So Many Questions, So Few Up-Front Retainers.

[scottT]

Normally,  I would expect to be lavishly compensated for giving my legal opinions. As my clients know,  my fees would be a bargain at half the price.  

    Now,  since disclosing that I am an attorney,  many readers of the "Where did the ex-trekker go/What For? You need More Names to Rent?" thread have been posing all kinds of thought-provoking questions.  Since, by complete coincidence,  today is my day for giving free advice,  I shall take this opportunity to give the questions of the Forni-thusiast community the attention they deserve.

    Q 1.  Are you Anonymous?

     Wait a minute, lemme check.....Nope, I'm still me.

    Q 2.  Should people who refer children to programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?

    Clearly, this is an area desperately in need of reform.  Just as vegetarians believe that you shouldn't eat anything that has a mother,  requiring ed cons to know the name of the child to be referred will certainly cause them to immediately rip up the parent's check,  and send themselves to the Program in the kid's place.

    In my personal opinion,  it would be entirely sufficient if the ed con learns the name of the child when named as a Party Plaintiff (or alternatively,  the name of the guardian ad litem).

    Q 3.  Why are politically active women so often the critics of these Programs?

   Because, in all honesty,  they deserve to be criticized.


    Q 4. Why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?

   Shucks, maam. I didn't even KNOW I was defending Sue,  let alone ADAMANTLY defending her.

  Like many lawyers,  I sometimes throw around a lot of legalistic mumbo-jumbo that makes a relatively simple concept unnecessarily prolix and obfuscatory.  To the uninformed layperson, phrases like  "...I don't work for either organization";   "... I don't have a dog in this fight"; "...similar facts warrant similar conclusions"; "...I haven't accepted money from either organization, can my inquisitor say the same?",  may just look like an attempt to be neutral and even-handed.  But to others, these phrases are full of highly technical multi-syllabic words,  which can easily be misinterpreted as an "adamant defense".

   On the other hand,  maybe someone is just having one of those "...tell Mister DeMille I'm ready for my close-up"  moments.  
     

Q 5.  (Confidential to DG in Skowhegan) To the best of my knowledge,  "Swampscott" is a town in Massachusetts,  founded in the early 1600's.  It's geographic proximity to the town of Marblehead is purely coincidental.

Q 6.  (Confidential to 'Troubled Parent' in No Name, No Town, USA)  On the contrary,  last time I checked (see top of post) I have a full complement -- two in all.  However they're larger and redder than average due to constant busting.  And what's up with this "No Name, No Town" stuff?  Are YOU anonymous?

   Well, looks like my paint is dry now. Gotta go back to work. You get what you pay for.

[scottT]

Somehow in the midst of responding to the thought-provocateur's, left one out.

No, I am not the anon attorney who claimed to have seen the lawsuit against Carey and Ginger.

No, I have no interest in W vs. P, or in defending Sue or PURE.  Like I said,  Similar facts warrant similar conclusions.  In no way do I dispute Carey's assessment of PURE.

That said,  my interest in this whole controversy is limited to discouraging the obsession with PURE as a distraction from larger issues.  

When you're on safari hunting for elephants,  its  foolish to waste your time chasing jackrabbits.  In this case,  one organization is said to refer kids to bad programs.  The other organization directly runs bad programs. As we go to bed tonight,  2,200 kids are under lock down key in those very programs.  

But when someone who has admitted taking big bucks  from the operator of the programs with 2,200 kids in lock down tells us that jackrabbits are the biggest problem in the world,  I gotta believe it serves to make the elephant sleep better at night.  Whose interests are being served by that?

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-04 16:16:00, scottT wrote:

"Somehow in the midst of responding to the thought-provocateur's, left one out.
But when someone who has admitted taking big bucks from the operator of the programs with 2,200 kids in lock down tells us that jackrabbits are the biggest problem in the world, I gotta believe it serves to make the elephant sleep better at night. Whose interests are being served by that?

I don't think that's exactly what's going on here, Scott. I think Carey's been saying, pretty much all along, that PURE and Dundee are the biggest problems of which she has personal, firsthand experience.

Right or wrong, perfect or not, Carey is just one of many types of people for whom I have always intended to host these fora. You're another. And, as close as we're coming to butting heads lately, I'm glad you're here and keeping your composure.

I also agree with you that similar facts warrant similar conclusions. That's why, while I can't say she never made a mistep in all this, I'm not convinced that Carey is really the big boogieman in all this. She's a jackrabbit. And the most often anon elephant in the room is full of shit.

It only takes a little prescience to understand that we're all fair game for the deeds we condone.

--Antigen

[Anonymous]

Mr. T. is this a 24 hour freebie?  If so, I have a few comments and a question for you.

My personal opinion is Ms. Bock has what appears to be a legitimate beef with PURE and several other individuals.  While it is understandable that certain people would consider her a traitor (e.g. The Judas Has Her Gold), it appears these people are engaged in an equally fervent struggle to promote their interests, albeit the lack of an identity (persona) behind the despictable personal attacks and threats of retaliation leveled against Bock renders these folks nearly (if not already) impotent.

What interests me from a legal standpoint is why the direct-action-lawsuit has not been filed in spite of the heavy promotion and the considerable hype surrounding the involvement of people and entities such as Ryan F., Coldwater The Movie, The Huron Group, Erin Brockovich and others.  I would imagine those involved in the lawsuit as potential clients are kept abreast of what's going on (which is as it should be) but can you imagine what others not intimately involved must be thinking and wondering at this point?  

Simply stated my question is this:  Is this lawsuit for real or a big hoax?  

Thanks for your time.

An Anonymous Anon Who Appreciates FORNITS.

"Either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table in your community."

- The Music Man, 1962

"Halfway here I nearly turned back. I suppose I'm not the first to find it easier to think clearer when not under the spell of your salesmanship. - Marian

- The Music Man, 1962

 ::cheers::