I need legal advice

I suspect you have not bothered to think about where our court system came from... and, therefore, what principles made it what it should have been but is not. I suspect the French have nearly the best, but then the Brits gave us what we have and like our tax laws, we have bastardized it to appeal to special interests... On the other hand, we HAVE added some specifically states' rights oriented bodies of law that serve as guides to those who cannot muster the skill to enact their own laws... and those are working fairly well... but the court system that goes with it is still in its infancy... thus we get rulings from Scalia that SOUND like "reasonablility" has been smoking hash because his words address special interests as often as they pierce the haze of conflicts.

So NOPE... there is nothing that I can do. We have to wait until the body of law gets riper than it is today... and we have to recognize that special interest legislation from the bench has to be re-legislated by Congress.

That old ditty about taking back the legislation to "review" it is working overtime to hinder Illinois lawmakers who should be doing their duty toward fixing a budget... I'm sure YOUR lawmakers are in the thick of the same stuff.

What we need more often than not is the use of that "REVIEW" by the Circuit Court so we don't clog the Appeals Courts. But needless to say, if they don't get the cases, they lose their ability to rule judiciously.

The delay makes this a warped system. Our law schools should be creating study guides to help lawyers and judges understand the way some of the more arcane laws should be applied... There are some guidelines, but too often a judge will legislate new law because it sounds more fair than free enterprise.

We won't stop China from selling us inferior products and tainted foods, but we will stop a person from working in his profession here if a lawyer wants to try his hand at it... whether or not the lawyer steals the operating funds or wants to access the clients' servers for discovery purposes while he remains a silent, undisclosed partner.

Other lawyers are warped by the edict that they should not bring disrepute to the profession... so they let it go on and don't turn them in until it gets to be a wholesale RICO fraud situation and they recognize the judge is party to it. By then it has cost someone far too much of their lives and health.

I honestly did not read past your "French have the best" comment. And, I am not even going to ask specifically what law (s) the French have that you think we should adopt because I am frightened of what your answer may be.

Anti-American sentiment isn't to my liking.

I respect anyone's right to believe as they wish and that includes you. I, however, have no interest in reading it or replying to such sad and unpatriotic sentiment.

If its so great, move there. Don't sit here and complain.

I've heard your anti FREEDOM of expression exhortation to Leave the US too many times not to rebuke you for such an ANTI AMERICAN sentiment.

You may think you have found a reply to shut me down, but you are simply shutting down your own thought process by not allowing that not only can other people have appropriate sentiments and realizations about the way things are versus the way they should be, but that YOU are one of the impediments... because YOU don't believe in free speech, freedom of thought. You want everyone to be of the same dull mind.

You are quite mad.

At no time did I deny your freedom of expression. Refer to my PREVIOUS posting where I said:
"I respect anyone's right to believe as they wish and that includes you. I, however, have no interest in reading it or replying to such sad and unpatriotic sentiment. "

How that translates into wanting everyone to be of one mind makes NO sense whatsoever.

I never suggested you NOT post your anti American sentiment. Of course you can. But I, on the other hand do not have to READ it. I made the distinction VERY clear.

Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

While your are touting how great the french system of government is, perhaps you can tell us specifically what laws they have that we do not that you feel we should adopt.

How is that for encouraging free expression?

Express on, my angry Anti-patriotic soul.

You must know that the U.S. is not the FIRST democracy. Neither is France.

I don't disagree with our form of government, I disagree with allowing people with power from political ties or money or position to run in a vacuum... without oversight. That is what allows every bank and financial company as well as every state in the union to have scandals emanating from all its offices... take note that when I say scandal, I am referring to a powerful person or friend of onesuch getting more than he has worked for.

Whether it comes from politicians or cronies with power in other companies who choose to enrich the person in power where they are on the board of directors, thereby setting themselves up to be similarly enriched by a crosshatch of similar minded people who think their presence in the high office has actually created a good result when the profits are down and the stock price has tanked, the end result is that the stockholders have been swindled.

When it comes to lawyers, there are similar reasons that their training makes them dangerous in businesses. It is too easy for them to take advantage by arranging unethical or non-existant operating agreements or using information about a client's employees to lure them away while he is still their client, and take over his accounts and his business fails.

In my son's case, they wear one hat (CFO) to call a meeting, another to bill for coming to the meeting as the lawyer, and another to come to the meeting to demand that the profit be used to purchase assets to reduce their taxes instead of dividing the profit so that the CPA cooked books capital value of their partner can be brought to zero or positive value and closed out or paid out so he can hire a lawyer to sue them for stealing the operating funds out of the company for over six months with no report on balance or use, and then finally another hat entirely when they threaten to jail their partner's wife for signing the A/P checks when he was too swamped with work, or when they called in the FBI to file a complaint that he had tried to access the server after he dissociated (his phone was programmed to do so and they were using it to take his calls), or when they lied 12 times in an injunction hearing saying he had stolen a server that had his own credit card prominently visible on the shipping notice they called proof of a missing server, or when they took pictures of a totally ransacked office with paper and junk lying everywhere and claimed that was how they found it after he dissociated (he has pictures of those things neatly stacked in his supplies closet and in his desk drawers, taken with his phone just minutes before he left).

Now, dearie, these are things that lawyers have done... real life. No, they won't be lawyers after this year... they are being disbarred. But these partners of his thought he couldn't fight them... because he had NO MONEY for lawyers of his own. They knew that because they asked a crony banker to run his credit report for them and then cut his salary to $1k below his minimum to stave off bankruptcy. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE... You have to have money to get JUSTICE.

I guess they didn't run MY credit report. They saw me only once... in cutoffs and t-shirt. I guess you just can't tell how much money a person has by how he dresses while laying a brick patio. So they guessed wrong... and I'm about $200K into defending him... and they are going down.

Huh?

YOU said FRANCE has the BEST system of jurisprudence. I asked WHAT LAWS do they have that we do not have that you think we SHOULD have. What specific thing they do makes their system of justice better than ours.

Less corruption? Hardly. Justice for people who don't have money? Of course not.

You write an essay about people who didn't run your credit and how your lawyer this or that? Perhaps you MISSED the question. Your answer has nothing to do with the question.

So, while you are LOOKING for what exactly it is that makes FRANCE'S form of government superior to ours, read this little tutorial on our respective forms of government.


Not only is FRANCE a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY, America was not created a “Democracy”—that word was coined around 1930s. It does not exist in the American constitution
Democracy vs. Republic
Democracy vs. Republic - The United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy - The Public Square

Here's a two minute history quiz. The American form of government is best defined as: A) A democracy B) a constitutional republic C) who really cares?
What kind of government do we have here in America? If you listen to politicians, the media, even the President, you will constantly be told that America is a democracy. But that is not only the wrong answer to the test; it is dangerous.
When America was founded, "democracy" was a dirty word. Democracy was the fuel of the French revolution which created chaos, tyranny, and cost thousands their lives at the guillotine.
Democracy in 1787 was understood as "mob rule." Democracy meant that government could do whatever it wanted as long as 51% of the strongest crowd was willing to support it. Democracy meant government not by the rule of law, but by the force of mob power. Democracy was such a dangerous threat that George Washington was willing to come out of retirement and take charge of the American military once again to go to war against France.
America is not a democracy, nor should it be. Our form of government is based upon constitutional laws which apply to everyone. Here, 51 percent of the people can disagree with a law, but until they mount the effort to legally change that law, they are bound to it. Here the mob does not rule, no matter what the public opinion polls say; and no one, no matter how powerful, famous, or wealthy, is to be held above the law.
On September 17th, 1787, Dr. Benjamin Franklin finished his work at the great Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. As he left the capitol, a lady asked him, "Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?"
He replied, "A Republic, madame, if you can keep it."
So the next time you hear a news anchor reporter use the term democracy, remember: it's a Republic.
If we can keep it.

*********************************************
Now.........about FRANCE:

Regis Debray, the former revolutionary intellectual, has argued, with considerable pride, that France is a republic, not a democracy. This implies that the nation and the state must always give preference to the collectivity over the individual. This is after all what distinguishes France from the United States which, for Debray, prefers its individualism and its democracy.

France: One and Divisible

There is a bicameral legislature. The government is headed by a prime minister who is appointed by the President. The lower house of parliament is directly elected, the senate is indirectly elected. The President is elected every five years (until recently, every seven). When the President belongs to the same party as the parliamentary majority, he calls the shots, but when he belongs to a different party, he takes a backseat role (except possibly in foreign policy) whilst the parliamentary majority decides on policy and the President is in effect forced to pick a prime minister from among his opponents under these circumstances. "an indivisible,secular, democratic, and social Republic".



Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government



A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where the head of state is not a monarch. Many times people interchangeably use republic and democracy to refer the same. the truth is that in a country where the governmental structure is a republic, the power is *in* the people. Meaning that every individual will be respected by means of the country's constitution. Whilst a country where the governmental structure is a democracy, the power is invested in the majority. That means that the rules are made if the majority agrees on the rule. In a republic country this is *not* the case. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large.

France (04/09)

Sounds like a commentary on your own personal experience and bias.
For every corrupt attorney, there are a dozen more who are not.

Half full, half empty.

It's all in 1. What you bring to the table and 2. your attitude about it while you're there.

If you were writing a paper, You would be castigated for plagiarism for taking someone else's words and presenting them as your own.

Since you seldom have anything to say that originated from YOUR brain, let's just let this lack of originality say it for you. You want everyone who doesn't think and speak as you believe to LEAVE this country. How silly! You don't even recognize that you are objecting to the very tenets you espouse. As for the first democratic state, the only people who were actually treated well were its citizens... everyone else was prisoner or slave or visiting dignitary and few were treated well.

We BELIEVE that everyone should have equal rights... even our sworn enemies who fly airplanes into our largest buildings. But we also have a double standard that allows those with a little power to barter that power to get what they want at someone else's expense. THAT is NOT democracy, it is, however, the way the U.S. runs.... because the rest of us don't have the MONEY to stop them. Yes, dear, it takes money to mount a campaign...

It takes money to get JUSTICE. But you demand that I not speak of it HERE, because it offends you to hear truth that makes you uncomfortable, because while you think you believe in the American system of Justice, YOU are unwilling to do anything to correct it... Head in sand, ostrich... don't tell me what I don't want to hear.

YOU ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GET USED TO THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR IT REPEATEDLY. And no amount of redirection vis-a-vis comparisons of our system to that of another country that YOU DEMAND I FLEE TO will be allowed to sway my direction on this stand.

Yes, dearie. I do speak from experience. Your suggestion that there are a dozen who are not, does not fly with me. There are a dozen who sit out there in the woodwork unable to bring themselves to confront the perps or the court that gives them uncontrolled license to do what they want with nobody stopping them unless their expenses run above $100K. So how many people in the U.S. can afford JUSTICE?

They run discovery as if they owned the court... and they find it easy to steal, extort, threaten and carry it out... because as YOU know since it is probably the reason you decided to go to law school instead of getting your Masters or PhD in Education... IT TAKES MONEY TO GET JUSTICE. Lawyers get cut rate legal services when they defend themselves but the rest of us have to pay exorbitant rates for someone who may or may not recognize what an evidentiary hearing allows them to do in defense of their client ... or exorbitant retainer fees for a lawyer who never does anything for the client ... not even answer their email and phone messages (I've spend at least $18K just that way).

What I have learned though is that when confronted by an obviously unethical attorney coming after what is yours... YOU HAVE TO BRING OUT THE BIG GUNS. Don't bother trying to negotiate with an attorney. Go for the jugular and go for his reputation... publish what he has done.

Let the world know that he is being disbarred because he has stolen a company, a marketing idea, the operating funds of the company, extorted you to get a title of chief operating officer, refused to pay you for your full time work after they steal your funds so you can't pay yourself as was agreed at inception. Spend as little as you can, but go to court as the Plaintiff and drag it out until he relents his attempt to create a criminal organization out of your little company.

And while I'm at it, I have to say again that we didn't get to this topic because of my experience. We got here because this poster has been damaged repeatedly with the assistance of the police who denied eviction process to a landlord and his true tenant against a trespasser. So hang up your plagiarized discussion of French civil order and focus instead on this poster's problem.

IT IS STILL THAT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE RUNS ON MONEY, NOT TRUTH, NOT JUSTICE.

Your irrelevant opinion of our country has been noted repeatedly.

You are engaging in unwarranted slander against me. Refer to my previous posting you alleged and erroneously called plagiarized. Apparently the discussion of the French government which YOU INNITIATED and somehow found RELEVANT TO THE POSTERS SITUATION you NOW want to abandon ( I wonder why???)

But first, lets address your slander. (i.e. plagiarized).
Here are the links from my posting to which I LINKED the reader to EXTERNAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION. You missed them entirely in my posting?

Democracy vs. Republic
Democracy vs. Republic - The United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy - The Public Square

France: One and Divisible

France (04/09)

Latin res publica

ALL of these links appear in my "plagiarized" posting. Why? Because they ARE NOT my words---which is why I prefaced my posting with "Now, a little tutorial" and I provided the LINK to the source from whence the information came. GUESS what is WRITTEN in those links?? THE INFORMATION I posted, and identified as a "tutorial". I'm embarrassed you would not know that.

Now, how is THAT presenting someone else's ideas as my own?

Shame on you.

Now.....moving right along through this nonsense.........

YOU said: YOU innitiated a discussion of FRENCH CIVIL ORDER finding it relevant to this thread---NOW you say, ".Whew. May I suggest you STOP innitiating discussions about topics YOU admit are IRRELEVANT? Or are they only irrelevant when it is pointed out they are anti-American and ignorant and based on stupidity such as
Just for fun, let's go back to this:

You are entirely correct. I HAVEN'T given a moments thought to which principle "made it what it should have been but is not" and what principles have made the French superior. IN fact, I don't even know what "made it what it is" and "but is not" means.

YOU innitiated the discussion. I live to learn. Do tell. Oh, and please be precise and specific.