BoxRec

jimglen wrote:I also agree Tyson should have been the Best HW ever, and again P4P and so on, I doubt he loses many!

"Should" ain't the same as "did". Therefore Lewis "did" more than Tyson, regardless of any other consideration.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^Well, Lewis did take step-aside money, but, even so, I agree BoxerBob is not being fair (or consistent) in his analysis. That's my take, anyway.

Taking step aside money usually doesn't look good, but come on, who's worse - the one who takes $4m of free money, or the one who PAYS another man $4m not to fight him?

Mr E wrote:If you feel you are in a position to declare you are more virtuous and honorable than an entire profession, such that you can sit in judgment as you have flattered yourself to do, then I'm sure we would all like to know a little bit more about you and how you have managed to earn your personal seat at the right hand of Christ.

- Any honest janitor, stockyard worker, any honest individual, even a bum on the street can be said to be "more virtuous and honorable than an entire profession."

Should be a self evident "DUH" moment save for those half baked wunderkinds toeing the company lie and the status quo for purpose of preening or advancement.

Mr. Ray may indeed be an honest lawyer and stand up citizen, but he's barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that honesty transfers automatically to his profession. Plenty enough honest nazis, honest slave traders and slave owners, and legal drug peddlers in history to require Satan to plan for future expansion in perpetuity.

Lawyers have traditionally had one of the worst reputations in history and not without merit. I can remember one of the lead lawyers in the Philip-Morris class action tobacco settlement who was personally enriched some $100+ mil being interviewed and gilding the lilly of lawyerdom to the interviewer by explaining that his forebears wrote the Magna Carta when doctor's predecessors were bleeding patients with leeches as if the citizens responsible for the Magna Carta practiced his brand of capitalist takeover winner takes all type of lawyering and doctors less worthy.

No, my little friends, it don't matter what I do since this is the internet and I can be the uncrowned King of England for all anyone knows or cares. I would never, however, be so foolish as to defend any business or profession I was involved in as a whole from legitimate criticisms. Mr. Ray is on the wrong side of the law as far as popular opinion goes and has earned additional blasts by both barrels trying to defend the travesty of the rape case as it was conducted against Tyson.

And please spare me the wringing of limpid hands over me defending Tyson's voluminous rap folder which is not so. He was railroaded by the system and the people "representing" him in this particular case, served more time than some murderers serve, and came out broke while others were hugely enriched with his former assets.

Justice served, yeah, served up on a shingle.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: - Love listening to what Marv has to say, but his expertise is the lighter weights, not superheavies which is what Rahman/Lewis was.

"Experts" have been predicting Vitali to run out of gas in most every recent fight because he breathes through his mouth, when in every case he's always stronger going down the stretch where he is most dangerous and likely to score his KO.

I'll trust my own eyes. Lewis was fighting a lazy, slow paced fight akin to a stroll through the park while eating an icecream cone. Assuming he had the same timing, he could fight the same pace today without any training. Rahman was pants and just came out of nowhere with a big surprise and fight over.

Always interesting when a fighter goes from glass jawed bum to invincible based on one fight, a past it Tyson. The truth is inbetween. On his day Lewis could beat most any, but on average, plenty of enough other bad days at the office such as Tucker, Mercer, and that skinny Croat who did a number on him like Tiberi did to Toney show he could be outboxed as well as one punched.

Ok enough of the insults BRR, lets keep it civilised now.

You don't have to be an expert or even a boxing fan to see that Lewis was breathing heavily against Rahman. You may see it as excuses but Lewis arrived 11 days before the fight weighing 253lbs, a career heaviest. Plus he did skip training to film Oceans 11. Those aren't excuses these are facts. To acclimatise at altitude you need to spend time and take things slowly, something Rahman did and Lewis didn't. Do you not see how someone weighing 18 stone would struggle in those conditions? Not taking anything away from Rahman but he got lucky against an underprepared Lewis.

As you say on his day Lewis could beat anyone. But like any heavyweight in history he had bad days and could be outboxed. The same can be said of Ali, Holmes, Louis, Marciano, Holyfield, Foreman or and any other fighter you care to name.

- Any honest janitor, stockyard worker, any honest individual, even a bum on the street can be said to be "more virtuous and honorable than an entire profession."

Should be a self evident "DUH" moment save for those half baked wunderkinds toeing the company lie and the status quo for purpose of preening or advancement.

Typical. Instead of a substantive response, mindless babble.

Mr. Ray may indeed be an honest lawyer and stand up citizen, but he's barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that honesty transfers automatically to his profession. Plenty enough honest nazis, honest slave traders and slave owners, and legal drug peddlers in history to require Satan to plan for future expansion in perpetuity.

I have not and do not vouch for the integrity of, or defend, "all" of anything, including lawyers. What's offensive is some 22-year-old kid popping off behind the protection of an internet screen announcing, in effect, that all lawyers are morally inferior to him. So I ask you again, what about you is so special that you feel you have earned the right to sit in judgment?

Lawyers have traditionally had one of the worst reputations in history and not without merit.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. "Traditionally" the legal profession has been held in tremendous respect. Its public relations issues have arisen in the last 20-25 years, largely as a result of runaway plaintiff's verdicts enabled by increasingly socialist legislation.

I can remember one of the lead lawyers in the Philip-Morris class action tobacco settlement who was personally enriched some $100+ mil being interviewed and gilding the lilly of lawyerdom to the interviewer by explaining that his forebears wrote the Magna Carta when doctor's predecessors were bleeding patients with leeches as if the citizens responsible for the Magna Carta practiced his brand of capitalist takeover winner takes all type of lawyering and doctors less worthy.

Don't use phrases, such as "gilding the lily" that you obviously don't understand. You might want to look that one up. You better believe the Philip Morris defense team was paid a fortune and you also better believe those guys earned every penny. Not that you would have the slightest idea what went actually went on there.

Now maybe you could explain how you think charging legal fees for defending Philip Morris constitutes a 'capitalist takeover' of anything. I can hardly wait to hear what passes for economic analysis with you.

No, my little friends, it don't matter what I do since this is the internet and I can be the uncrowned King of England for all anyone knows or cares. I would never, however, be so foolish as to defend any business or profession I was involved in as a whole from legitimate criticisms.

You haven't articulated a 'legitimate' criticism yet. Instead, you have attacked an entire profession.

Mr. Ray is on the wrong side of the law as far as popular opinion goes

"Popular opinion" has nothing to do with what "end of the law" one is on. One is either within the law or not, regardless of "popular opinion."

and has earned additional blasts by both barrels trying to defend the travesty of the rape case as it was conducted against Tyson.

Because you are such an expert in the law and evidentiary proceedings in general, you feel qualified to call the conviction a "travesty"? Given the depth of knowledge you have demonstrated to date, that might be the most hilarious statement you've made.

And please spare me the wringing of limpid hands over me defending Tyson's voluminous rap folder which is not so. He was railroaded by the system and the people "representing" him in this particular case, served more time than some murderers serve, and came out broke while others were hugely enriched with his former assets. Justice served, yeah, served up on a shingle.

Newflash Einstein: the goverment prosecutors who brought the charges against Tyson didn't "earn" any money by doing so, so what do you imagine was their incentive for 'railroading' him? Just thought it would be fun to spend a few months in a media fish bowl, was that it? Brilliant.

Mr E wrote:Again, you don't know what you're talking about. "Traditionally" the legal profession has been held in tremendous respect. It's public relations issues have arisen in the last 20-25 years, largely as a result of runaway plaintiff's verdicts enabled by increasingly socialist legislation.

I agree completely with the comment in regards to the legal profession being held in high esteem, however, I am struggling with what specific "socialist legislation" has led to runaway plaintiff verdicts. Could you provide some examples of this "socialist legislation"?

I agree completely with the comment in regards to the legal profession being held in high esteem, however, I am struggling with what specific "socialist legislation" has led to runaway plaintiff verdicts. Could you provide some examples of this "socialist legislation"?

California Bus & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., most of the TILA and HOEPA provisions, majority of the regulations promulgated by the SEC and the various state departments of insurance, most of the qui tam statutes, the list goes on and on.

But if your question is a serious one, I will give you a serious answer. The real issue, I think, is that over the course of the last quarter century, a lot of laws have been passed that, in one way or another, allow private individuals to sue on "behalf of" some group or other -- either a class of similarly situated persons, or consumers generally, or some other smaller group (say, Medicare beneficiaries, etc). Frequently, these statutes include attorneys fees provisions (the qui tam statutes especially) that incentivise attorneys, particularly solo practitioners who were not able to get or keep jobs in reputable law firms, to recruit class/consumer representatives to prosecute civil lawsuits that the attorneys can then control for the primary purpose of generating legal fees. This phenomenon, combined with state laws that permit what many today feel are "runaway jury verdicts," has produced a comparatively small class of aggressive plaintiff's lawyers who generate a lot of negative publicity, and who have to a certain degree tainted the public perception of lawyers in general, notwithstanding that they constitute only a fraction of the total number of practitioners.

The double act of Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew did more harm to the image of lawyers than anyone I can think of.

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^Well, Lewis did take step-aside money, but, even so, I agree BoxerBob is not being fair (or consistent) in his analysis. That's my take, anyway.

Taking step aside money usually doesn't look good, but come on, who's worse - the one who takes $4m of free money, or the one who PAYS another man $4m not to fight him?

I think if you peruse some of my other thoughts in this thread, you'll find nothing to challenge what you're saying here.

Mr E wrote:

I agree completely with the comment in regards to the legal profession being held in high esteem, however, I am struggling with what specific "socialist legislation" has led to runaway plaintiff verdicts. Could you provide some examples of this "socialist legislation"?

California Bus & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., most of the TILA and HOEPA provisions, majority of the regulations promulgated by the SEC and the various state departments of insurance, most of the qui tam statutes, the list goes on and on.

But if your question is a serious one, I will give you a serious answer. The real issue, I think, is that over the course of the last quarter century, a lot of laws have been passed that, in one way or another, allow private individuals to sue on "behalf of" some group or other -- either a class of similarly situated persons, or consumers generally, or some other smaller group (say, Medicare beneficiaries, etc). Frequently, these statutes include attorneys fees provisions (the qui tam statutes especially) that incentivise attorneys, particularly solo practitioners who were not able to get or keep jobs in reputable law firms, to recruit class/consumer representatives to prosecute civil lawsuits that the attorneys can then control for the primary purpose of generating legal fees. This phenomenon, combined with state laws that permit what many today feel are "runaway jury verdicts," has produced a comparatively small class of aggressive plaintiff's lawyers who generate a lot of negative publicity, and who have to a certain degree tainted the public perception of lawyers in general, notwithstanding that they constitute only a fraction of the total number of practitioners.

Of course it was a serious question. I don't know what you mean by "runaway jury verdicts". Could you explain this? I am completely against any caps on settlements because this would be an infringement on basic freedoms. What might seem outrageous is many times not so outrageous when you fully understand the case. For the government to impose caps on jury awards is a pretty scary thought.

Mr E wrote:Again, you don't know what you're talking about. "Traditionally" the legal profession has been held in tremendous respect. Its public relations issues have arisen in the last 20-25 years, largely as a result of runaway plaintiff's verdicts enabled by increasingly socialist legislation.quote]

- Rest of your bunkem warrants no response, but the above is particularly rich with you complaining about "runaway plaintiff's verdicts and socialist legislation", in effect complaining about lawyers filing lawsuits enabled by state and federal legislators populated almost entirely by lawyers.

Even the unfortunate mentally challenged citizens know intuitively they lack the intellectual capacity of the greater whole, yet you and your ilk ain't even bright enough to see the comedy in your hypocrisy. That's how sociopaths are so effective, they actually believe their lies they couple with a persuasive personality. Enron, Smartest Guys in the Room.

Yeah, probably you and your ilk do need the nanny state that bailed out wall street and the banks and have had for decades the whole big corporate ledger set up by corporate welfare crook specialists to milk the public tax monies and set up off shore accounts.

Mr E wrote:Because you are such an expert in the law and evidentiary proceedings in general, you feel qualified to call the conviction a "travesty"? Given the depth of knowledge you have demonstrated to date, that might be the most hilarious statement you've made.

- Lawyers don't pass muster when the mentally disabled accused's manager is using his personal tax attorney to defend the accused on a federal criminal felony charge. This just a minor travesty compared to the global corporate fraud currently being played out.

I don't need a law degree to know when something stinks in Denmark my little Danish pasty.

- Rest of your bunkem warrants no response,

Yeah, I'm stunned that you have none.

but the above is particularly rich with you complaining about "runaway plaintiff's verdicts and socialist legislation", in effect complaining about lawyers filing lawsuits enabled by state and federal legislators populated almost entirely by lawyers.

What are talking about "populated almost entirely by lawyers"? Where did you get that "fact"? You just made it up didn't you? In any case, it's not true. But, even if it were true, when did I ever say going to law school made someone a good legislator? [To the contrary, a pretty high percentage of the lawyers I know are well-meaning, if economically challenged, bleeding heart liberals.] More importantly, as it relates to this debate, how does that bear on the integrity issue that your raised in the first place?

Even the unfortunate mentally challenged citizens know intuitively they lack the intellectual capacity of the greater whole, yet you and your ilk ain't even bright enough to see the comedy in your hypocrisy.

You are in no position to call anyone mentally challenged. As for bright, given your diction and syntax and your total and complete ignorance of the legal system, I'd be surprised if you made it into college, let alone graduated. What kind of grades did you get in high school? What do you do for a living? I can hardly wait to hear you tell me where you earned the right to criticize anyone else's intelligence.

That's how sociopaths are so effective, they actually believe their lies they couple with a persuasive personality.

Because your Ph.D means you understand sociopaths? Keep them coming.

Yeah, probably you and your ilk do need the nanny state that bailed out wall street and the banks and have had for decades the whole big corporate ledger set up by corporate welfare crook specialists to milk the public tax monies and set up off shore accounts.

What? I can hardly decipher this but I'll tell you that I don't support the government bailing anything out, be it bank, insurance company, automobile manufacturer or home mortgagor. I'm a little afraid that might mean we agree on something but, again, I can't really tell what you're trying to say.

- Lawyers don't pass muster when the mentally disabled accused's manager is using his personal tax attorney to defend the accused on a federal criminal felony charge. This just a minor travesty compared to the global corporate fraud currently being played out.

What do you mean "pass muster"? This is so badly jumbled I, again, can't understand what you're trying to say. Tyson's manager did something wrong so the prosecuting attorneys were bad people???????

I don't need a law degree to know when something stinks in Denmark

You make it into law school. Now that's "rich," to use your word.

my little Danish pasty.

So now you're a tough guy behind the keyboard, are you? I guarrantee you wouldn't mouth off like that if I were standing next to you boy.

The Great John L wrote:

Mr E wrote:

I agree completely with the comment in regards to the legal profession being held in high esteem, however, I am struggling with what specific "socialist legislation" has led to runaway plaintiff verdicts. Could you provide some examples of this "socialist legislation"?

California Bus & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., most of the TILA and HOEPA provisions, majority of the regulations promulgated by the SEC and the various state departments of insurance, most of the qui tam statutes, the list goes on and on.

But if your question is a serious one, I will give you a serious answer. The real issue, I think, is that over the course of the last quarter century, a lot of laws have been passed that, in one way or another, allow private individuals to sue on "behalf of" some group or other -- either a class of similarly situated persons, or consumers generally, or some other smaller group (say, Medicare beneficiaries, etc). Frequently, these statutes include attorneys fees provisions (the qui tam statutes especially) that incentivise attorneys, particularly solo practitioners who were not able to get or keep jobs in reputable law firms, to recruit class/consumer representatives to prosecute civil lawsuits that the attorneys can then control for the primary purpose of generating legal fees. This phenomenon, combined with state laws that permit what many today feel are "runaway jury verdicts," has produced a comparatively small class of aggressive plaintiff's lawyers who generate a lot of negative publicity, and who have to a certain degree tainted the public perception of lawyers in general, notwithstanding that they constitute only a fraction of the total number of practitioners.

Of course it was a serious question. I don't know what you mean by "runaway jury verdicts". Could you explain this? I am completely against any caps on settlements because this would be an infringement on basic freedoms. What might seem outrageous is many times not so outrageous when you fully understand the case. For the government to impose caps on jury awards is a pretty scary thought.

To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested imposing caps on "settlements." That's a whole different animal.

The issue only arises with jury verdicts but I agree with you that the issue is complicated. Awards in most tort cases contain an actual damages and a punitive damages component. So, for example, you lose an arm in an automobile accident and you show the accident was somebody else's fault. In that case, you are entitled to actual damages, usually comprised of hospital bills, lost earning, reduced earnings in the future, pain and suffering, etc. You may also be entitled to a punitive award beyond that designed solely to further punish the tortfeasor. Whether and to what extent it is proper to add a punitive element onto a civil verdict is a question with respect to which many people feel very strongly. It would take too long to lay out all the issues this generates, but, however one feels about the ideologies involved, the fact is that as courts began tolerating higher and higher punitive verdicts (as a percentage of actual damages), the contingency fee lawyers who benefitted along with their clients began making the news -- in a negative way.

Mr E wrote:To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested imposing caps on "settlements." That's a whole different animal.

The issue only arises with jury verdicts but I agree with you that the issue is complicated. Awards in most tort cases contain an actual damages and a punitive damages component. So, for example, you lose an arm in an automobile accident and you show the accident was somebody else's fault. In that case, you are entitled to actual damages, usually comprised of hospital bills, lost earning, reduced earnings in the future, pain and suffering, etc. You may also be entitled to a punitive award beyond that designed solely to further punish the tortfeasor. Whether and to what extent it is proper to add a punitive element onto a civil verdict is a question with respect to which many people feel very strongly. It would take too long to lay out all the issues this generates, but, however one feels about the ideologies involved, the fact is that as courts began tolerating higher and higher punitive verdicts (as a percentage of actual damages), the contingency fee lawyers who benefitted along with their clients began making the news -- in a negative way.

I meant caps on the amounts that juries award in civil trials, which is always termed as tort reform.

I really take exception to the idea that courts "tolerate" punitive "verdicts". The judge should never be allowed to change the amount of a jury award. This is a major failing of our court system that seems directly contradictory to our jury system, and can easily allow for favoritism.

Dick and Gerry working out the finer details of Nixon's pardon.

Mr E wrote:

- Rest of your bunkem warrants no response,

Yeah, I'm stunned that you have none.

but the above is particularly rich with you complaining about "runaway plaintiff's verdicts and socialist legislation", in effect complaining about lawyers filing lawsuits enabled by state and federal legislators populated almost entirely by lawyers.

What are talking about "populated almost entirely by lawyers"? Where did you get that "fact"? You just made it up didn't you? In any case, it's not true. But, even if it were true, when did I ever say going to law school made someone a good legislator? [To the contrary, a pretty high percentage of the lawyers I know are well-meaning, if economically challenged, bleeding heart liberals.] More importantly, as it relates to this debate, how does that bear on the integrity issue that your raised in the first place?

Even the unfortunate mentally challenged citizens know intuitively they lack the intellectual capacity of the greater whole, yet you and your ilk ain't even bright enough to see the comedy in your hypocrisy.

You are in no position to call anyone mentally challenged. As for bright, given your diction and syntax and your total and complete ignorance of the legal system, I'd be surprised if you made it into college, let alone graduated. What kind of grades did you get in high school? What do you do for a living? I can hardly wait to hear you tell me where you earned the right to criticize anyone else's intelligence.

That's how sociopaths are so effective, they actually believe their lies they couple with a persuasive personality.

Because your Ph.D means you understand sociopaths? Keep them coming.

Yeah, probably you and your ilk do need the nanny state that bailed out wall street and the banks and have had for decades the whole big corporate ledger set up by corporate welfare crook specialists to milk the public tax monies and set up off shore accounts.

What? I can hardly decipher this but I'll tell you that I don't support the government bailing anything out, be it bank, insurance company, automobile manufacturer or home mortgagor. I'm a little afraid that might mean we agree on something but, again, I can't really tell what you're trying to say.

- Lawyers don't pass muster when the mentally disabled accused's manager is using his personal tax attorney to defend the accused on a federal criminal felony charge. This just a minor travesty compared to the global corporate fraud currently being played out.

What do you mean "pass muster"? This is so badly jumbled I, again, can't understand what you're trying to say. Tyson's manager did something wrong so the prosecuting attorneys were bad people???????

I don't need a law degree to know when something stinks in Denmark

You make it into law school. Now that's "rich," to use your word.

my little Danish pasty.

So now you're a tough guy behind the keyboard, are you? I guarrantee you wouldn't mouth off like that if I were standing next to you boy.

I believe he is saying Tyson's defense attorney didn't pass muster because he believes the attorney was the tax lawyer for Tyson's manager. Again, not true: Tyson was defended by Vincent J. Fuller, one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the USA, and the lawyer who successfully defended John Hinckley Jr.

The Great John L wrote:

Mr E wrote:To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested imposing caps on "settlements." That's a whole different animal.

The issue only arises with jury verdicts but I agree with you that the issue is complicated. Awards in most tort cases contain an actual damages and a punitive damages component. So, for example, you lose an arm in an automobile accident and you show the accident was somebody else's fault. In that case, you are entitled to actual damages, usually comprised of hospital bills, lost earning, reduced earnings in the future, pain and suffering, etc. You may also be entitled to a punitive award beyond that designed solely to further punish the tortfeasor. Whether and to what extent it is proper to add a punitive element onto a civil verdict is a question with respect to which many people feel very strongly. It would take too long to lay out all the issues this generates, but, however one feels about the ideologies involved, the fact is that as courts began tolerating higher and higher punitive verdicts (as a percentage of actual damages), the contingency fee lawyers who benefitted along with their clients began making the news -- in a negative way.

I meant caps on the amounts that juries award in civil trials, which is always termed as tort reform.

I really take exception to the idea that courts "tolerate" punitive "verdicts". The judge should never be allowed to change the amount of a jury award. This is a major failing of our court system that seems directly contradictory to our jury system, and can easily allow for favoritism.

Well, there's no reason to waste each other's time debating this topic on a boxing board. I strenuously disagree with not only your broad statement but also with the assumptions inherent therein, but I have no more interest than I asume you do in hashing that all out here.

I think we can all agree that Broughton is the biggest moron to ever walk the earth. It's horrifying to see his legal opinions are even more pathetic than his take on Boxing. Somebody should put that old horse to sleep.

DIE TOPIC DIE

Mr E wrote:

Yeah, probably you and your ilk do need the nanny state that bailed out wall street and the banks and have had for decades the whole big corporate ledger set up by corporate welfare crook specialists to milk the public tax monies and set up off shore accounts.

What? I can hardly decipher this but I'll tell you that I don't support the government bailing anything out, be it bank, insurance company, automobile manufacturer or home mortgagor. I'm a little afraid that might mean we agree on something but, again, I can't really tell what you're trying to say.

- You can't decipher anything that ain't been spoonfed to you from your cushy button down world.

The reason being that you've never had an original thought in your life, being genetically predisposed to be a houseboy to the corporate welfare crooks running the nanny state.

You want to see the future of law, all you have to do is go to Afghanistan and Pakistan where the law of the "democratic state" has been so corrupt and so useless that the people are starting to turn to Islamic clerics for sharia law just as sure as Mexicans fled enmasse to the US where the civil rights of being an illegal immigrant trumps anything they had in Mexico.

In this country we have vast sections of innercities the police are loathe to patrol and who are scarcely responsible to any authority. On the southern border we have militia groups running point for the besieged border patrol. Meanwhile, back at the pass, the so called "6th largest economy in the world," Cali, is having to pay employees and vendors in IOU vouchers they have become so bankrupt as the tent city of newly displaced homeowners grows daily outside of Sacramento, victims of the new global financial derivatives bill passed by Congress and signed into "law" in 99 by outgoing Prez Slick.

Check out his take on this fraud. Goes from near bankruptcy from legal defenses involving real estate fraud and perjury and disbarment to claiming $100mil incomes on his tax return. Sweet work if you can stomach it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think we can all agree that Broughton is the biggest moron to ever walk the earth. It's horrifying to see his legal opinions are even more pathetic than his take on Boxing. Somebody should put that old horse to sleep.

It has to be a wind-up.

No one can be as dim as he makes out to be.

- You can't decipher anything that ain't been spoonfed to you from your cushy button down world.

Yeah, and you've come out the inner city and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, is that right? I bet you've never held the same job for more than a year, let alone performed to the level (or earned the degree) that anyone would pay you to put on a suit. But since you flatter yourself to cast these kinds of broad, sweeping aspersions on other careers, I ask you again: What do you do that makes you so proud of yourself? This I have to hear. And try to form a few complete sentences that contain a few specifics -- that's a long shot, I know, but there's a first time for everything.

The reason being that you've never had an original thought in your life, being genetically predisposed to be a houseboy to the corporate welfare crooks running the nanny state.

Yet another mindless piece of drivel by a semi-literate cretin. If there were no other evidence, the sentence 'corporate welfare crooks running the nanny state,' would show you to be a total and complete lightweight. But let's tease it out a little bit: Do you believe the government provides too much welfare support ("nanny state," remember) or have the big evil corporations taken over started oppressing all the poor citizens. By all means, let's hear your political philosophy. Again, though, see if you can't give us a little detail.

You want to see the future of law, all you have to do is go to Afghanistan and Pakistan where the law of the "democratic state" has been so corrupt and so useless that the people are starting to turn to Islamic clerics for sharia law just as sure as Mexicans fled enmasse to the US where the civil rights of being an illegal immigrant trumps anything they had in Mexico.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your facts, as usual, are so jumbled I can't tell if you're just ignorant or fundamentally dishonest.

That said, if I understand you right, I may actually agree with you on the main point -- namely, that there are continuing civil rights violations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But what does that have to do with the "future of the law" in your mind?

In this country we have vast sections of innercities the police are loathe to patrol and who are scarcely responsible to any authority. On the southern border we have militia groups running point for the besieged border patrol. Meanwhile, back at the pass, the so called "6th largest economy in the world," Cali, is having to pay employees and vendors in IOU vouchers they have become so bankrupt as the tent city of newly displaced homeowners grows daily outside of Sacramento, victims of the new global financial derivatives bill passed by Congress and signed into "law" in 99 by outgoing Prez Slick.

Some of this is true, some is not, but what's it got to do with your statement that lawyers, as a class, are dishonest? Recall, it was your broad attack on this entire group that provoked my initial response and took us down this path in the first instance. I couldn't care less what your politics are or how you think the country needs to be fixed.

Anyone wanna talk about Lewis & Tyson?

Tyson would've knocked him out, but Lewis achieved more.