BuzzH
Well-known member
Right, so we can educate the lawyers on it.Who knew.
Makes me think we need to have more threads about wildlife law
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right, so we can educate the lawyers on it.Who knew.
Makes me think we need to have more threads about wildlife law
If a doctor is against private gun ownership and anti hunting should they choose to not treat a patient of hunting related firearms accident? Doctors and lawyers are not there to judge their clients (patients). It is to give them good advice (treatment) consistent with the client’s (patient’s) wishes/needs.I work in the medical field the majority of my dealing are with malpractice lawsuits so literal ambulance chasers. I just don't know what definition is being used to describe a "good" lawyer. In my opinion the best lawyers are willing to drop their morales in order to represent their clients rights as you mentioned earlier. But that's not exactly my definition of being a "good" man.
"What you mean we, white man?" -Tonto@VikingsGuy I guess this means we are both scum bags
Pretty good argument for criminal defense but falls to crap when talking about civil litigation. So if the client wishes to scam a insurance company it's the lawyers job to falsely represent them? Is that a boundary? For many it's not some make their entire living doing exactly that. Some of that "good" advice is lawyers coaching people to lie for monetary gain. Also to answer your doctor question I absolutely think they should have the right to refuse that person care. Although a more accurate scenario would be denying someone care who's their for the 100th time for the same shit because they won't stop smoking, drinking, eating, etc themselves to death.If a doctor is against private gun ownership and anti hunting should they choose to not treat a patient of hunting related firearms accident? Doctors and lawyers are not there to judge their clients (patients). It is to give them good advice (treatment) consistent with the client’s (patient’s) wishes/needs.
If you don’t like the actions of a lawyer the proper person to criticize is the client who has directed that behavior. Our whole system is based upon the assumption that both parties can fully articulate their positions - not to have lawyers act as first tier judges using their own personal biases as a guide and weed them out. Of course there are extremes and boundaries - but those are the exceptions.
Seeing you are deeply interested in a thoughtful analysis of the issue I refer you to the model rules of professional conduct. All the answers you are seeking are there.Pretty good argument for criminal defense but falls to crap when talking about civil litigation. So if the client wishes to scam an insurance company it's the lawyers job to falsely represent them? Is that a boundary? For many it's not some make their entire living doing exactly that. Some of that "good" advice is lawyers coaching people to lie for monetary gain. Also to answer your doctor question I absolutely think they should have the right to refuse that person care. Although a more accurate scenario would be denying someone care who's there for the 100th time for the same shit because they won't stop smoking, drinking, eating, etc themselves to death.
I couldn't have said it better. They have counting on govt incompetence to persist. It will take time to unwind all of this as it trickles through the various courts. I wouldn't want to be a big ranch with a checkerboard.“Billions of value in public lands co-opted by wealthy landowners clinging to silly 14th century English jurisprudence.”
Fixed it for them (FIFT)
Seeing you are deeply interested in a thoughtful analysis of the issue I refer you to the model rules of professional conduct. All the answers you are seeking are there.
But why not? All you lose is some exclusivity. It's not going to affect your livestock one iota. If all that ranch means to the owner is exclusive rights to public property, then it's not really a ranch in the first place. People with big exclusive hunting preserves in the checkerboard - they should be worried.I couldn't have said it better. They have counting on govt incompetence to persist. It will take time to unwind all of this as it trickles through the various courts. I wouldn't want to be a big ranch with a checkerboard.
AgreedBut why not? All you lose is some exclusivity. It's not going to affect your livestock one iota. If all that ranch means to the owner is exclusive rights to public property, then it's not really a ranch in the first place. People with big exclusive hunting preserves in the checkerboard - they should be worried.
Anyway, my sympathy was spent elsewhere, long ago, on much more worthy people and issues.
both interesting cases. I think the article hit the nail on the head regarding corner crossing.May 14...
Corner crossing, transgender rights to get big day in court, May 14 - WyoFile
Two Wyoming legal battles with national interest and implications will share the date in court when both are heard in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.wyofile.com
Couldn’t have made it more confusing by combining two (2) issues just because they had the same court date:May 14...
Corner crossing, transgender rights to get big day in court, May 14 - WyoFile
Two Wyoming legal battles with national interest and implications will share the date in court when both are heard in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.wyofile.com
Actually, this applies to the human race in general.Yes "Good" lawyers. From my experience 2 "scum bags" per one "good" when it comes to lawyers.
You are far more generous to humanity than I am - I commend your optimism.Actually, this applies to the human race in general.
It would only make sense.If it’s specifically legal in that 40 mile wide swath designated Checkerboard is it reasonable to assume that courts would use the same reasoning to resolve other corner crossing cases that might arise from corner crossing in areas outside the designated area?
Good lawyers is like good outfitters, an oxymoron to most…..If a doctor is against private gun ownership and anti hunting should they choose to not treat a patient of hunting related firearms accident? Doctors and lawyers are not there to judge their clients (patients). It is to give them good advice (treatment) consistent with the client’s (patient’s) wishes/needs.
If you don’t like the actions of a lawyer the proper person to criticize is the client who has directed that behavior. Our whole system is based upon the assumption that both parties can fully articulate their positions - not to have lawyers act as first tier judges using their own personal biases as a guide and weed them out. Of course there are extremes and boundaries - but those are the exceptions.
What about the Hipocratic Oath sworn to??Pretty good argument for criminal defense but falls to crap when talking about civil litigation. So if the client wishes to scam a insurance company it's the lawyers job to falsely represent them? Is that a boundary? For many it's not some make their entire living doing exactly that. Some of that "good" advice is lawyers coaching people to lie for monetary gain. Also to answer your doctor question I absolutely think they should have the right to refuse that person care. Although a more accurate scenario would be denying someone care who's there for the 100th time for the same shit because they won't stop smoking, drinking, eating, etc themselves to death.
You want a system where the ER doctor ask for your insurance card first? Look, some doctors can exercise judgement. I.E., Ortho won't operate on a person because they are high risk (see the criteria you cited). But most doctors/hospitals are tied to accepting government payments plans, medicare and medicaid, because of the sheer size of those programs. They can't refuse care. If you find a way around this let me know because I to listen to the complaints from the wife daliy.Also to answer your doctor question I absolutely think they should have the right to refuse that person care. Although a more accurate scenario would be denying someone care who's their for the 100th time for the same shit because they won't stop smoking, drinking, eating, etc themselves to death.