Beware false profits

[spectacle]

hello clinic,

i wouldn't normally do this, and perhaps it will fall on deaf ears or come off as sour grapes, but i feel nonetheless that I should warn you to take quickstepper's "legal" analysis and advice with a gallon of salt.

it is easy for anyone to claim to be anything online and you certainly have no reason to believe what i say, but it is more than apparent to me that quickstepper knows f!ck all about the law in the US, and seems to only be a very good googler and bulls!tter (who doesn't even understand the application and merits of what he offers to you by way of links etc.).

the moderators rebuked me and deleted where i pointed out glaring mistakes (such as not knowing that fraud is a crime, not knowing how jurisdiction and venue work, pretending that co-conspirator liability would need a treatise to explain, when it is one of the easiest concepts in law etc), and where i called him out as a fraud in the legal thread. i have tried to correct some of his errors but i'm exhausted, he apparently is inexhaustible, and the moderator's application of the rules makes it impossible to point out quickstepper's complete a$$hatery when and where it is occurring.

i am no longer going to read or check the legal thread. based on my own hourly rate, i guesstimate that i have provided, in that thread alone, almost $4500.00US pro bono aid to you all but i couldn't let some of his truly egregious assertions and claims stand unchallenged.

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous.

if i see any questions in any thread other than the legal thread regarding US law, and i think i can help, i'll try to answer them (or not, if you'd prefer).

i am a lawyer. i graduated from law school in 2003. i am admitted to practice NY, DC, and FL. i worked from 2003 -2008 for a boutique firm that worked exclusively for lehman brothers, examining external fraud. from sept. 2009 to april 2010, i was contract counsel on a large, multinational corporate fraud case in the hague (i lived near the museon). much of my work involved applying rico, and that was why i was so quick to pick up on the rico aspects and focus of this case. i don't claim to know everything, but i sure as hell know more about the law than quickstepper

peace

 

[BroDeal]

I'll take any kind of profit, false or otherwise. Money is money.

 

[Kender]

did you mean profits or prophets? i got lost

 

[Kender]

I'll take any kind of profit, false or otherwise. Money is money.

hmm we could be getting into that legal skullduggery here... surely false profits is tax evasion

 

[saganftw]

i have no agenda... can i post anyway?

 

[scribe]

I kinda like watching 2 attorneys going at it on the forum. It's about as uncomfortable as watching aspergers playing baseball.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

hello clinic,

i wouldn't normally do this, and perhaps it will fall on deaf ears or come off as sour grapes, but i feel nonetheless that I should warn you to take quickstepper's "legal" analysis and advice with a gallon of salt.

it is easy for anyone to claim to be anything online and you certainly have no reason to believe what i say, but it is more than apparent to me that quickstepper knows f!ck all about the law in the US, and seems to only be a very good googler and bulls!tter (who doesn't even understand the application and merits of what he offers to you by way of links etc.).

the moderators rebuked me and deleted where i pointed out glaring mistakes (such as not knowing that fraud is a crime, not knowing how jurisdiction and venue work, pretending that co-conspirator liability would need a treatise to explain, when it is one of the easiest concepts in law etc), and where i called him out as a fraud in the legal thread. i have tried to correct some of his errors but i'm exhausted, he apparently is inexhaustible, and the moderator's application of the rules makes it impossible to point out quickstepper's complete a$$hatery when and where it is occurring.

i am no longer going to read or check the legal thread. based on my own hourly rate, i guesstimate that i have provided, in that thread alone, almost $4500.00US pro bono aid to you all but i couldn't let some of his truly egregious assertions and claims stand unchallenged.

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous.

if i see any questions in any thread other than the legal thread regarding US law, and i think i can help, i'll try to answer them (or not, if you'd prefer).

i am a lawyer. i graduated from UVA law in 2003, i am admitted to practice NY, DC, and FL. i worked from 2003 -2008 for a boutique firm that worked exclusively for lehman brothers, examining external fraud. from sept. 2009 to april 2010, i was contract counsel for a large, multinational corporate fraud case in the hague (i lived near the museon). much of my work involved applying rico, and that was why i was so quick to pick up on the rico aspects and focus of this case. i don't claim to know everything, but i sure as hell know more about the law than quickstepper

peace

One of my great uncles hired what my father refers to as a dime store lawyer in the 30's when he was involved in scamming money through his government position. He got, and took, ad hoc legal advice from his drinking buddies and he then told his dime store lawyer what to do, and he enjoyed fifteen years as a guest of the Washington State prison system. I read these threads that speculate on what and what not Lance should do, will happen, could never happen, and I am driving up the hit count, and there fore the cost of adverts on CN, with this insane hilarity. Nothing more.

 

[BroDeal]

it is easy for anyone to claim to be anything online and you certainly have no reason to believe what i say, but it is more than apparent to me that quickstepper knows f!ck all about the law in the US, and seems to only be a very good googler and bulls!tter (who doesn't even understand the application and merits of what he offers to you by way of links etc.).

Sounds like he is like the BigBoat of Internet lawyers.

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous.

if i see any questions in any thread other than the legal thread regarding US law, and i think i can help, i'll try to answer them (or not, if you'd prefer).

Personally I would prefer other opinions aside from Quickstepper's. Don't let his douchebaggery chase you away.

 

[steelciocc]

Wow...

I commend any of you that actually read through the opening post...

 

[barn yard]

based on my own hourly rate, i guesstimate that i have provided, in that thread alone, almost $4500.00US pro bono aid to you all

Based on my own hourly rate here is $0.00 worth of pro bono spelling aid : 'Prophet'.

 

[MacRoadie]

Personally I would prefer other opinions aside from Quickstepper's. Don't let his douchebaggery chase you away.

As a non-lawyer, but someone who makes his living as an expert witness, I've dealt with literally hundreds of lawyers over the last 20 years; good ones, bad ones, big firms, small firms, named partners and baby lawyers. The one thing I have learned? Take everything every one of them says with a grain of salt, no matter who they are or who they represent (even the ones you are working for).

The only lawyer I trust completely is my own cousin and even then I'd probably ask for a second opinion.

 

[Bicicleta]

Thought this thread was about the sale of Trek bikes to pay for doping. Bummer.

 

[Anonymous]

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous.

It does appear that he is posting with an agenda that leans to minimizing the peril Armstrong faces. I think that is purposeful. Don't let him run you away from that thread, but also realize that the thread is for answering the questions of people who are not attorneys. Because of that, the discussion between the two of you should be done by PM. If you want to answer the questions posed by others with differing opinion, that is what you should do. The two of you fighting about legal procedure, etc. is out of scope for the subject at hand.

 

[Cal_Joe]

hello clinic, i wouldn't normally do this...

Well, I'm glad you are taking a break from your normal conduct, but...

the moderators rebuked me and deleted where i pointed out glaring mistakes

The moderators edited your posts because they were filled with "guesses" and "seems to me". You went charging into that thread without paying attention to the numerous pleas to avoid speculation and either you did not understand them or you chose to ignore them. Maybe not the best way to enter a thread.

quickstepper's complete a$$hatery

This kind of comment will undoubtedly give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling about your professional demeanor.

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts

As has been pointed out in the thread, there are very few known confirmed "facts" - the way I read his posts is that since that is the case, it does not serve the purpose of the thread to speculate. And you have been asked to forgo speculation by the moderators.

but i sure as hell know more about the law than quickstepper

Good for you. Now we all know that.

I kinda like watching 2 attorneys going at it on the forum. It's about as uncomfortable as watching aspergers playing baseball.

All I could think of is that instead of an LA flame war we get a LAwyer flame war.

Oh, and one other thing, Spectacle - in a portion of one of your posts (that portion was also deleted by the moderators), you accused me of being a sock puppet of one of the other posters. You chose to hide that accusation in very very small font at the end of the post.

That made you look very very small.

I do not think you are getting the piicture about the legal thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I'm glad you are taking a break from your normal conduct, but...


The moderators edited your posts because they were filled with "guesses" and "seems to me". You went charging into that thread without paying attention to the numerous pleas to avoid speculation and either you did not understand them or you chose to ignore them. Maybe not the best way to enter a thread.



This kind of comment will undoubtedly give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling about your professional demeanor.



As has been pointed out in the thread, there are very few known confirmed "facts" - the way I read his posts is that since that is the case, it does not serve the purpose of the thread to speculate. And you have been asked to forgo speculation by the moderators.



Good for you. Now we all know that.



All I could think of is that instead of an LA flame war we get a LAwyer flame war.

Oh, and one other thing, Spectacle - in a portion of one of your posts (that portion was also deleted by the moderators), you accused me of being a sock puppet of one of the other posters. You chose to hide that accusation in very very small font at the end of the post.

That made you look very very small.

I do not think you are getting the piicture about the legal thread.

It's telling that you defend Quickstepper.

 

[tubularglue]

Oh Well:

nothing here, move along

 

[straydog]

It does appear that he is posting with an agenda that leans to minimizing the peril Armstrong faces. I think that is purposeful. Don't let him run you away from that thread, but also realize that the thread is for answering the questions of people who are not attorneys. Because of that, the discussion between the two of you should be done by PM. If you want to answer the questions posed by others with differing opinion, that is what you should do. The two of you fighting about legal procedure, etc. is out of scope for the subject at hand.

I would just like to add my agreement to almost everything my new "bessie" Thoughtforgood has just posted and add one thing....

I don't think feeling the need to start this thread has, or does, reflect well on your motivations for doing so....as said above I think the place for this would be a PM

Having said that, i know c*ck all about US law, and apart from both of your contributions being a hell of a lot more complicated than the average Ally Mcbeal episode, I have found both of them interesting no matter where the source material has come from....wiki....google...or Harvard.

And please please please will one of your start a post with "Objection! Googling the evidence!"

 

[Cal_Joe]

It's telling that you defend Quickstepper.

TFF - not everyone has an agenda. Here's a thought for you - maybe I am trying to defend the purpose of a thread, and not a poster.

And for someone about to step into 1L, as an exercise please point out where in my post I "defended" quickstepper.

Oh, never mind - as usual, you were responding to a poster, and not a post. After 1L you will be introduced to the concept of "point by point" rebuttal - it's really cool.

 

[Anonymous]

TFF - not everyone has an agenda. Here's a thought for you - maybe I am trying to defend the purpose of a thread, and not a poster.

And for someone about to step into 1L, as an exercise please point out where in my post I "defended" quickstepper.

Oh, never mind - as usual, you were responding to a poster, and not a post. After 1L you will be introduced to the concept of "point by point" rebuttal - it's really cool.

If you do not have the honesty to see the tenor of your post, I am not sure what to tell you? I guess they don't teach self reflection in law school? Good, it would have been a boring class for me.

 

[Anonymous]

TFF - not everyone has an agenda. Here's a thought for you - maybe I am trying to defend the purpose of a thread, and not a poster.

And for someone about to step into 1L, as an exercise please point out where in my post I "defended" quickstepper.

Oh, never mind - as usual, you were responding to a poster, and not a post. After 1L you will be introduced to the concept of "point by point" rebuttal - it's really cool.

Your's also dosn't appear to have taught the concept of irony

Man, that law school is going to be a waste of money...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would just like to add my agreement to almost everything my new "bessie" Thoughtforgood has just posted and add one thing....

I don't think feeling the need to start this thread has, or does, reflect well on your motivations for doing so....as said above I think the place for this would be a PM

Having said that, i know c*ck all about US law, and apart from both of your contributions being a hell of a lot more complicated than the average Ally Mcbeal episode, I have found both of them interesting no matter where the source material has come from....wiki....google...or Harvard.

And please please please will one of your start a post with "Objection! Googling the evidence!"

I would have to concur with the remarks of my(un)learned collegues - TFF &straydog - I know little about US law and appreciate all contributors information on the other thread.

But I respectfully request it not to be a personal issue - highlight the post, not the poster.


In fact - maybe we could have QS & 'spectacle' do a mock trial?!!!
We could all be the members - Scribe has to be Hincapie, TFF would be Floyd, BPC is Kristin, etc.... might be more interesting than the real thing.

 

[straydog]

In the interests of balance i would just like to add that I also agreed with almost everything that my fellow "fanboy", "sock puppet" and "PS employee" Cal Joe posted in response to the OP of this thread.

Might I also add TFF....that it does appear that Cal seems to p*ss you off more than I do....so in an attempt to defend my wounded ego....I would just like to say that post 18....to my very unlearned eye, did look remarkably like a b*atch slap

 

[straydog]

....In fact - maybe we could have QS & 'spectacle' do a mock trial?!!!

only if you let me be Lance

 

[Cal_Joe]

In the interests of balance i would just like to add that I also agreed with almost everything that my fellow "fanboy", "sock puppet" and "PS employee" Cal Joe posted in response to the OP of this thread.

Might I also add TFF....that it does appear that Cal seems to p*ss you off more than I do....so in an attempt to defend my wounded ego....I would just like to say that post 18....to my very unlearned eye did look remarkably like a b*atch slap

You forgot "chamois sniffer" and "BPC Sock Puppet". Fail.

 

[Anonymous]

I would have to concur with the remarks of my(un)learned collegues - TFF &straydog - I know little about US law and appreciate all contributors information on the other thread.

But I respectfully request it not to be a personal issue - highlight the post, not the poster.


In fact - maybe we could have QS & 'spectacle' do a mock trial?!!!
We could all be the members - Scribe has to be Hincapie, TFF would be Floyd, BPC is Kristin, etc.... might be more interesting than the real thing.

Nah, I want to be Al Pachino in "...And in Justice for All" so I can say "You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! He *told* me so! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the sh!t out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?"

That or stand there and give the Chewbacca Defense. Maybe Lance should hire me. Herman is doing the PR lawyer thing. If he wants to get off, he needs someone who can wow and confuse the jury with complete bullsh!t...and I promise you that you have met few people who can do that better than me.