From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:16:31 GMT

In article <H9XoPB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>-> 	Tell him he's a guy who, up to now, has criticized people
>-> 	who claim expertise in "family law", but never give evidence
>-> 	of *why*!
>
>A lot of people are car mechanics, and don't say why they are. Most of the
>time, it just doesn't come up. The same is true, I think, of people who
>have expertise in family law. Some learned through experience, some through
>study, and others through both.
>

	Not a good comparison.  This is not a car repair newsgroup.
	If I gave you advice about your car, you might ask, "Gee,
	are you a mechanic?"  If I said, "No, I just read books",
	or something, you wouldn't think much of my opinions.

	Without getting off track, or into an arguement, this is
	the very *stuff* of my comments about Annie.

	Usually people who want to be believed show their credentials.

>Let's see if I can explain this right --I'm only stabbing at it here. If
>an attorney offers an opinion (advice) specific to a case they aren't 
>involved with, there is good chance that a listener may use that info in
>a legal circumstance, and have it go wrong for them. They would have no
>recourse against the lawyer, who (as Joe Blow) offered the opinion. So
>the law says that unless they have an agreement where a party DOES have
>recourse, they need to keep shut. A good example of this happened here a
>while back when Hilary Miller (sp?) suggested that people not pay support
>ordered in order to motivate an ex to provide ordered visitation. This
>would, of course, have the immediate effect of getting the NCP caught in
>a contempt rap. The court doesn't buy into "They did it, so I did it back"
>kind of stuff. Anyway, if someone DID get into trouble because of that
>advice, they couldn't sue Hilary for it --he was just commenting and not
>offering client/counsel advice.

	Right!  SO what's the beef?  No one hear is in any way
	doing any more than talking.  If someone decides to take
	something to heart that someone says, it's no different than
	reading it in a book or something.

>-> 	It's supposed to be a *CONVERSATION* arena.  And when I
>-> 	ask general questions, or see other people ask (maybe more
>-> 	specific) questions and get read "the riot act", I consider
>-> 	the whole thing a waste of time.
>
>No, you haven't. But you have toasted Anne Mitchell pretty hard because she
>wouldn't offer legal advice here on the net, and wasn't interested in the
>initiating of a class suit. I won't get into the "would/wouldn't work" view,
>but will say that a class suit is a huge undertaking with significant cost
>in time, money, and resources. 

	Well let's not get into definitions of "legal advice".  Her 
	words somehow take on the guise of "legal advice", simply 
	because she is a law student. That is a fundamental 
	misconception by her and many here, which is explained in
	the paragraph above.

	As to "toasting" her, a good part of the toast involved her
	lack of simple dialogue on the subject (and others in the past).
	Can't she speak for herself?

>
>-> 	If you (admittedly) have so much experience and interest
>-> 	in these matters, why aren't you or people like you willing
>-> 	to relate different scenarios or answers to questions and
>-> 	situations that come up?
>
>But I *have* been doing exactly that, Alan. For a few years now. Jeez, I've
>even posted cases quotes (modified to protect confidentiality).

	Actually I haven't seen you in the throws of heavy legal
	discussions.  You seem to be, as most observe, prone to
	having an opinion about things.

>
>-> 	Keep your legaleze in the courtroom, and keep this arena
>-> 	a place for friendly, informantive conversation.
>
>A little legalese is helpful sometimes. Given that the significant areas of
>negativity stem from courts and law, it's good to know the terms and their
>definitions.
>

	I stated (as I spelled) my point incorrectly.  (Geez, I'll
	never learn the use of "s" over "z")

	I do not mean "legalese" in the strict sense of verbage or
	conversation.  I mean it in the sense of treating this like
	a courtroom, with all it's rules and regulations.

	"I object".

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights