To: Al Franken, Senate Candidate
From: Mitch Berg, common schmuck
Re: Profile in Courage
Mr. Franken,
It has to look bad now; your tax problems are becoming a pop-culture punch line to the point where even some of the people who drank your kool-aid are trying to toss you under the bus.
This has to be the dark night of your political soul.
But I urge you, Al – fight the tide! Take those who are trying to throw you under the bus, and body slam them like you did that senior citizen who was heckling Howard Dean. Rhetorically, I mean.
Let’s face it, Al – you were “swiftboated” [*]!
Because if you depart the race, what is the DFL left with? A dozey addlepated pseudoprofessor from a “peace studies” “program” (St. Thomas adopted the program because it didn’t fit National American University’s standards of academic rigor), and yet another lawyer. Norm Coleman’s a lawyer, for crying out loud; they’re practically kissing cousins!
So you have to stay in this campaign, Al. You have to! Because…er, you owe it to the children! Only you have what New York needs.
Minnesota. Only you have what Minnesota needs. Sorry.
Anyway – stay the course, Al! The Strib’s hard at work gundecking all that “tax” folderol, anyway – you can ride this out, with a little help from your friends at 425 Portland (occupant moved, no forwarding address)
You can do it, Al!
That is all.
[*] “swift-boat-ing, v. To tell inflammatory, incriminating stories about Democrats that happen to be documentably completely true.
So in other words, Peev knows Franken as well as he knows lawyers’ ethics?
Hm.
Smear Boaters are just what the names states, Smear artists with a political purpose, the truth be damned.
Funny, flashinthepants just described Kerry! Can’t you see he agrees with SBVFT that there was not a grain of truth in Kerry’s Cambodia “seared” recollections and Winter Soldier testimony?
I think it was at the 2004 RNC in New York
That was an altercation with Laura Ingraham’s producer. But than Al had blown up so many times, who can keep track?
So in other words, Peev knows Franken as well as he knows lawyers’ ethics?
all part of the job description for a compliance officer.
In the case of Mrs. AC the elder, the banger just *thought* he was at a pizza joint when Mrs. AC “opened for business”, as it were.
“banging the skank” could also be a euphemism for impersonating Eva Young commentary.
Someone, please start up a blog for Peev: Confessions of a Compliance Officer.
That was an altercation with Laura Ingraham’s producer. But than Al had blown up so many times, who can keep track?
Franken’s Medved Meltdown may have been at the Minnesota State Fair. As I recall it required extensive use of the seven-second delay.
ACtually Mitch, you wontonly misquoted me there. And I’ll up your lawyers with my law professor – IF Johnson were representing someone, and practiced out of area – he’d be open to malpractice. I said it was similar to malpractice, not that he was committing it, thanks for misunderstanding btw. Try again later.
What the law professor (UofIowa – acquaintance said, oh, and 2 other lawyers I know said was) – tell your friends to have Johnson prove his point – would you hire him to do so? If not, if instead you’d hire a competent attorney in the area, then his conduct was professionally arrogant, and certainly impolite – and probably professionally imprudent and unprofessional.
I didn’t read their replies – if they can’t post immediately, it’s just not worth the time. Undoubtedly, they, like you, assuming they’re neo-cons, will parse the issue into something I didn’t actually say. however, practicing out of specialty, IS in fact, opening the door to a malpractice charge, whether you get it or not. And that, doofus, isn’t limited to law, it includes ANY profession where there is a standards of practice expectation. They may render an opinion, but doing so when they KNOW they aren’t competent in the area – and in this case making it public – were HE representing someone on the point, you damned well bet he’d be open to a claim – if you think not, you’re an idiot.
So.. my reply, all I asked Mitch was for Johnson to establish his bona fides – not an unreasonable request, a normal request in fact. That you don’t grasp that it’s considered HIGHLY professionally irresponsible to say that another attorney is WRONG in an area you don’t practice in, I get too.
Oh, and Mitch, why the hell shouldn’t I bring up what a philandering jerk coleman is? You certainly refrained from bringing it up about Clinton, right?
You ever live by the standards you demand, I mean, even once?
Oh, and Mitch, you care to defend again how your blog isn’t a flame board?
And Chad – my apology – I thought you were criticizing Flash for general comments about realities of service and servicemen in Vietnam – I was wrong, sorry, but there is a LOT of commentary, no defense, I was wrong.
(Btw Mitch, that’s how you apologize, you don’t qualify it, saying “IF you took offense” – the conduct was wrong, you say “my bad” and move on) – the other implies it’s actually the person’s fault you’re apologizing to. Get it?
Man, when psychiatrists finally get around to naming and classifying Internet Commenting Disorder, I want to be there when the men in white coats come to put Peev in a straightjacket.
A certain Far Side cartoon comes to mind:
http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/FarSide.jpg
“Oh, and Mitch, you care to defend again how your blog isn’t a flame board?”
Just because *you* insist on typing comments while wearing a sundress doesn’t mean everyone’s a flamer, pv.
ACtually Mitch, you wontonly misquoted me there.
No, I quoted the several different takes you swerved through on this quite accurately.
And I’ll up your lawyers with my law professor
Oh, now you have a law professor, too? Mirabile Dictu!
Baloney, Peev. You don’t have a law professor; you may have met one, maybe you have a neighbor who might be one, but you didn’t ask him about any of this. Your “law professor” that you “raise” us with is no more germane than your experience as a “compliance officer”.
But what the heck, I’ll play along. Cough up a name for this “law professor”, or let it drop.
You got nothing. Your “argument” got butchered, and not in a nice way. Admit defeat and walk away.
– IF Johnson were representing someone, and practiced out of area – he’d be open to malpractice.
ANY LAWYER is “open to malpractice” whenever they represent someone, in or out of “their field”.
But you continue with this utterly-wrong notion that a lawyer’s *area* is some formal, black and white line that lawyers must never cross; as Jay Reding noted, that’s true only for Admiralty and Patent law.
Lawyers (outside the above) “specialize” by virtue of the kind of law they practice and develop proficiency and advanced knowledge in. A lawyer of my very close acquaintance is a divorce lawyer, primarily, but also does personal injury when needed. Any claims of malpractice spring from their actions, not their “specialty”.
I said it was similar to malpractice, not that he was committing it, thanks for misunderstanding btw. Try again later.
Now you’re weaseling.
What the law professor (UofIowa – acquaintance said, oh, and 2 other lawyers I know said was)
Name them, or shut up about them. Every time you back yourself into a rhetorical corner, you start pulling “acquaintences” out of your butt – unnamed “experts” who all, magically, confirm everything you say!
Of course, I have experts – real lawyers who are well-known to many of us, Jay Reding and Joe “Learned Foot” Tucci – who have completely gutted everything you’ve said.
So real people trump invisible, unnamed “experts” that magically appear in the comment section, conjured forth by an anonymous commenter, and remain themselves anonymous.
tell your friends to have Johnson prove his point – would you hire him to do so?
To do what?
Read a law for me?
I don’t have to “hire” him to do that. He does it for free. People can gauge his credibility accordingly. You are perfectly free to discount his opinion, and rely on your magicallly-compliant “experts”!
I didn’t read their replies – if they can’t post immediately, it’s just not worth the time.
What an incredibly gutless, evasive non-response.
YOU GOT BEATEN! You wrote rhetorical check your knowledge couldn’t cash, and you got busted!
Undoubtedly, they, like you, assuming they’re neo-cons, will parse the issue into something I didn’t actually say.
Wrong! Go and read it!
And learn to answer criticism with more than just ad-homina!
however, practicing out of specialty, IS in fact, opening the door to a malpractice charge, whether you get it or not.
Says you. A “former compliance officer”, along with a bunch of anonymous “lawyers” and “professors” whose credibility we can’t assess, since they
don’t existare anonymous.And that, doofus, isn’t limited to law, it includes ANY profession where there is a standards of practice expectation.
IN ORDER TO GO TO TRIAL, or give legal advice!
You’ve been busted in a bunch of mistakes, caught trying to weasel out of it with ad-homina (“doofus”, “neo-con”) that address NOTHING, and – I strongly suspect – you have gone behind appeal to false authority, all the way to nonexistent authority.
It’s like arguing with a cranky teenager.
Oh, and Mitch, why the hell shouldn’t I bring up what a philandering jerk coleman is?
I never rendered guidance one way or the other!
You certainly refrained from bringing it up about Clinton, right?
I didn’t have a blog back then, actually.
You ever live by the standards you demand, I mean, even once?
Every day, in every way.
Start coughing up names of your “experts”, or admit you’re trying and failing miserably to BS us all.
Get on it, “doofus”.
Oh, and Mitch, you care to defend again how your blog isn’t a flame board?
Would you care to defend again how you are not a serial shoplifter?
I mean, one irrelevant, preposterous, dumb charge deserves another, right?
(Btw Mitch, that’s how you apologize, you don’t qualify it, saying “IF you took offense” – the conduct was wrong, you say “my bad” and move on) – the other implies it’s actually the person’s fault you’re apologizing to. Get it?
And in every case, the flameage on this site is your fault. I have nothing to apologize for that I haven’t done long ago.
Don’t like it? Go elsewhere! It’s a free country!
I said it was similar to malpractice, not that he was committing it, thanks for misunderstanding btw. Try again later.
no you said it was malpractice – go slog thru your own drivel its right in there. That makes you – a bald faced liar! No nuance needed here.
I said it was similar to malpractice, not that he was committing it, thanks for misunderstanding btw. Try again later.
Here was the direct quote – click the link to see it in your own writing:
“A lawyer who comments out of school is perpetrating malpractice – if you don’t believe that, I don’t care, you’re dead wrong, no ifs, no ands, no buts.”
That is what you wrote – no, ahem, ifs ands or buts about it.
That’s worded pretty dang strongly – as if you’re really really sure you’re right. No ifs, ands…well, you know where that goes, don’t you?
Peev won’t go elsewhere, Mitch. Since you have a larger readership than most bloggers, Peev can perform his pathetic little performance art in front a larger audience. I really think Peev enjoys marching into the bayonets that are arrayed before him here. It gives his life meaning. Every time Yoss whacks Peev with his kendo stick, Peev feels a little more alive.
Kermit:
There was also a priceless altercation between Al and Michael Medved where Al demonstrated on live radio the extent of his self control and seething rage. I know there is tape out there on that one. I think it was at the 2004 RNC in New York.
Yes it was, either the next day or two days after the Laura Ingraham incident. I istened to it ive as I drove to work.
I’m telling you, Al’s seething was Hall-of-Fame worthy.
I was corrected. The RNC 2004 blowup was with Laura Ingraham’s producer. There was another one with Medved. Alan seems to have a lack of self control (along with a lack of financial control).
Angry Clown wrote:
You might want to decrease the frequency, Terry. It clearly makes you light-headed. Or maybe the metal plate is too tight.
Hell, if I give any more blood I’m gonna apply for a purple heart.
“Oh, and Mitch…”. “Oh, and Mitch…”. Aunty Em, Aunty Em….geez….that’s almost embarassing (for most people anyway).
Peev drooled: “IF Johnson were representing someone, and practiced out of area – he’d be open to malpractice”
Actually (I tend to use that word a lot with Peev), a lawyer is open to malpractice every time he practices law. All malpractice is is professional negligence. Even in his own area of practice.
I think Peev was ham fistedly trying to recall some conversation that involved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (adopted virtually everywhere):
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
and let’s not forget the ABA’s helpful comment in relevant part:
A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar.
link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/CRule_1.1.htm
There are no presumptions in this area save one:
A duly licensed attorney is presumed competent to participate in any action requirinng legal expertise with a couple of exceptions that have already been noted.
Since attorneys are trained to do legal research and have the superhuman ability to read long, boring and often poorly written opinions and treatises, the requisite expertise for most given cases can be gotten over the course of a couple of days of dry reading and maybe a couple of phone calls.
This is why probate lawyers in small towns with few resources often find themselves in the roles of public defenders ofin criminal proceedings. And they cannot back out unless they have a really good reason.
And in any event, Peev compounds the confusion by (unwittingly based on second hand knowlege) citing a rule that governs professional conduct (the penalty for which is administrative) and a commmon law tort.
So, in conclusion, Peev needs to shut the hell up.
(Closed circuit to Jay: note how this comment was in the form of a perfect IRAC!)
Peev: “And BusCo invaded IRAC without any reason”.
I feel like I’m ahead of the game now.
I can’t get the picture out of my head: 2 kids, 1 with a 2X4…
*WHACK* “didn’t hurt” *WHACK* “didn’t…hurt” *WHACK* “DIDN’T hurt” *WHACK* “DIDN’T…….HURT”