"Interview With a Lawyer" (hopefully more) - Page 6

On March 16 2015 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
daphreak this, daphreak that. thats making it personal.

On March 16 2015 14:31 QuanticHawk wrote:



Anyone giving a damn would have read the thread, and if you were actually interested in a real impartial conversation and not showing up someone as stated (lol) your sig would be a link to the thread.

The reason for my questioning of daphreak was inspired by a sincere curiosity, about what I perceive as a personal (meaning my own) deficiency, that doesn't allow me to see things the way I needed to in order to pursue said path. Plainly speaking, I'm asking questions that no one I had access to during my educational path could answer even remotely as well as daphreak has so far (forgiving that I might not have been able to articulate my questions as well back then).

On March 16 2015 21:00 QuanticHawk wrote:
This must be what it feels like to be interviewed by Bill OReilly.

Best of luck in finding more people to interview in such a manner, Daniel.

On March 16 2015 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
I imagine people have done a sufficient job of scaring them into thinking that it's a trap and not just a reasonable question though, so my optimism is tempered.

On March 16 2015 21:58 zf wrote:

You've done a good job of that yourself. I'd be happy to comment if I had any confidence that you wouldn't pluck six words out of several thousand for your signature line.

Police officers do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other police officers or their superiors

IRS Auditors do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other IRS auditors or their superiors

On March 17 2015 01:09 JieXian wrote:
I thought it was bad enough when this thread was only at page 1.

Mr GreenHorizon, I'm telling you sincerely that people aren't "hating" on you for whatever reason. You are being disrespectful.

It's not a "gotcha". I had no idea daPhreak felt that way. I disagree with that perspective and gave the Ferguson example as to why there needs to be punishment for people who don't speak up about corruption. (should have something to protect them from reprisal too). daPhreak didn't think there needed to be a rule let alone punishment for those who break it.

daPhreak also thought that Ferguson should have resolved it's issues through normal reporting mechanisms ignoring that people tried (because he didn't see it), and that those efforts were stonewalled by the very people charged with protecting the people making the complaints.

He left saying that Missouri had the reporting requirement as a "see it didn't help" to which I replied that was my point. The mere rule doesn't mean much if it's not enforced. He doesn't see the lack enforcement (or even the lac of the rule) as a problem. I can't see how Ferguson isn't an example of why he's wrong.

Rather than drag the whole thread through why his argument (that I had no idea he was going to make) was wrong on Ferguson I summed it up in my signature.

If you think all this was a plan you guys need to lay off the tinfoil. The "gotcha" claims are from stuff he brought up unprovoked and that I never intended or planned.

I honestly thought phreak would agree that it was a problem, his response (captured in my sig) was a surprise to me. Moreover, if it's a reasonable position, there is no "gotcha" anyways...?

It would be like saying "hah gotcha saying you believe the earth is round".

You (and others) coming into a blog (you easily could of ignored) just to deride me, is the thing that comes off as childish lame shit...But hey, different strokes for different folks.

I truly appreciate his honesty, and respect it. I strongly disagree with the position, but I respect not just saying he thought it was a problem (or leaving it at "odd" because he realized saying "i dont think it's a problem" made him "look stupid" if he really believed it) because it clearly would of been the easier route imo.

On March 17 2015 06:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll respond to your points so that you dont feel unfulfilled.


this is a misrepresentation of what i said. i dont think there needs to be a rule in the legal profession to snitch. this has absolutely nothing to do with ferguson in my mind. also, i never said such a rule shouldnt be punished, i absolutely do think if there was a such a rule that there should be punishment.


i said this in another thread, and you started this thread by saying you didnt want to bring politics into this thread, and then turned around and did it. also, way to completely ignore what i said in the other thread. selective reading is strong.


this is a misrepresentation. i just said they have a reporting requirement, i added no commentary. when did i ever make a comment about lack of enforcement? also, why are you trying to prove i am wrong in a thread dedicated to me trying to give you an attorney's perspective only? wtf.


again, wtf? this was supposed to be a q&a session. why are you trying to prove anything?


i think they are saying its a gotcha thread because you came in with preconceived notions and then ignored everything i said unless it fit your preconceived notions.


why even mention me? calbar doesnt consider it a problem so why does my opinion matter one way or another? you single me out when you can make the same point by saying calbar doesnt think its a problem. also, your quote makes you look stupid. you take one sentence out of the discussion and ignore the context. why dont you explain why i dont think its a problem? its like you want me to look unreasonable despite the numerous points as to why i dont think its a problem.


kind of misses the points being made.


i was uninvolved so have no comment.

i see you edited this in to another comment.


so now i am stupid for an opinion? also, if just saying "i dont think its a problem" makes me look stupid why is that all that you put in your signature? perhaps you want to make me look stupid?

On March 17 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Would of been better to address it as it came up instead of building up toward a rant. I don't think it makes you "look stupid" that was Hawk, hence the quotes.

Otherwise there is so much parsing it's ridiculous. Despite my lengthy explanation the point of this was clearly not made. I could present the best explanation possible and it wouldn't change anyone's mind at this point anyway.

I don't really see a point to respond to most of that stuff. It's not worth the time. Sorry you all think you wasted your time. I learned a lot. Better luck next time.

If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term "substantial" refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

So I wanted to open with a good faith effort to show I don't come into this looking to score points or anything. I am sincerely curious and am only seeking to better understand. If I appear to be attempting to score some political points here it is not intentional and I will not fight being called out on it.