As a lawyer who can always use another trip to Greece, I say, "Well done, Dawg."
Happy to accept retainers to sue (or threaten at least) persons who disagree with your point of view and who express that disagreement.
Too little money is spent on the legal profession, and too much is being spent on frivolous things like, oh, assisting the less advantaged. But that sort of Conservative pap I'm sure get's old after a while.. so, nevermind..the retainer is $5,000.00.
I believe that the issue is not quite as glib as the manner you portrayed it, roblaw.
It's more serious than a divergence of opinion. But do continue to trivialize such occurences, it gives readers a better sense of what kind of lawyer you are.
Dawg blogs, gives as good as he gets, and as the saying goes, "It's all fun and games til someone loses an eye".
The last thing we need are lawyers becoming MORE involved in the blog world.
Do you really think that anyone who matters to Dr. Dawg was actually affected by the blog he's threatening to sue over. That's the legal test.
So - either you have to concede that there are "right thinking" (no pun intended) members of the public who would, upon reading the offending blog, think less of Dr. Dawg, or, you have to concede he has no suit.
The kind of lawyer I am? One who discourages people from filing suits they can't afford, after causes that don't matter, to seek redress they probably will not get.
Not so much trouble Ti-Guy. And Conservatives could just as easily file suits a la Warman, Kinsella, Dawg, et al.. but perhaps the practical side of throwing money away on pointless litigation is somethink more understood on the pragmatic side of the political spectrum than the, uh.. less pragmatic side.
((but perhaps the practical side of throwing money away on pointless litigation is somethink more understood on the pragmatic side of the political spectrum than the, uh.. less pragmatic side.))
Which, I'm sure, explains the Conservative Harper government's filing contra the legal decisions on the three men who were tortured.
And Ti-Guy, what the hell are you even talking about?
"asserting specific things"?
I'm asserting that, firstly, the legal system and litigation in particular, is a singularly bad way to deal with a dispute.
That I can guarantee you based upon personal experience as a litigator for 24 years.
I'm asserting that Richard Warman, Warren Kinsella, and now, Dr. Dawg, have all hired lawyers to sue or threaten suits for defamation.
That, last I checked, is demonstrably true.
I'm asserting that right-side political bloggers who are regularly attacked.. err, "harshly criticized" for their views, could also file suit.
That's also a fact.
What I'm then suggesting, and on this point, I'm admittedly just basing this on pure conjecture, that maybe conservative bloggers are less likely to thrown the money away on a suit that's guaranteed to be expensive and time consuming, and unlikely, at the end of the day to give you much satisfaction, even if you win.
"Raphie went beyond saying Dawg supported the Taliban. If I recall correctly he stated that Dawg was “a person who admits he supports the Taliban” or something like that. Oddly enough, Raphie couldn’t come up with a link to any statement like that when asked."
From a comment at Raffy's place. I vaguely remember the post.
Yes. that Conservatives could easily launch suits à la Warman, Kinsella and Dawg. That is patently false. There's only one side here that's been engaging in actionable expression with primitive abandon, and that's the Right.
You know it, I know it, we all know it, the occasional flame war and use of the word "cunt" notwithstanding.
Rob - would it be fair to say you have not been consulted in this case, and that you, in fact, have no idea whether or not Dawg has suffered any damages as a result of this post?
Because if it is, I suggest you stop speaking in absolutes, and start acknowledging you are speculating.
And of course, the entire episode may now be moot since RA has deleted the offensive comments. Dawg may feel that his retainer (something else I assume you were speculating on) was worth it to have the comments removed.
In any event, as I for one do not have all the facts, I am certainly not going to concede he has no suit. I prefer informed opinions.
I'm honoured to be rebutted by a lawyer who sticks to the merits, unlike the scattered little mind of a self that he doesn't know, but is willing to proclaim upon.
What Niles, didn't you know that family lawyers know everything? Rob is a master of all things law. That's why everyone always agrees with him ;) It must be boring in Lethbridge these days, or not a lot of people are getting divorced.
24 comments:
As a lawyer who can always use another trip to Greece, I say, "Well done, Dawg."
Happy to accept retainers to sue (or threaten at least) persons who disagree with your point of view and who express that disagreement.
Too little money is spent on the legal profession, and too much is being spent on frivolous things like, oh, assisting the less advantaged. But that sort of Conservative pap I'm sure get's old after a while.. so, nevermind..the retainer is $5,000.00.
Let's have at 'er.
Any idea what this is about?
I believe that the issue is not quite as glib as the manner you portrayed it, roblaw.
It's more serious than a divergence of opinion. But do continue to trivialize such occurences, it gives readers a better sense of what kind of lawyer you are.
Too little money is spent on the legal profession, and too much is being spent on frivolous things like, oh, assisting the less advantaged.
How cares? It's all aid to the indigent.
If we insisted laws and regulations be written in clear language and trained lawyers to communicate in known languages, we wouldn't need 99% of you.
It's a catfight. Pure and simple.
Dawg blogs, gives as good as he gets, and as the saying goes, "It's all fun and games til someone loses an eye".
The last thing we need are lawyers becoming MORE involved in the blog world.
Do you really think that anyone who matters to Dr. Dawg was actually affected by the blog he's threatening to sue over. That's the legal test.
So - either you have to concede that there are "right thinking" (no pun intended) members of the public who would, upon reading the offending blog, think less of Dr. Dawg, or, you have to concede he has no suit.
The kind of lawyer I am? One who discourages people from filing suits they can't afford, after causes that don't matter, to seek redress they probably will not get.
..call me a cock-eyed idealist.
You'd do better to lecture your fellow Conservatives on the nuances of free expression, hate speech, and libel/defamation.
I, in fact, blame you Conservatives for the legal trouble the poor, sappy little wingnuts have gotten themselves into.
This is rich...Rob the lawyer is disparaging teachers over at Raphael Alexander's.
Not so much trouble Ti-Guy. And Conservatives could just as easily file suits a la Warman, Kinsella, Dawg, et al.. but perhaps the practical side of throwing money away on pointless litigation is somethink more understood on the pragmatic side of the political spectrum than the, uh.. less pragmatic side.
. And Conservatives could just as easily file suits a la Warman, Kinsella, Dawg, et al..
You mean for being mean to them, for calling them bad words like "cunt" and for mocking them from behind our glasses of Chardonnay?
God, I wish they would. I'm surprised the cranky babies haven't already.
Anyway, you're bullshitting again. Asserting specific things for which you provide no evidence. That's not very professional.
((but perhaps the practical side of throwing money away on pointless litigation is somethink more understood on the pragmatic side of the political spectrum than the, uh.. less pragmatic side.))
Which, I'm sure, explains the Conservative Harper government's filing contra the legal decisions on the three men who were tortured.
Well, now that was directly on point Niles.
And the Liberals stole money from Canadians with adscam.
And Pierre Elliot Trudeau gave Western Canada the literal "finger"...
Niles. Please try to keep your scattered little mind on the subject at hand.
Or Harper suing Dion for appropriating his image. Which was subsequently dropped.
Although I'm sure that little dodge to shut the Liberals up about the In-and-Out scandal is what people like Rob consider pragmatic.
And Pierre Elliot Trudeau gave Western Canada the literal "finger"...
*sigh* I miss Trudeau.
And Ti-Guy, what the hell are you even talking about?
"asserting specific things"?
I'm asserting that, firstly, the legal system and litigation in particular, is a singularly bad way to deal with a dispute.
That I can guarantee you based upon personal experience as a litigator for 24 years.
I'm asserting that Richard Warman, Warren Kinsella, and now, Dr. Dawg, have all hired lawyers to sue or threaten suits for defamation.
That, last I checked, is demonstrably true.
I'm asserting that right-side political bloggers who are regularly attacked.. err, "harshly criticized" for their views, could also file suit.
That's also a fact.
What I'm then suggesting, and on this point, I'm admittedly just basing this on pure conjecture, that maybe conservative bloggers are less likely to thrown the money away on a suit that's guaranteed to be expensive and time consuming, and unlikely, at the end of the day to give you much satisfaction, even if you win.
..maybe I'm wrong. But, that's my opinion.
Robert,its about something like:
"Raphie went beyond saying Dawg supported the Taliban. If I recall correctly he stated that Dawg was “a person who admits he supports the Taliban” or something like that. Oddly enough, Raphie couldn’t come up with a link to any statement like that when asked."
From a comment at Raffy's place. I vaguely remember the post.
There's the link to the comment:
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/the-wonderful-world-of-not-being-anonymous/#comment-14050
"asserting specific things"?
Yes. that Conservatives could easily launch suits à la Warman, Kinsella and Dawg. That is patently false. There's only one side here that's been engaging in actionable expression with primitive abandon, and that's the Right.
You know it, I know it, we all know it, the occasional flame war and use of the word "cunt" notwithstanding.
Ti-Guy.. certainly you're not that naive.
I could file a hundred suits against you today. You don't need to have a case to sue somebody.
And, even when you don't have a case, (see the Warman decision), well, in our legal system, even a broken watch is right two times a day.
Sorry, Rob. I thought you were trying to make a substantive point. I didn't reallise you were just wanking it two-fisted.
Never mind.
BCL is a cheapskate. I'd send Dawg 5 AMERICAN dollars.
*checks exchange rate*
Curses! Never mind...
Rob - would it be fair to say you have not been consulted in this case, and that you, in fact, have no idea whether or not Dawg has suffered any damages as a result of this post?
Because if it is, I suggest you stop speaking in absolutes, and start acknowledging you are speculating.
And of course, the entire episode may now be moot since RA has deleted the offensive comments. Dawg may feel that his retainer (something else I assume you were speculating on) was worth it to have the comments removed.
In any event, as I for one do not have all the facts, I am certainly not going to concede he has no suit. I prefer informed opinions.
"And Pierre Elliot Trudeau gave Western Canada the literal "finger"..."
Talk about holding a grudge....
I'm honoured to be rebutted by a lawyer who sticks to the merits, unlike the scattered little mind of a self that he doesn't know, but is willing to proclaim upon.
What Niles, didn't you know that family lawyers know everything? Rob is a master of all things law. That's why everyone always agrees with him ;) It must be boring in Lethbridge these days, or not a lot of people are getting divorced.
Post a Comment