Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: logtroll Lies and the Law - 05/19/21 01:15 PM
Lying is a major problem for humans. I might tend to think of lying superficially as a clear and well defined act, but the real range and complexity of lying is infinite and ubiquitous - even extending into the contrary realms of good and bad.

Lying is even defended by some interpretations of Constitutionally protected free speech.

What stimulated this post was the anticipation of lies to follow the AZ election ’audit’, but the reason for starting a fresh topic has to do with a construction contract legal dispute that I have been enjoying for three years now. The essence of the dispute has to do with a progress payment application that the owner refused to allow based upon her “feeling that the contractor had not done enough work to justify the payment”.

As it happens, the process stipulated by the bank for disbursements of loan funds requires that a 3rd party professional be engaged to do an inspection to correlate and certify that the goods and/or services for which payment is requested had actually been delivered - the “feelings” of the client are not in the contract anywhere. Oddly, neither the client, nor the bank, have chosen to follow that simple (and pre-funded) contractual requirement.

In a bizarre dance that has now involved four judges and eight learned barristers on the opposing side, and (fortunately) one retired, and highly experienced attorney working for us pro bono, we are three years into a mess wherein the substance of the dispute (the failure to have a competent 3rd party inspection and certification) has never been presented in court. The reason for this is the absolute avalanche of lies and fraudulent speculation about why we didn’t deserve to be paid have so befuddled the not-so-competent judges into thinking that this may be the most complex case ever to come before them, that they prefer to punt, and grant any motion to delay that is put before them. (One of the more amusing ones was a motion to dismiss by the bank on the grounds that the payment protocol imposed by them, that they refuse to implement, is not a contractual agreement with us, therefore they are free to ignore it).

I should throw in here that I have no good idea of why the bank has refused to follow their own progress payment protocol - they took $3750 from the client’s loan funds up front at closing to pay for 3rd party progress payment inspections - are they simply trying to skim that amount from their client? If so, they have now spent an estimated $50,000 on lawyers to protect $3750 in ill-gotten booty. Incidentally, we did finally hire a 3rd party inspector (a retired architect) to certify our pay app, which he did - but the bank and our former client are trying to dismiss his evidence as biased - because we paid him...

To the point (the topic is lying and the law), we finally got the parties to agree to binding arbitration (which as stipulated in our contract to be the first recourse in case of any contract dispute, in order to avoid the courts...). For arbitration, the same discovery process is followed as for a lawsuit, so we have been in the process of corralling our former client, collecting evidence debunking her amazing string of frauds and lies. For the most part, her attorneys have not done any due diligence in ascertaining which of her facts are true, and have merely repeated them to the court. A couple of years ago, she engaged her insurance company, who is now defending her, but not prosecuting any claims against us. She attempted to represent her companies (two are involved, an LLC and a corporation) but as she is not an attorney, that is not allowed by law. She is representing herself as an individual, however.

The discovery process is gradually awakening her insurance provided counsel to the fact that she has been lying to them (no prior due diligence into their client’s statements, either) which puts them in a difficult situation - they can’t ethically represent lies, and could be sanctioned if they do.

In a strategy review conversation with our counsel yesterday, he said that given the now well-documented pattern and practice of lying by our (primary) opponent, he plans to file a motion to prevent her from testifying on the basis of having put a fraud upon the court. If the motion is granted, she (and her irrational and dishonest “feelings”) will have to sit in a soundproof booth while we present our case and the arbitrator decides how much she owes us. The insurance attorneys are not going to be able to mount much of a defense because they will have no assurance that what she told them was the truth.

Perhaps the moral of this post is that, even though lying is pervasive and disgusting, it is possible to navigate our cumbersome ‘rule of law’ to find a cure in the end, even though it is an ugly process.

A real cure would be a healing of the human mind to not be devious, dishonest, and destructive. But I think our extinction will come sooner than that cure!
Posted By: TatumAH Re: Lies and the Law - 05/19/21 01:27 PM
No Lying Lynxes?
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 05/19/21 05:45 PM
I think that some lies are illegal and some are not. Ponzi schemes, for instance, is just lies which end up with everybody losing money, and is illegal. Actually it does seem that if a lie results in somebody losing money then they are illegal. Apparently, however, at least in this country, the same doesn't apply to somebody telling lies to bring down a nation by attacking said nation with lies?

A lie is, I think, saying something that is known to not be true and cannot stand against the truth in the end. The problem is that people have a right to lie so long as nobody gets hurt or separated from their money. When that happen then, I think, some law gets broken. When, however, a nation is attacked by lies, by its citizens, then its OK.

I have a problem with that. The problem, when dealing with politics, is that those problems always seem to be lies. There should be some way to deal with those and I don't think we have any way right now.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Lies and the Law - 05/19/21 06:04 PM
While I love lying lynxes (and virtually every other posture), I despise lying by humans. Sometimes (as a string of Trump campaign attorneys realized) lying in court can result in serious consequences. I had an opponent in court many years ago who was also a licensee of the agency I represented. He routinely lied in virtually every tribunal he appeared before. And not just little fibs, but blatantly, outrageously änd repeatedly, in very Trumpian fashion. Eventually every judge in his home county refused to accept pleadings from him, and I got sanctions in several forums even unrequested. (I almost never requested them.) Sadly, he ultimately died of a brain tumor, which made me wonder if he'd always just been an [censored] (his reputation indicated so), or had been suffering from a brain disorder the whole time.

What this experience taught me though, is that some people deploy lying as a strategy, rather than something that is morally reprehensible. That has become the preferred operational strategy of the modern GOP. My experience has also taught me that combating it is difficult, cumbersome, but necessary.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 05/20/21 01:18 AM
Our entire judicial system has been based on the fact that men tell the truth under oath.

That's no longer the case.

Bullsh*t legal strategies have become the norm.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 05/20/21 12:53 PM
I’d modify that slightly to say, “a strategy of chaos resulting from boolshit storms”, which is also known as the Trumpian Gambit.

The basic BS strategy is fairly easily identified, but a storm of BS can be extremely disorienting. I have learned that humans tend to max out at holding three thoughts simultaneously in our minds (think of going to the grocery store without a list... also, it is standard advice when giving a talk to limit yourself to three points, and to make them three times). What happens when additional points are included is the previous ones fall out of mind, the result being incomprehensible chaos.
Posted By: TatumAH Re: Lies and the Law - 05/20/21 03:15 PM
Crows can only count to 3, more than that is considered as Many

Quote
An old story says that crows have the ability to count. Three hunters go into a blind situated near a field where watchful crows roam. They wait, but the crows refuse to move into shooting range. One hunter leaves the blind, but the crows won't appear. The second hunter leaves the blind, but the crows still won't budge. Only when the third hunter leaves, the crows realize that the coast is clear and resume their normal feeding activity.

Neurobiologists have discovered cells in the crow brain that respond to a specific number of items. The study provides valuable insights into the biological roots of counting capabilities. What makes this finding even more interesting is that a long evolutionary history separates us from birds; as a consequence, the brains of crows and humans are designed very differently.

Not very different apparently!

TAT
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 05/20/21 03:41 PM
!
.
.

It is, in fact, the fourth hunter who emerges to kill the crows...
.

It is exactly how propaganda works...

if you know how the creature's mind works you can use that to control them.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 05/20/21 05:17 PM
There is one other thing about liars, particularly those that lie all the time. They are, basically crazy and have little or no connection with the reality the rest of us try to deal with. I am actually not convinced that is the problem with Trump.

As a matter of fact I am not too sure that we now have a huge number of crazy people who simply cannot deal with reality and have taken another path.

On the other hand I also wonder if its possible that this is a brand new mental illness which has taken hold, perhaps spread by the pandemic?

In any case, given that it seem we are all going to have to come to terms with dealing with these people then, perhaps, its time for the shrinks to make this a regular disease and then gov can step in and force everybody to be examined by an office lie doctor and issue a card as to whether the person in question is, or is not, officially, a liar that cannot help him/her self. If they are then you have another choice. Listen to the lies or just walk. This solution would create jobs (for lie doctors, card makers, etc) and give others a chance to just walk away.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 05/25/21 11:01 AM
Cards are not a solution. Google searches for fake vaccination cards are way up. Just tattoo "LIAR" in big bold block letters on their foreheads.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 05/25/21 05:33 PM
I now carry my basic med stuff, like shots, on a report from the VA. Part of that report deals with my covid shots. I figure that one is about as good as I can get. I also carry my shot card as well.

I wrote to the president, a couple of months ago, asking that he get some kind of card that can be checked, if necessary. No reply no nuthin and not counting on it. My suspicion is that, eventually the bodies giving the shots and issuing the cards are going to put a reference number on each card so that anybody can go to the authorizing authority and get the facts. That should be pretty simple and easily done from a phone or computer. In my case that would be my country health department.

I actually don't get it. I have my vaccinations and should be safe. Those who have not had their shots, and have not had Covid, are, in theory, not safe. Those not safe have decided not to be safe and do not threaten me so, basically, they have chosen their road and I wish them luck but, should one of them get Covid I don't feel bad for them because that was their choice and they made it. My wife tells me that's a terrible thing. I don't think so. The Main problem is trying to get to a point where the Covid has no place to go and those anti-vacer folks are, apparently, determined that everybody get Covid before that happens, even if it kills them. I, for one, am a bit tired of whining about a bunch of folks who are determined to have it their way and screw the rest. Perhaps if they get covid a point will be made. If they don't then that's a different point I guess.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 05/26/21 05:09 AM
They will get it eventually. It's going to be around for a long while. Maybe permanently, since there are plenty of wild animal reservoirs. As more lethal variants emerge, vaccinated people will be kept out of the hospitals by their T-cell immunity so they get asymptomatic or mild cases. But the virus they spread will be more lethal to those not vaccinated or previously infected, Uninfected and unvaccinated people make up a sizable chunk of the US population. I think this is not going to go well for them.

But maybe anti-vaxxers will learn an important lesson and public health will regain some of it's rightful place in American politics.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 05/26/21 04:57 PM
Quote
But maybe anti-vaxxers will learn an important lesson and public health will regain some of it's rightful place in American politics.

Or maybe Darwin will prove correct once again and all the lessons learned will be by those of us left after God raptures their asses up to heaven via his Covid creation...
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 05/26/21 05:45 PM
You may be right but I have my doubts. The current crop of anti-vaxxers are not exactly like those who won't let their kids get shots for the standards, like whooping coughs. These are people who have given up reality for their personal realities and I don't think its really about the vaccine itself although that is their claim (amongst others). The problem is that they might give you any number of reasons, many of which are incredibly senseless. These folks cannot, literally, change their minds as it just doesn't seem to be possible.

I know, it makes no sense but, it seems, that's their thing! The only thing, so far, that they haven't politicized so far is the weather but I suspect that is probably on the way. When its raining and they start denying it with rain running off their noses THEN its gonna get even more interesting!

Sorry - I have little faith..........
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/02/21 01:11 PM
Matters on our construction contact payment dispute are evolving. The bank has made an offer to settle that we have accepted - I guess they didn’t want a public loss and a another potential class action suit for stealing fees from their clients (by not providing services that they took money for, and lying about it). Our nemesis should have sued them for that - she could have shifted much of the blame for her bad faith actions onto the bank. Instead, she chose to take their side, and now they have left her alone on Defendant’s Island.

We expect an offer of settlement from our opponent’s insurance company soon (prior to the scheduled arbitration hearing in a couple of weeks) relative to the covered claims of conversion, trespass, and defamation, for which we have solid cases.

We don’t expect the Trumpish woman who caused all of this to capitulate, though. The remaining claims of breach and wrongful termination of contract, and quantum meruit (I know about a dozen Latin words now!) will likely be decided by the arbitrator along with amounts for damages and hopefully legal costs.

Assuming we prevail, our next hobby will be trying to collect…
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/02/21 02:13 PM
Quote
Assuming we prevail, our next hobby will be trying to collect…
I wouldn't count on it. But I'm pretty cynical about separating the rich from their riches. If an insurance company gets stuck with the tab then you're good to go...but if somebody has to write a personal check, you're f*cked.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/04/21 12:58 PM
I once won a small claims action against a deadbeat client. The guy was a logger - 3rd generation - he owned a Cat skidder and his wife owned and operated the local (rural) tavern called Falls Inn (it was actually built over a creek next to a 15" high waterfall). I built and installed some kitchen cabinets for them and while the job was in progress he hurt his back and was laid up for some time. Because of that I didn't press him very hard to pay right away, hoping he would recover soon and get back to work (he specialized in logging poles - tall straight Western Red Cedar and Tamarack, sometimes 80'-100' - long it paid really well). After about a year I went to their house to talk about getting paid. They were always very friendly and apologetic, not hostile or anything. When I went in the house the first thing the wife did was hurry over to the couch to pick up a bit of skimpy lingerie, explaining, "We had company over last night..." (Now that's an explanation that will put you off of your train of thought - her tits were humongous, BTW).

I also saw that Doug (I'll call him Doug because that was his name) was lounging in front of a giant screen TV (it was in the 80's, so very expensive - cost more than he owed me). He noticed me looking at it with a pained expression on my face and quickly said, "I needed something to keep from going crazy while trying to recover." That helped to steel my resolve and I told him I was going to have to file a claim in court against him if he didn't start paying up right away. He apologized for being a deadbeat before saying, "Do what you have to do, it's the only way to get anything out of me."

So I filed and won a judgement for the amount plus 18% interest. Then is when I learned that the process was only half done - I still needed to collect.

This is the main point of this post - I learned that in order to seize property or garnish wages, you have to ask the court for a "Writ of Execution", which, in spite of the enormous hassle of the whole process, I found to be very humorous (and still do to this day).

As it happened, Doug went back to pole cutting about that time and with a Writ of Execution you can garnish wages by serving a person's employer (or pole buyer in this case where Doug was a contractor/vendor) for up to 20% of their monthly income until paid off. I think the amount was $1800 and I was paid in full in two months.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/05/21 02:34 PM
Legal expenses would make $1800 a moot point. I just refused to work for deadbeats again and spread the word among the other carpenters in town that they didn't pay up. Over the years there were very few of them.

There was a time when a man's word was his bond. A time when there was honor even among thieves.

Now, with Trump's presidential example, I expect there are far more deadbeats than there used to be. It's become a patriotic duty to exploit labor at every turn.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/05/21 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Legal expenses would make $1800 a moot point.
Fortunately that one was in small claims court and I think the only cost was a $25 filing fee and another $10 for the Writ. I got both of those back.

In the current debacle I am lucky to have a pro bono attorney, or else we would have been priced out of the game before getting to first base. It's still spendy, but there's a pretty good chance we will be awarded costs.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/06/21 06:07 PM
I used to have a collection agency. The way it ran was quite simple. The debt owner turned the debt over to us and we file a suit against them if they didn't pay right away. Filing a suit was, at the time, pretty cheap in small claims court (most of the debts were small, if they were more we would have an attorney file in court). The name of the company was "Final Notice". There were also problems about that name but the name was a fact so they let me have it. Anyway, we never harassed anybody. Most didn't even show up in small claims to fight it and then it was just a matter of bumping the claim up. There are some facts, here, to mention. The first is that you can't squeeze water out of a rock and most of these debts were by people who had little or nothing to start with. The other thing is that when you have a suit against you then you can't buy anything on credit. The store will check and then turn you down flat so - you can't buy a car, or furniture or anything. The trick is to wait as most of them will get a job, etc and, eventually have to pay the debt, plus interest to get on with their lives. Oh, the attorney thing. I wrote a program to write the pleadings we needed and kept an attorney retainer who I paid monthly and was cheap. The attorney usually only had to sign stuff. It was one of the best businesses I have ever been connected with. The debtors rarely upset and they knew they had the debt and there were rarely problems. OH, and we made money too! The really interesting thing is that everybody who knew about this one thought we were crazy because we were not harassing the debtors. I was kinda interesting. Most of the debtors knew they owed the money but were broke. Some were simply deadbeats. OH, once you bump the small claims or lower court then you have something of value. Particularly if its a company that owes the money. You just gotta keep an eye on them and re-file before Uncle Sam comes calling when they go banko as that puts you in front of the feds for collection. In both cases we usually had uncontested lawsuits against them and, eventually they paid, unless they were bums and had nothing forever. If they were a company (usually a restaurant) that was going banko you were to the first in line as well. I always asked companies to tell me if they were going banko and most actually did!
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/08/21 01:46 PM
I reckon I'm a bum who had nothing forever.

The gubmint and all my debtors got to split the proceeds after they sold my beat-up used car. They got pennies on the dollar and, like Donald Trump, I walked free.

We're both living our best lives in sunny Florida!
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/09/21 06:59 PM
That's what bankruptcy is for: When you are broke and have no prospects for ever being able to pay, it's time for Chapter 7 so everybody can get on with their lives. I wonder how much they got for your car versus how much they had to pay for your other mobility devices? Bet they made a bad deal on that one!
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/10/21 05:34 PM
The Republicans overhauled the bankruptcy thing a couple of years ago. You can still go bankrupt but you cannot bankrupt on debts owed the government or the banks. This may have changed but I don't think so. This is why, for instance, student debts have not been taken care of in bankruptcy.

Basically, bankruptcy is no longer functional.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/11/21 04:31 AM
About 40% of people who file for bankruptcy DO get their student loan debt reduced or eliminated. (But few actually do file for bankruptcy.) What you need to do is to prove that paying the loans would cause undue hardship to you and any dependents, and your financial situation is unlikely to improve. An example would be a single mother of four, with a crappy job, who would become homeless if she had to make the loan payments. This applies to both federal and private loans.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/11/21 05:02 PM
I was wrong although student debt is mentioned as not dischargable except in the exclusion you mentioned.

One of the main problems with these student loans is that advantage is taken of 18/19 year old kids who have no idea what they are doing. Yesterday I saw a young girl, with a proud degree in, if I remember correctly, English, AND a two-hundred thousand dollar education loan. She is well and truly screwed, for the rest of her life! Then, again, perhaps not as its likely she couldn't even pay the interest.

I have always thought that student loans should only be used after consultation with somebody who understands what is going on.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/12/21 03:36 PM
I don't think you understand what is going on.

Most Boomers could pay for a four-year education with 361 hours work at minimum wage. Today they would have to work 4,445 hours to do that.

And apparently you think we don't need anyone to have a worthless degree in English. Probably music and art and international studies are worthless too. I'll bet there are a thousand other different college majors that you would consider worthless.

A lifetime of debt to pursue worthless knowledge...? If they want to know something...they should just ask you and save all that money on education.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/12/21 04:19 PM
Bankruptcy worked great for me!

I've never tried to re-establish my credit though. I live within my meager means and owe nothing to anyone. Except for my ex-wife...I owe her a lot, but she gets my house when I die.

My debt was business-related credit card debt. They won't take your house, but they won't make your mortgage go away either. My house was paid for. If you have payments on a car you keep the car and the payments. My custom off-road Jeep was paid for, so they took it.

Bastards.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/12/21 06:12 PM
In an effort to make you feel better a little story. When I had my debt collection agency I used to buy credit card debt. This was really great. They sold off the debt for approximately 10% of the debt. They hadn't even contacted the debtors to pay! You could have, had you known, setup a debt collection business, then buy back your debt for 10%! The only problem was that it would be unlikely your debt would be in the debt you bought.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/12/21 08:56 PM
Interesting bit of knowledge in case you have to negotiate with a credit card company. Offer them 20% and they get double what they would have received by selling the debt. Or offer the collection agency 20% and they make 100% profit for zero work at all. It's good to know people's breakeven point.

My neighbor was having some trouble with the guys putting in a fence for him. One of the guys was a hot-head and ready to walk when there was a misunderstanding. His issue was about getting paid for the mistake. What he did not understand was it was never about the money for the neighbor. It was about getting the fence he wanted. It was around $1800 they spent for fence panels and posts that were too short. So my neighbor and his wife had a quick conference, and offered the fence contractors $2500 for the misunderstanding. Suddenly everything was fine. It really pays to try to understand what people need, versus what they care little about.

And yes: Every student loan application process should include a counseling session with a consumer advocate who points out obvious problems like paying back $200,000 with an English degree. Expensive private colleges used to be just for the rich kids. That's still a useful notion. That's why we have state colleges and universities, with in-state tuition deals, and occupational loan forgiveness programs. I'm not saying Art, Music, English, etc. education is useless. I'm just saying 18 year olds need to know their earning prospects before committing to such huge loans. Many of them would lead much better lives studying something like air conditioning repair and installation at a junior college or public trade school, making a decent living, and pursuing their Art, Music, or Writing interests in their copious spare time. Counting on a high-paying career in one of those fields is like retirement planning by buying lottery tickets.

Instead they wind up with a crappy 9-5 job doing something totally unrelated to their degree, and working a second job that's even worse to try paying the interest on their loans.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/13/21 05:17 PM
Years ago I knew a kid graduating from high school. I asked him what he was going to do. He said he was going to be trained to be a power line worker. I saw him a couple of years later and asked if he did it and if he was making enough money. This was in the 80's or 90's and he was making over 100,000 a year!

Smart kid!

Our high school used to have classes for kids that wanted to be electricians, carpenters, mechanics and plumbers. All these classes were supported the the appropriate union and they all got jobs. Now, I think, they are down to carpenters. They also used to build a house every year and then auction it off. That too has stopped. I have no idea why. I once asked but could never really get a good answer.

Now everybody seems to be headed to college. We have a local college. They used to teach advanced mechanics (for cars) and a lot of other stuff. Now they have gone to 4 years, dumped most of the trades stuff, except when it comes to nurses. Have also wondered about that one. I have always thought that schools teaching
trades was a really good thing. Now, when I need a plumber, for instance, I have one hell of a time finding one that's available because there are not that many anymore.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/13/21 09:19 PM
"Everybody needs to go to college" has done incredible damage to all the kids who really should have gone to trade school. And I'm not talking about smart versus dumb. Some people are into math, science, or writing. Some are into working with their hands and building things. And they generally know that by the time they are high school seniors. A tech-oriented motorhead might want to get a mechanical engineering degree. Another might want to go right into mechanic training, work on cars for 10 years, and then open his own repair shop. Both can be quite successful. The one who isn't, is somebody who goes to college and racks up a huge debt, and then ends up an auto mechanic with huge student loans to pay off.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/14/21 05:11 PM
Quote
Some people are into math, science, or writing. Some are into working with their hands and building things. And they generally know that by the time they are high school seniors.

And most of those will go into the trades. That's what I did and if I have a single regret in my life it's that I didn't go to college.

Your complaint against kids going to college is that they will rack up student debt. Your answer is that kids shouldn't go to college.

My answer is to subsidize education so that anyone who wants to pursue any field of study can do so. If they choose trade schools those also would be subsidized.

You apparently see education as nothing more than a means to a paycheck. I see it as an important life experience that will set the tone for a more successful life.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/14/21 06:00 PM
Your thought leave society with kids with degrees in English and a 200,000.00 debt which also is likely to destroy their lives.

I favor the British plan. If children show interest in trades, or they are not able to pass the tests necessary for college they goto trade school otherwise its college. Both the trade schools and the college expenses are picked up by gov. I wonder if they still send most orphans to the their military.

I am writing this from memory which, unfortunately, is not as great and accurate as it once was.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/15/21 03:53 PM
Quote
Your thought leave society with kids with degrees in English and a 200,000.00 debt which also is likely to destroy their lives.

No, my thought subsidizes education whether it be academic or trade-related.

I'm not sure why you think students should be charged for education. Do you also advocate that all schools become private so that all education comes at a cost to the students?

We could eliminate the Department of Education altogether, as well as expensive public school systems. Many feel that privatization rather than socialization is the better answer to all problems, that the wealthy should profit from everything, and that the poor should pay for everything.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/15/21 04:15 PM
Quote
I wonder if they still send most orphans to their military.

I certainly HOPE so! A proper government would round up all the ne'er do wells and put them in workhouses! Orphans and pot smokers to the military! I'm sure appropriate measures could be taken for the queers and coloreds among us as well!

Fortunately, Old Blighty has taken the socialist route and provides education and healthcare.
Posted By: jgw Re: Lies and the Law - 07/15/21 06:14 PM
You are almost as clever as the guy who invented the phrase; "when was the last time you beat your wife" - WELL DONE!
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/16/21 10:12 AM
I don't propose kids should not go to college at all. Anybody who can hack it should be encouraged and totally subsidized. But let's face it: Some people are just wasting their time. They may get a better general education, but at least in California they could do that almost for free at a junior college. Mainly, I have a problem with a $200,000 debt ruining kids lives when they are just going to end up with a career that has nothing to do with their major. Or drop out with a huge debt outstanding, even worse. Deciding to go to college or trade school should not be determined by IQ or wealth. Students need to think hard about what they actually want to do with their lives, and decide accordingly.

Intelligence falls pretty close to a bell curve. For every student with an !Q of 110, there is another with an IQ of 90. Everybody can't be "above average". With an IQ of 90, a college student or trade school student is going to have to work his ass off to get through. With an IQ of 80, he won't. So why waste their time? Maybe we should show them how to operate a wheelbarrow or a lawn mower. There really is a level of competence for everybody, and finding yours may be the key to a happy life.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/18/21 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
There really is a level of competence for everybody, and finding yours may be the key to a happy life.
IQ is only one possible (not necessarily required) attribute of competence. And the usefulness of education is not only in relation to employment. And education is not the sole test of employability.

I see a glitch in the system that correlates getting degrees with the opportunity to make more money. What logic is there in a system that assumes a person’s happiness in life should be determined by how much ‘education’ they got while in school? Or that it is locked in to making money?

Having just finished an arbitration hearing where I was grilled for hours by a dishonest lawyer, who I suspect had a middling IQ, and who was fond of asking speculative compound questions while insisting that my answers be yes or no, I am very sensitized to the need parse out concepts that contain a mixture of facts and unexamined, sometimes biased, assumptions.

The topic of the relationships between free education, employability, competence, money, happiness, and status is complex, to say the least. And don’t forget to factor in personality disorders, religion, and politics!

My two cents on education are these - education shouldn’t be regarded as a thing you complete before you reach the age of 25, that serves for the rest of your life as your train ticket to happiness. The rather strong tendency that we have to accept that paradigm without question is a serious flaw in our cultural programming.

(In my opinion)
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Lies and the Law - 07/18/21 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
IQ is only one possible (not necessarily required) attribute of competence.

I've always maintained that IQ needs to have a friend...the WQ, the Wisdom Quotient, which would be a measure of both emotional and intellectual maturity. It must by needs be bound to a measure of intellectual curiosity and a measure of critical thinking ability.

To put it in rather mechanical terms, if you measure an engine's horsepower to prep for a drag race, you must also test both track conditions, your car's ability to maintain traction and the skill of the driver.

If IQ is a measure of your mind's "horsepower", this "WQ" would be a measure of your "traction", the ability to translate all that power to getting the vehicle down the track, and the emotional and intellectual maturity would translate to the skill of the driver.
An eleven thousand horsepower top fuel dragster isn't going anywhere without large enough slicks in the rear and indeed, without adequate driver skill behind that tiny steering wheel, even if it did get traction, it may wind up rocketing straight into the wall and bursting into flames.

[Linked Image from i.gifer.com]

It's one thing to have a massive brain with a lot of mental horsepower, quite another to have the ability to harness that power and translate it into useful work.

Originally Posted by logtroll
Having just finished an arbitration hearing where I was grilled for hours by a dishonest lawyer, who I suspect had a middling IQ, and who was fond of asking speculative compound questions while insisting that my answers be yes or no, I am very sensitized to the need parse out concepts that contain a mixture of facts and unexamined, sometimes biased, assumptions.

I've encountered a few attorneys like that, but surprisingly I've also encountered more than a few debaters who try that tactic.
I'm sure I am not alone in this.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/18/21 01:09 PM
I think your video metaphor might be considered to be 'hyperbolic'... not judging, though.

LOL
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Lies and the Law - 07/18/21 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
I think your video metaphor might be considered to be 'hyperbolic'... not judging, though.

LOL

Or just fun, maybe?
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/24/21 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
What stimulated this post was the anticipation of lies to follow the AZ election ’audit’, but the reason for starting a fresh topic has to do with a construction contract legal dispute that I have been enjoying for three years now.
We had the arbitration hearing a week and a half ago and should get a decision in a few more weeks. I'm optimistic that we will prevail, but we've all seen too much in recent decades of clear justice that never gets served to call it a slam dunk. The lies can be very confusing to people who didn't experience the reality to judge.

I did have several fun moments with the opposing counsel, who had a very annoying strategy of asking compound leading questions, repeated time after time, apparently hoping to get me to say something that he could spin into the opposite of the truth. At one point after an especially verbose effort to put words in my mouth, he asked me, "Does that accurately represent your position?"

"No."

"What is it about what I have said that you don't agree with?"

"Everything... you just made all that up. I never said any of it."


Another time he was trying to get me to speculate on some what-iffery entwined with a questionable analogy, finishing with something like, "Don't you agree?"

"I don't agree."

"Feigning surprise, "What don't you agree with?"

"It's speculation. You had me take an oath swearing I had to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no truth in your speculation. Yet you are now asking me to violate that oath."


In another incident where he was trying to to cast doubt on the validity of our building contractor's license, the moron shifted his tone and demeanor to that of a state trooper who had just pulled me over for driving 100 mph in a school zone.

"In your deposition you stated thus and such and now you have changed your story... I must point out that perjury is a very serious offense!"

"Can you read me what I said in the deposition?" He read it. "Can you read me what your question was in the deposition?" He read it. "That's not the same question you just asked me, now is it?"

"Uhhhh... let's move on..."


Last one, and maybe the most fun. There is a section of the contract that describes the projected monthly progress of the job with an estimate of the amount of payment that would be due. It was in there because the bank asked for it to get an idea of the size and spacing of the draws so they would have sufficient cash on hand. It was possible to read it as conditions that had to be met before payment could be made, though due to many changes asked for by the client, using it as a real schedule would have been counterproductive to making progress on the job. But the opposition was desperate to spin it as a contract default (because we had done work that was listed in later phases 'out of order' as a way to keep progressing while waiting for the change orders to work through the process). So, to that purpose, the opposition was calling the phases "payment milestones" and "benchmarks for payment".

I had refused to allow Perry Mason to use those terms with objections perhaps 30 times during the depositions and the hearing, but he was determined to have one last go at it. He asked me why milestones and benchmarks weren't appropriate words. I said because they don't appear in the contract. He started to argue with me, so I stopped him and said, "Let's get out the contract and look at the actual words." There was a mountain of paper and it took him a full two minutes, in awkward silence, to find his copy. When I saw that he had it I asked him, "Do you have it in front of you?" (Lawyers do that over and over to the witnesses).

He said, "Yes."

"Can you look at page 2 and find the sentence prefacing the list of phases?"

"I see it."

"Are the words 'benchmarks' or 'milestones' written there?"

"No. But..."

The arbitrator, barely hiding a smirk, said, "I'm ready to move on."
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/25/21 09:05 AM
Apparently it's actually illegal to spread misinformation about Covid-19 or the vaccines!

FTC law about spreading misinformation

A Salon contributor has filed a complaint with the FTC about Fox News violating the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act, a December law which "​​makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19."

They have tracked them down, and just 12 people are responsible for most of the anti-vax nonsense posted on social media. Their identities are known. They should be charged under the same law. This is NOT a violation of Freedom of Speech. What they are doing is shouting "FIRE" in a thousand crowded theaters. People are dying as a direct result. LOTS of people.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/25/21 11:33 AM
Where is the legal line between free speech and lying, and how is it drawn?

NPR piece
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/25/21 11:54 AM
Here is what appears to be a very interesting deep dive into the subject (I have only read about 10 pages so far).

Criminalization of Lying
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/25/21 03:44 PM
Quote
Where is the legal line between free speech and lying, and how is it drawn?

Let me simplify this for you Loggy...

Legally you can say whatever the f*ck you want wherever the f*ck you want unless you swear on some outdated holy book that you will not tell a lie.

I don't really see an issue with lying, I see an issue with fools believing and repeating obvious lies.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/25/21 10:48 PM
That is not true. Freedom of Speech has always had costs. If your speech harms people, you are free to say it, but you can be held civilly or criminally liable for that harm. It's the old "Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" legal doctrine. I think speech that costs you money or your freedom can't really be called "free". Inciting riots is "free speech", but all the courts have upheld laws punishing people for doing that.

Claiming the First Amendment allows any speech is like saying it's a free country, so swinging your fist is protected. But only until it hits me in the face: Then it's a prosecutable crime.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/26/21 01:11 PM
Quote
That is not true. Freedom of Speech has always had costs.

In theory perhaps, and there's no doubt that a lie might come back to bite you in the ass. But for the most part everybody gets away with it.

If you yell fire in a crowded theatre, your intent is mayhem and harm, if you slip out the door during the mayhem, chuckling at your clever ruse, then you will likely escape unscathed.

The internet is full of lies. Politics is full of lies. Auto sales and legal procedures are full of lies. Life is full of lies. The jails are not full of people convicted of lying. Near as I can tell the profits far outweigh the punishments where lies are concerned.

You know what George W Bush said...

"Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, won't get fooled again."
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/26/21 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
The internet is full of lies. Politics is full of lies. Auto sales and legal procedures are full of lies. Life is full of lies. The jails are not full of people convicted of lying. Near as I can tell the profits far outweigh the punishments where lies are concerned.
That’s one of the topics covered in the linked paper above - generally, there are very few laws making lying a criminal offense, but there is a much larger body of law where it can be a civil offense with potential damages. Intent and harm are the fundamental bases for civil damages.

Intent also appears to be a pretty standard element in most people’s definition of lying, too. Another interesting thing in the paper is a breakdown of six separate categories of lies, each of which implies a varying response, from despicable to laudable.

The authors are trying to make a case for creating a specific body of criminal law that would be used for dealing with the egregious category. The whole thing is only 47 pages, what else have you got to do with all that time on your hands?
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/26/21 11:03 PM
Quote
what else have you got to do with all that time on your hands?

Shuffleboard, videogames, fine food and fine herb. Long walks on the waterfront with my dog...coffee on the lanai or a frosty mug of Voodoo Ranger...my days are pretty full without reading an endless treatise on truth and fiction vs the law.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/27/21 12:14 AM
What kind of a Florida Man are you? You better not let the culture police find out what you are doing...

Florida Man
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/27/21 10:53 PM
A lot of these "Florida Men" are not Florida men at all...yankees down from some other state mostly...

And to me, anything north of the big bend is yankee territory.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/27/21 11:31 PM
Anything south of Big Bend is Mexican territory...

Been thar
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/27/21 11:37 PM
Quote
won't get fooled again

That's when I knew for sure W was a stoner: When he quoted The Who! Loved it.

I understand where you are coming from Greger. I only plan on living another 30 years or so. I don't have time for reading long articles. My wife keeps on sending me links to 2 hour YouTube posts I am not interested in. She leaves them running while she sews, and usually misses a lot of their points because she's not paying attention.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Lies and the Law - 07/29/21 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
I only plan on living another 30 years or so. I don't have time for reading long articles.
Well, napping is a more Earth-friendly activity. It’s great that you are dedicating your remaining years to reduced impacts!
ThumbsUp
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Lies and the Law - 07/29/21 11:42 PM
I swear my dogs are all going to live for 20 years: They sleep all day and all night, and just wake up for meals and to howl with the coyotes at 3 AM.
Posted By: Greger Re: Lies and the Law - 07/30/21 01:18 AM
Roscoe is 13 now. We walk 5 kilometers in the morning and 3 in the afternoon...other than that, he's asleep.
© ReaderRant