer that would ever turn down a billable hour.

Perhaps we could limit law school admissions to people who got an LSAT score that is equal to the square of a prime number.

I, for instance, got a 169.
Nah, then you'd have to institute a quality spread to make sure we didn't get too many 1's and 9's.

Man, I didn't think loser pays was that offensive.

There isn't a self-respecting trial lawyer that would ever turn down a billable hour.

Wasn't talking about you really. You raise an interesting point. This was directed at the OP.

Wasn't talking about you really. You raise an interesting point. This was directed at the OP.
Well, gee, thanks. I guess you just missed both the smilie and my little obviously friendly asides to Cat ans Sinuhue. :rolleyes:

I supose you dislike Mel Brooks' Jewish jokes too.

At least, unlike Sir William's work, this joke gives a few Lawyers an out...

Myrmidonisia: I absolutely agree. Loser Pays. Period. If you are really guilty it can't make the punishment worse, If you are innocent, it can't make the injustice worse... but it WILL cut down on frivilous "win or lose I will bankrupt you" cases.

Nah, then you'd have to institute a quality spread to make sure we didn't get too many 1's and 9's.

crap, yeah...

Myrmidonisia: I absolutely agree. Loser Pays. Period. If you are really guilty it can't make the punishment worse, If you are innocent, it can't make the injustice worse... but it WILL cut down on frivilous "win or lose I will bankrupt you" cases.

It will also limit the ability of the poor, undeducated and disenfranchised to have their day in court. Example:

Insurance Company: "Mam, I realize you have $15,000 in Medical bills and are permanently disabled and unable to work in your former profession again. However, we have evaluated your claim and find it is worth no more than $21,000 since liability for the accident is questionable."

Claimant: "But your insured ran the stop light and hit me!"

Insurance Company: "That is what you say, but our insured says you ran the light and it is your word against his. He is a prominent businessman in town who holds an MBA, you just give manicures and do nails at the local beauty shop and have a GED, who will the jury believe?"

Claimant: "Well I'm going to sue!"

Insurance Company: "Go ahead, remember though, if you lose your lawsuit you have to pay all our costs and legal fees. Our attorneys charge $250 an hour to defend cases like this. Depositions run about $1,000 a day and if we do lose, we'll appeal and that costs at least $5,000 by the time we pay for the transcript and record for the appeal. If you want to gamble everything you own, feel free to sue. We are confident of our position and if you lose, your lawsuit, you'll be paying us and getting nothing."

Claimant: "Ok, you've made your point, let me think about it."

Insurance Company: "Sure, we'll give you 24 hours and then the offer is withdrawn."

OK, this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. As a former insurance claims adjuster (Licensed in MS, LA, & AR) and an attorney (licensed in CO and AR) who practiced personal injury law, this is by NO means completely in the realm of fantasy. Pure "loser pays" will screw over the people who need the current system the most.

It will also limit the ability of the poor, undeducated and disenfranchised to have their day in court. Example:
[example deleted]
OK, this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. As a former insurance claims adjuster (Licensed in MS, LA, & AR) and an attorney (licensed in CO and AR) who practiced personal injury law, this is by NO means completely in the realm of fantasy. Pure "loser pays" will screw over the people who need the current system the most.
I had absolutely no doubt that a personal injury lawyer would find fault with this concept. I'm sure you also object to award limits and expanded judicial dismissal of frivolous lawsuits, too.

It will also limit the ability of the poor, undeducated and disenfranchised to have their day in court. Example:

Insurance Company: "Mam, I realize you have $15,000 in Medical bills and are permanently disabled and unable to work in your former profession again. However, we have evaluated your claim and find it is worth no more than $21,000 since liability for the accident is questionable."

Claimant: "But your insured ran the stop light and hit me!"

Insurance Company: "That is what you say, but our insured says you ran the light and it is your word against his. He is a prominent businessman in town who holds an MBA, you just give manicures and do nails at the local beauty shop and have a GED, who will the jury believe?"

Claimant: "Well I'm going to sue!"

Insurance Company: "Go ahead, remember though, if you lose your lawsuit you have to pay all our costs and legal fees. Our attorneys charge $250 an hour to defend cases like this. Depositions run about $1,000 a day and if we do lose, we'll appeal and that costs at least $5,000 by the time we pay for the transcript and record for the appeal. If you want to gamble everything you own, feel free to sue. We are confident of our position and if you lose, your lawsuit, you'll be paying us and getting nothing."

Claimant: "Ok, you've made your point, let me think about it."

Insurance Company: "Sure, we'll give you 24 hours and then the offer is withdrawn."

OK, this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. As a former insurance claims adjuster (Licensed in MS, LA, & AR) and an attorney (licensed in CO and AR) who practiced personal injury law, this is by NO means completely in the realm of fantasy. Pure "loser pays" will screw over the people who need the current system the most.
I suppose, but as someone who has investigated traffic accidents, I can, in 90% of the cases, tell who was at fault by looking at the crash scene.

Other cases may vary.

But then, that's why we need to breed honest lawyers and shoot the rest. ;) (How many simple tort cases are really that questionable as to fault?)

(Why isn't honesty a conflict of interest?)

I had absolutely no doubt that a personal injury lawyer would find fault with this concept. I'm sure you also object to award limits and expanded judicial dismissal of frivolous lawsuits, too.

Wrong oh Tort Reformist! :)

I am in total favor of the judicial dismissal of frivolous lawsuits - the question is what is "frivolous?" Furthermore, you might want to study Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - a rule that imposes sanctions on attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits - it is a rule that stops many lawsuits from being brought, but also a rule that should be more strictly enforced.

As to award limits, if the limit is reasonable, I have no issue with it. It depends on what aspect of an award is being limited and how the limit is calcuated and imposed.

Also, finally, don't forget, it is juries that establish the award after a trial, not the plaintiff's attorney. Surely you don't suggest that the average person on a jury is so stupid that they award mega $$ just willy-nilly and without regard to the evidence, do you?

I suppose, but as someone who has investigated traffic accidents, I can, in 90% of the cases, tell who was at fault by looking at the crash scene.

Other cases may vary.

But then, that's why we need to breed honest lawyers and shoot the rest. ;) (How many simple tort cases are really that questionable as to fault?)

(Why isn't honesty a conflict of interest?)

In many auto accidents, you can tell, but not in all. Is it justice (using your numbers) to set up 10% of the people for a screwing? And, as you note, in other cases the situation is different. Slip & falls are hard to establish liability on as a general rule. Medical malpractice is incredibly difficult to win at, that is why the awards you hear about tend to be really high - you don't file a med mal case unless there is death, significant disability/injury or clear liability present. A med mal case will EASILY cost $50,000 to prove and win. I did and "open and shut" case once where a woman with kidney stones had her Gall Bladder removed by mistake because the doctor thought it was Gall Stones and admitted, in his reports, that he had misread the x-rays. Still cost $10,000 to convince the medical malpractice carrier to settle.

Wrong oh Tort Reformist! :)

I am in total favor of the judicial dismissal of frivolous lawsuits - the question is what is "frivolous?" Furthermore, you might want to study Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - a rule that imposes sanctions on attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits - it is a rule that stops many lawsuits from being brought, but also a rule that should be more strictly enforced.

As to award limits, if the limit is reasonable, I have no issue with it. It depends on what aspect of an award is being limited and how the limit is calcuated and imposed.

Also, finally, don't forget, it is juries that establish the award after a trial, not the plaintiff's attorney. Surely you don't suggest that the average person on a jury is so stupid that they award mega $$ just willy-nilly and without regard to the evidence, do you?
I'm always willing to listen to a good compromise.

This case would be a very funny example of a frivilous lawsuit. That is if the outcome hadn't been so severe.

A Long Island jury didn't bite on a widow's tale that a sizzling shrimp tossed by a Benihana chef ultimately led to her husband's death.

The six-member panel rejected the $16 million claim that a neck injury suffered by Jerry Colaitis - allegedly while he was trying to dodge a shrimp at the Japanese joint in Munsey Park - set off a series of medical problems that ended with his death 11 months later.

Isn't there something called an 'intervening act' that invalidates the original act? Like if a Wal-Mart shopper slipped and fell on a spill, then a gunman shoots the shopper. The slipping isn't what caused the second death anymore than the shrimp caused the first.

I'm always willing to listen to a good compromise.

This case would be a very funny example of a frivilous lawsuit. That is if the outcome hadn't been so severe.

Isn't there something called an 'intervening act' that invalidates the original act? Like if a Wal-Mart shopper slipped and fell on a spill, then a gunman shoots the shopper. The slipping isn't what caused the second death anymore than the shrimp caused the first.

There are intervening acts and superseding acts. An intervening act will not serve to relieve the original wrongdoer of liability unless it is also a superseding act. In very general terms the issue is how foreseeable is the intervening action. The less foreseeable it is the more likely it is a superseding action. In the example you gave of the gun man shooting the customer after he fell, that would almost certainly be a superseding act that would relieve the store of liability for any injury caused by the shooting, they might still be liable for injuries caused by the fall though.

As to the case you referenced, I don't know the facts but would agree it seems a little far-fetched based on what you posted. However, what if in the process of dodging the hot shrimp the man fell and struck his head on the concrete floor and suffered a brain hemmorage that caused his death - would it be frivolous then?

Can I use my divorce papers as a natural blind?

EDIT - Did I mention my wife left me yesterday? :(

:(

You need a fluffle. :fluffle:

You mean to say that there still exist anyone that can be classified as "honest attorneys"?? :eek:

Indeed. My man is one. :D

There are intervening acts and superseding acts. An intervening act will not serve to relieve the original wrongdoer of liability unless it is also a superseding act. In very general terms the issue is how foreseeable is the intervening action. The less foreseeable it is the more likely it is a superseding action. In the example you gave of the gun man shooting the customer after he fell, that would almost certainly be a superseding act that would relieve the store of liability for any injury caused by the shooting, they might still be liable for injuries caused by the fall though.

As to the case you referenced, I don't know the facts but would agree it seems a little far-fetched based on what you posted. However, what if in the process of dodging the hot shrimp the man fell and struck his head on the concrete floor and suffered a brain hemmorage that caused his death - would it be frivolous then?
This (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1101136512535) is the most complete reference that I can find. It looks like the jury was as unimpressed as I was about the restaurant's responsibility for the man's death.

The law doesn't prohibit the use of dynamite for hunting attorneys, so I'll just assume it's legal :D