Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 08/02/2007 View Wed 08/01/2007 View Tue 07/31/2007 View Mon 07/30/2007 View Sun 07/29/2007 View Sat 07/28/2007 View Fri 07/27/2007
1
2007-08-02 Great White North
Religious-freedom advocates back 'John Does', CAIR round two
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Icerigger 2007-08-02 09:54|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [451 views ]  Top
 File under: Global Jihad 

#1 At this point, I almost hope the judge does NOT throw it out. The "John Does" are being rep'd fairly well (pro-bono, at that) and discovery could be a VERY interesting thing for CAIR. "Bring it on, punk!"
Posted by BA 2007-08-02 10:57||   2007-08-02 10:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Leave it to a f*cking lawer to still find a way to sue somebody after congress passes a law to specifically try to sheild them.

Who was on here the other day talking up the meritorious virtues of lawers? You need to think about it a little more. The rotten shit they do more than outweighs the few pro-bono cases and property rights judgements that they have time for when they're not screwing people.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-08-02 11:29||   2007-08-02 11:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Yes, but remember for every clown wrecking it all with a slanderous, viscious, meritless lawsuit, there is some defender of freedom fighting for the innocent victim of said suit.

My daughter, for example, has been defending asbestos manufacturers for six months, weeding out the real victims from the wannabees. Not that she plans to continue in that field.... But I AM depending on her for my retirement!
Posted by Bobby 2007-08-02 12:32||   2007-08-02 12:32|| Front Page Top

#4 bigjim, that was me and I stand by what I said. I am truly sorry if you have been brainwashed or otherwise negatively affected by the activities of one or several slippery lawyers. I would offer the following: if a judge were to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit for what it is ( think hot McCoffee spilled in the crotch, twice) rather than go through with the drill the world would be a better place. You cannot legislate stupid, yet people with alledged grievances can and will find a shyster to take up their plight and sue 'somebody' for their own stupidity. Of course coffee is hot you moron ( referring to the Mccoffee bitch).
I could really get wound up over this but out of consideration for the more rational 'Burgers, I won't.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-08-02 14:41||   2007-08-02 14:41|| Front Page Top

#5 USN feel free. Your rants are always enlighting.

I'm guessing that Nolting is already looking at anti-CAIR discovery motions. We can only hope this goes to trial.
Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger  2007-08-02 16:10||   2007-08-02 16:10|| Front Page Top

#6 
Money quote.

"These citizens attempted to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their fellow passengers. For this, they are dragged into federal court and threatened with humiliation, expense, and liability," the papers said. "This harassment is nothing less than legal terrorism — an attempt to change public behavior by threatening to impoverish and destroy at random the lives of those whom plaintiffs see as their enemies. These claims should not be entertained."
Posted by JohnQC 2007-08-02 16:15||   2007-08-02 16:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Ice, thanks for the kind words. Like others (and probably Bigjim), I have been snookered by a shyster lawyer, but that was before I 'grew my own' so to speak. The shyster got all from me ( or more accurately the water district I was a board officer on) he ever will. Knowing that there were two members who had sons that were attorneys, there was a motion passed that directed the board (me) to use a lawyer that specialized in real estate law. (to cut either one out) and it basically was only to find out what 'is' meant.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-08-02 17:21||   2007-08-02 17:21|| Front Page Top

#8 While I often cite the proverbial "busload of laywers on a lake bottom" as being a "good start": There ARE good laywers. They've helped me prevail in nearly every case I've brought or defended myself in.

As others here noted, lawyers also have a proclivity for making legal nomenclature completely unreadable to the general public. I present for your consideration, the American tax code. This is "legalese" at its worst.

Similarly, we have successful lawsuits filed by criminals attempting to break into establishments who have stumbled through skylights and won lawsuits against the building's owners. The crotch coffee incidents only go towards further proof of insanely stupid lawsuits.

There are good lawyers. Sadly, like our politicians, most seem totally unperturbed at furthering a system that promotes unreadability of common law and entrenchment of professional interpretation of that which should be put in plain speech. Those are the ones that Shakespeare referred to with his immortal line in Henry the VI; "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-02 21:32||   2007-08-02 21:32|| Front Page Top

23:53 Thrusosing and Tenille7861
23:51 Free Radical
23:27 Icerigger
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:22 Icerigger
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:10 Blinky Spomoger9809
23:08 Dar
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:58 Old Patriot
22:57 twobyfour
22:48 Phinater Thraviger
22:47 N Guard
22:46 Old Patriot
22:34 Old Grouch
22:20 GK
22:17 Army Life
22:01 Barbara Skolaut
21:57 Barbara Skolaut
21:54 Zenster
21:32 BA
21:32 Zenster
21:29 Justrand
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com