4
« on: January 04, 2004, 06:36:00 PM »
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.