Saturday, 14 February 2009
Why people hate lawyers, episode mmlxvii
Portsmouth (NH) Herald:
Jules Crittenden:
The Herald writer wants to frame the case as hinging on whether “F—†qualifies as protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Seems to me the more important question is whether a citizen, if disturbed by some random attorney while engaged in his own business on his own property, retains the right to tell said attorney off. Using the F-word, or not.
But then, I’m not a lawyer.
Elsewhere:
Via: Blair
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Portsmouth (NH) Herald:
The controversy began on the morning of Nov. 4, when [Eric] Rieseberg was in his yard removing political signs that were planted there without his permission, according to documents filed by Rieseberg’s attorney, Stephen Jeffco. While Rieseberg pulled the signs, Jeffco reported to the court, [attorney Ryan] Russman walked past with his leashed dog and began yelling, “What are you doing? You can’t do that. Who do you think you are?â€Wherewith, instead of telling Russman to MYOB, the cops charged Rieseberg with disorderly conduct and “criminal threatening.â€
Rieseberg responded by asking, “Who the (F-) are you?†according to Jeffco.
At that point, Jeffco wrote, Russman “forced his business card onto†Rieseberg, “who was taken [a]back, believing Russman was attempting to solicit him as a clientâ€. After reading the card, Rieseberg said, “Ryan Russman, you are a (F-ing expletive),†according to Jeffco.
Police reports indicate Russman immediately phoned police to say he felt threatened.
Jules Crittenden:
A lot of us mind other people’s business for a living. Lawyers, politicians, newspapermen, etc. In this case, however, the professional busybody appears to have made a legal determination (“You can’t do thatâ€) in advance of amassing all relevant facts (“Who do you think you are?â€) when in fact he had no jurisdiction (political signs on someone else’s property). A key question unanswered here is whether the lawyer had a political motivation … Obamism, Democratic leanings, etc. … which would turn this apparent trespass and invasion of the property owner’s privacy into a hate crime.Oh Jules, you wag you!
The Herald writer wants to frame the case as hinging on whether “F—†qualifies as protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Seems to me the more important question is whether a citizen, if disturbed by some random attorney while engaged in his own business on his own property, retains the right to tell said attorney off. Using the F-word, or not.
But then, I’m not a lawyer.
Elsewhere:
Protein Wisdom: Asshat to Bombardier (Updated)
Via: Blair
Posted by: Old Grouch in
In Passing
at
19:15:20 GMT
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 4 kb.
69kb generated in CPU 0.0107, elapsed 0.0621 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0553 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
51 queries taking 0.0553 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.