Someone asks a legal question, and a lawyer takes the time to give an answer, and now we see a bunch of insulting lawyer jokes. Now I know adhoc is thick-skinned, but did anyone ever stop to think that making lawyer jokes after a lawyer is kind enough to answer your legal questions (for free, I might add) could be counter-productive?
I bet 'adhoc' is a thick skinned reasonable guy and has heard all the jokes told here already. And he probably knows the really funny ones that make you laugh out loud.
Nanuck apparently took the CPA exam, don't know if he passed, but there are a fair number of bean counter jokes to go around also.
Rosie O'Donnell got her tail in a crack (no pun intended, oh OK, yes, it was) last week when she was crackin' on Danny Devito and wondered what it might have sounded like in China. Why did she use China in her rant? I don't know, probably a little Don Rickles/Robin Williams mental free-baseing going on, but the point is some Chineese apologist are wanting, demanding, an apology. I'm no Rosie fan, far from it, but geeez, when did we all stop laughing together, at each other!?
[I get laughed at all the time.] :)
However, your point is well taken and I wanted to answer a Nauck post earlier, the one containing the statement .. "most sitting judges seem to be former prosecutors and are more than willing, are indeed eager, to violate the oaths they took .."
That has simply not been my experience.
I think the vast majority of lawyers, judges, policemen, and cops do keep their oaths and sometimes to their own detriment or harm.
I don't want to elaborate much more than that but my opinion is based on more than a few run-ins with the system and it's respective jail systems among family members. They would tell you the same thing, they felt they were treated fairly.
A: Someone who'd aspired to be a funeral director but lacked the requisite personality.
Public accounting has had its share of bad apples. In the 1985 E.S.M. Government Securities scandal a managing partner of Alexander Grant took a reported $125,000 bribe to sell out his firm, his profession and the investing public when he issued a clean auditors' opinion upon financial statements he absolutely knew were fraudulent.
FWIW, most of my attorney jokes came from, you guessed it, attorneys. I happen to like ad hoc and think him a person of admirable character.
The law is the only profession I know of where a practitioner can have a dream about someone, then send them a bill for it.
The best lawyer jokes I've heard came from attorneys. One lawyer with whom I worked closely actually collected the things. I'm pretty sure adhoc enjoys a good lawyer joke.
Just as an aside, the oft-mentioned line from Shakespeare, "kill all the lawyers," is preceded by a conversation about fomenting a coup and establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. The participants in the conversation figured that the first thing you'd have to do to be successful would be to kill all the lawyers.
Since you put this as a response to my message, I guess you thought I was joking? Guess again. Every word in the message to which you responded was heartfelt.
The only half-joke from me was the "Above average" crack -- and that had a question mark after it. And for the record, ad hoc really didn't answer Toddler's question. He simply stated that there is no answer -- which is what I could have told him, with all my vast legal training. ;)
ETF
... is what is the law, if it even exists, which describes what is a legal bet and when is it a contract by both parties. If there is no law, per se, or clear definition which states this, that would be helpful.
I realize there are gray areas surrounding any rule or law. And, I realize things are not always fair. Most table supes to shift managers which I encounter are more than fair, some incredibly... at least to me. But fairness really wasn't the issue at hand.
Everyone's input, especially Adhoc's, is very much appreciated.
what is the law, if it even exists, which describes what is a legal bet and when is it a contract by both parties. If there is no law, per se, or clear definition which states this, that would be helpful.
There is no specific, individual law, or set of laws, defining when a bet is or is not a contract, and there is no clear definition that states this. That would make the law transparent, and render judges and lawyers unnecessary, so it's a safe bet it'll never happen.
When I said "enemy in a hostile territory," did you think I just meant the casino?
ETF
> When I said "enemy in a hostile territory," did you think I just meant the casino?
I did, at first, but of course you didn't.
I generally find conversations like this as circular as the ones that try to define ones rights on property operated by the Native Americans. Unless you have been so totally and completely ripped off, either financially or physically, I think bucking the systems they have set in place makes tilting at windmills look easy.
You either get satisfaction immediately and on the spot, or you move on down the line.
I have had this happen a few times and it totally pisses me off. I get an ace or face as my first card then the dealer realizes he/she was supposed to shuffle. Dealer quickly calls it a misdeal and quickly scoops up all the cards and moves on as if nobody should be put out by it. I have argued my point and the PC just tells me that the deal shouldn't have been started in the first place because the cut card had already came out of the shoe.
I have argued my point and the PC just tells me that the deal shouldn't have been started in the first place because the cut card had already came out of the shoe.
Once a card is dealt, too bad. The hand should be completed, shuffle card or not. Casinos always argue they can shuffle at will and often pref shuffle even when using a shuffle card. Therefore they should not be able to hide behind the shuffle card excuse when it is advantageous to do so.
As a practical matter, your damages are speculative. The correct resolution would probably be to pay you the EV of your partially-dealt hand, but try explaining that to a typical casino idiot or to most Gaming Control agents.
I get an ace or face as my first card then the dealer realizes he/she was supposed to shuffle. Dealer quickly calls it a misdeal and quickly scoops up all the cards and moves on as if nobody should be put out by it.
I wonder if the dealer would also have suddenly realized the "error" if you had received a 5 instead of a good card.
I have seen it happen in my favor when my first card is junk. Of course I don't complain in that situation. Regardless though, it is wrong for them to do that.
What's even worse that I have seen is when a player gets skipped and then they call that a misdeal and the players have still only one card. They sweep them up and place them into the discard rack. I argue and they say something stupid like; "It changed the proper flow of the cards". I then usually say something like; "Are you aware that now and forever more into the infinate future, the 'flow of your cards' will be other than what it would have been had none of this even happened?".
I have also seen them back up the cards when they skip a player. They move the cards back to where they were originally supposed to be placed.
...Shakespeare's view. That was the view of a character in a quasi-historical propaganda-based play that Shakespeare happened to write, in his incredible, life-long exploration of the human character.
Actually, one can reasonably deduce from the tenor of this play that lawyers can be considered a bulwark of society, who would logically be targeted by a power hungry pervert who wishes to have his own way with the kingdom.
:: ::
