Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. [/QUOTE]
    Plain observation + knowledge of at least one quite different
    system. Whereas you come across as the holy defender of the US
    law and court system.

    Depriving the defendant or the claimant of a lawyer does not
    strike me as a good way to protect them, but as a way to hobble
    those with little legal understanding, those with fear (justified
    or not) of courts and legal proceedings (e.g. because they have a
    social phobia). They already have a very hard time and now they
    are required to speak in public and act unsupported and be possibly
    judged by everyone there. (I know people with such conditions.
    Maybe you don't.)

    That's as fair as throwing someone with Arachnophobia into a room
    filled to the top with poisonous spiders.

    Quoting Wikipedia:
    | The plaintiff may or may not be allowed to reduce a claim
    | to fit the requirements of this venue. "Court shopping",
    | where a plaintiff seeks to reduce the amount of damages
    | claimed in order to fit a trial into a court that would
    | otherwise not have jurisdiction, is strictly forbidden in
    | some states.

    That may or may not pertain to the US, as there are other
    countries with that system.

    Am I?
    Really? I'm aware of "court shopping" in a number of civil cases.
    OK, not in the US.

    If I owe you X and the court decides this is so, the court orders
    me to pay X + compound interest. Unless I am also ordered to
    pay the lawyer (according to the price list for lawyers), you're
    out of a sizable chunk of X. Fair? And if you lose, the laywer
    will not get paid for his work. Fair?

    So does a granted petition to pay for the legal costs.
    Without having to resort to effectively blackmailing the client:
    "Unless you give me 40-50-60-75-90% of the win, you won't be able
    to bring suit at all!"
    So if the lawyer loses, he did not perform the work?

    A very strange world you do live in ...

    The latter isn't my position at all, quite the opposite: that the
    overly large awards result in a swamping of contingency
    agreements, as they attract the vultures.

    That's common in sales.
    So you were a salesweasle and later had a horde of salesweasles.

    However, most people aren't sales. There's customer support.
    There's the clerk. Do you pay the bank teller by how much money
    he collected from people? How about rent-a-cops? Pay them by the
    innocent-claimed-robber they caught? I could go on for hours,
    there are so many jobs that are critical for a company, yet do
    not directly result in countable sales.

    So how can you show a negative? He'll say: "I always paid him in
    cash, every friday. No of course noone else was there, I do not
    want my employees to observe if someone is making more money ---
    lest they want the same amount."

    Might as well prove that there's no invisible, intangible,
    immeasurable God.

    Which again shows how broken the US law system seems to be, when
    vastly graver decisions --- like life or death --- are *less*
    decided by facts than some hundred or a few thousand dollars.
    Yep, 'only'.
    Getting a great shot is 'only' pressing the button, as well.

    So if you live in one of the "not most" major cities, or in
    smaller cities or in rural areas, you need to travel to the
    next big city that has a Legal Aid office --- which is even
    willing to talk about your kind of case. And where you're
    not too "rich" to be helped. ("too rich" does in no way mean
    you can pay your own lawyer!).

    Fun!
    Cheap!
    Oh, I surely can learn something.
    http://www.lafla.org/pdf/justice_Gap09.pdf
    => Only between 20% and 50% of the people seem to be even
    aware of free legal aid!
    => It seems that legal aid is way underfunded, turning away
    at least 50% of the people --- and that's with LSC money!
    => Only 20% of the cases of the low-income people are aided
    in any way by lawyers (paid or pro bono) or legal aid
    => There is lawyer for 6415 low-income people --- and one per
    429 above low income
    => More people are unrepresented in court, mostly because
    they don't have money to pay for a lawyer. Unrepresented
    people get worse rulings.

    Are you willing and able to also learn something?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 19, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Let yourself be blackmailed out of a huge chunk of what is
    yours, yep. Legally, too. When was the US taken over by
    lawyers?

    Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
    example. For *I* didn't mention it ...

    So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
    FULL STOP?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress
    Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any
    unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to
    act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not
    [or would]"

    How would "we'll sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the
    courts" not count as unlawful, and how would buying a license
    when you'd not buy one otherwise not count as acting in a manner
    one otherwise would not?

    Is there no law against suing to harass people? Is there no law
    against controlling a court from the outside?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 19, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.
    I don't agree with sentence that doesn't make sense. A case taken on
    "contingent" would mean a case taken on by a group of people united by
    a common cause.

    You can't play games with the language if you haven't mastered the
    language.
    The threat to sue is not an unlawful threat. It is, in fact, a
    notification of intent to pursue the claim by lawful means.

    The point of not buying something when you'd otherwise not do so is
    patently ridiculous. No one would buy a vehicle license tag or
    permit, pay admission to a theater, or do anything else that cost them
    money if wasn't required.
    You can't craft a law to determine in advance what a harassing, or
    nuisance, lawsuit is. You can't define in advance what constitutes a
    nuisance suit. The sued party does have recourse in asking that the
    judge rule the case to be frivolous and require that the bringer of
    the suit pay all charges incurred.
    I have no idea what is going on in your little mind that makes you
    think that a court is controlled from the outside in an improper
    manner.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 20, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    My question is; How did I get inserted into this section of this
    sub-thread via non sequitur?
    Anyway, I always thought that he was from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 20, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    So, then, you are claiming to have a first-hand knowledge of the US
    Small Claims Court system and it's faults? You have observed cases in
    SCC?
    I have been a litigant in two cases in SCC. This, then, qualifies me
    - according to your logic - to be knowledgeable about the court system
    in Tunisia or Denmark?
    No, merely someone who is pointing out the errors in your assessments
    in certain areas.
    Quoting partial material in order to disingenuously make a point is a
    tactic I would expect from you, but not by people with integrity. The
    full text:
    _____________________________________________________________
    A small-claims court will generally have a maximum monetary limit to
    the amount of judgments it can award, often in the thousands of
    dollars/pounds. By suing in a small-claims court, the plaintiff
    typically waives any right to claim more than the court can award. The
    plaintiff may or may not be allowed to reduce a claim to fit the
    requirements of this venue. "Court shopping", where a plaintiff seeks
    to reduce the amount of damages claimed in order to fit a trial into a
    court that would otherwise not have jurisdiction, is strictly
    forbidden in some states. For example, if a plaintiff asserts damages
    of $30,000 in hopes of winning an award of $25,000 in small-claims
    court, the court will dismiss the case because the court does not have
    jurisdiction to hear cases in which the asserted damages exceed the
    court's maximum amount. Thus, even if the plaintiff is willing to
    accept less than the full amount, the case cannot be brought to
    small-claims court. To bring the case to small-claims court, the
    plaintiff must prove that the actual damages were within the court's
    jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, a party who loses in a
    small-claims court is entitled to a trial de novo in a court of more
    general jurisdiction and with more formal procedures.
    ______________________________________________________

    This has to do with reducing actual losses to an amount that qualifies
    for the jurisdiction. That is falsification.

    It is not unallowable to state actual damages only for part of the
    damages incurred. In other words, you can sue your neighbor for
    $3,000 in SCC in a state with a SCC max of $3,000 for damages to your
    driveway because he drove his RV over your driveway without your
    permission. You may have incurred another $3,000 in damage to the
    surrounding sod or a fence, but you need not bring that into the case.

    In most states, even though your damage was $5,000 to the driveway,
    and you have sued for the max of $3,000, that reduction in loss is
    permissible.
    If we ever get around to civil cases in countries other than the US,
    it can be discussed. Not be me, though. Unlike some, I don't pretend
    to have knowledge of the law or the court system in other countries.
    In your example, it was my decision to use a lawyer. I am not
    required to. Just like a homeowner hiring a real estate agent to sell
    his house, the person hiring a lawyer anticipates a fee for services.

    When you hire a lawyer, the fee structure should be determined in
    advance. If the lawyer wants 90%, look for another lawyer. Civil
    lawyers are not assigned to litigants. They are chosen.
    Yep. I sold specialized surgical products to hospitals, and later
    owned a company that employed salesmen to do the same. Weasel tactics
    didn't work in convincing a surgeon that a medical laser or surgical
    microscope was something they should get the hospital to acquire.
    That defense would not work in SCC. It would be up to the defendant
    to show some proof of payment. Doubt goes to the claimant.
    Yes, and I'm sure the same situation exists in remote towns and
    villages in any country. In the US, though, there are few places so
    remote that the travel would be onerous.
    As soon as you post something based on reliable information about a
    subject I don't know anything about, I'm willing to learn. So far,
    that's not been the case.

    All you've done so far is repeat a "US law is broken" mantra that is
    based on lack of information and knowledge about the system here.

    The major problem with the US civil system is that far too many people
    do not avail themselves to the sources of help and information
    available to them. The criminal system has other problems, but this
    is not a criminal issue.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 20, 2012
  6. tony cooper

    Guest Guest

    no one? that's a bit absolute.

    sorry to burst your bubble but some people do pay for things that
    aren't required or don't need.
     
    Guest, Sep 20, 2012
  7. tony cooper

    Guest Guest

    bullshit.
     
    Guest, Sep 20, 2012
  8. tony cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That's an odd meaning. From where do you get that? Or are you playing
    games with the language? It's clear what Wolfgang referred to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee
    "A contingent fee (in the United States) or conditional fee (in
    England and Wales) is any fee for services provided where the fee
    is payable only if there is a favourable result. In the law, it is
    defined as a "fee charged for a lawyer's services only if the
    lawsuit is successful or is favorably settled out of court....
    Contingent fees are usually calculated as a percentage of the
    client's net recovery."
     
    Eric Stevens, Sep 20, 2012
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    It may be what he was referring to, but it is not what he said. The
    term would be "cases on contingency". It's a matter of usage in
    context.

    He tried to play games with the "So you're agreeing...", and I stepped
    away from the trap. He shouldn't try to play games using the wrong
    word or the wrong form of the word.

    And, the definition I gave for "contingent" is a standard meaning of
    the word. Nothing odd about it unless you use it in a sentence where
    you meant another form of the word.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 20, 2012
  10. From: tony cooper <>
    Message-ID: <>
    | Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    | of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
    | should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
    | the lawyer.

    There are only 2 possibilities:
    a) you don't understand what you yourself said or
    b) you painted yourself into a corner and now resort to ad
    hominem attacks.

    Case a: You really need to learn how to write and read English.
    It's not necessary to *master* the language, just a touch
    of comprehensive reading skills would help you.
    Here are some URLs that can help you:
    http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php
    http://classroom.jc-schools.net/basic/la-read.html
    http://www.miguelmllop.com/practice/intermediate/readingcomprehension/readingcompindex.htm
    http://www.englishmaven.org/Pages/Reading Comprehension.htm
    http://www.testprepreview.com/modules/reading1.htm
    Until you managed to aquire some skill there, it's not
    possible to discuss with you.

    Case b: You're a scoundrel. You're intellectually dishonest.
    You are unable to admit when someone else has a point
    --- or simply admit you wrote something illogical ---
    even when your own words clearly say so and any child
    can prove after logic 101.
    You're not worth to be discussed with.

    Since a discussion is obviously not possible with you, I won't.

    Someone who does't know what they say or someone who's
    intellectually dishonest isn't worth being read.

    And yes, I'll follow my own advice. We'll see if you've
    improved in half a year.

    Bye-bye.

    PLONK.


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 22, 2012
  11. You popped to my mind first. You probably left a lasting
    impression.

    Yep, and tony insists on a tin plate.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 22, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.