President Biden, critics corner

[airdvr 197]

As a rule I'm not a fan of residential realtors.  Always seem just a notch above a used car salesman.

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I would simply advise them to not build too close to the waters edge.

"color-coded shaded relief map generated with data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. For the view on the right, elevations below 5 meters (16 feet) above sea level have been colored dark blue, and lighter blue indicates elevations below 10 meters (33 feet)."

Joe he would just tell them that waterfront sells at premium prices.

[airdvr 197]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"color-coded shaded relief map generated with data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. For the view on the right, elevations below 5 meters (16 feet) above sea level have been colored dark blue, and lighter blue indicates elevations below 10 meters (33 feet)."

Joe he would just tell them that waterfront sells at premium prices.

But it does sell for a premium.

[Phil1111 910]

44 minutes ago, airdvr said:

As a rule I'm not a fan of residential realtors.  Always seem just a notch above a used car salesman.

Gee you are honest.

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

But it does sell for a premium.

Another truth. Perhaps i was wrong about you!

I remember this show on TV about a buyer looking for oceanfront in the Bahamas. They ended up buying a home that no lie was 18 inches above sea level on an island. It was on a super narrow section that ended up having the ocean on both sides of the property and adjoining neighbors on the other two sides.So it was boat access only. The lot size was about 80' x150'.

IMO that agent should have been shot for writing up that agreement.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Phil1111

[sfzombie13 307]

16 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

IMO that agent should have been shot for writing up that agreement.

for satisfying a customer?  shot?  really?  now lawyers, grabbing a third of a settlement, they should be shot.  no way that should be legal, they need to keep regular hourly billing and charge what they are due.  that would go a long way toward solving our national crisis.

[ryoder 1,381]

4 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

for satisfying a customer?  shot?  really?  now lawyers, grabbing a third of a settlement, they should be shot.  no way that should be legal, they need to keep regular hourly billing and charge what they are due.  that would go a long way toward solving our national crisis.

A lawyer died and arrived at the pearly gates. To his dismay, there were thousands of people ahead of him in line to see St. Peter. But, to his surprise, St. Peter left his desk at the gate and came down the long line to where the lawyer was standing. St. Peter greeted him warmly. Then St. Peter and one of his assistants took the lawyer by the hands and guided him up to the front of the line into a comfortable chair by his desk.

The lawyer said, “I don’t mind all this attention, but what makes me so special?”

St. Peter replied, “Well, I’ve added up all the hours for which you billed your clients, and by my calculation you must be about 193 years old!”

[JoeWeber 2,297]

22 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

now lawyers, grabbing a third of a settlement, they should be shot.  no way that should be legal, they need to keep regular hourly billing and charge what they are due. 

That's a choice the client makes up front. It's called a contingency fee. If you lose all costs are borne by the law firm. I just recently was told of a firm that went under making the gamble. You always have the option to pay as you go with one firm or another. Lawyers aren't so bad, really. It's usually the client who sucks. They show up clueless and think that running off at the mouth telling half truths like they are schmoozing a new girlfriend is smart and free of cost. Lawyers may have fought cases like yours previously but they haven't fought yours yet so there is always a cost of learning for them. If you want a good attorney experience study your situation and the relevant laws as if someone was paying you 500 bucks an hour to do it - because they soon will be. Show up organized with materials in a binder and maps ready to spread if need be. Act smart and efficient and they will, too. Otherwise just pay and enjoy your new friends.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

That's a choice the client makes up front. It's called a contingency fee. If you lose all costs are borne by the law firm. I just recently was told of a firm that went under making the gamble. You always have the option to pay as you go with one firm or another. Lawyers aren't so bad, really. It's usually the client who sucks. They show up clueless and think that running off at the mouth telling half truths like they are schmoozing a new girlfriend is smart and free of cost. Lawyers may have fought cases like yours previously but they haven't fought yours yet so there is always a cost of learning for them. If you want a good attorney experience study your situation and the relevant laws as if someone was paying you 500 bucks an hour to do it - because they soon will be. Show up organized with materials in a binder and maps ready to spread if need be. Act smart and efficient and they will, too. Otherwise just pay and enjoy your new friends.

Hi Joe,

Re:  I just recently was told of a firm that went under making the gamble.

Read the book or see the movie ( I've done both ) called 'A Civil Action':  A Civil Action - Wikipedia

Both are very good IMO.

I agree with everything written in your post.  I've sued 6-7 times in Small Claims, never lost yet.  

I've also hired attorneys when needed.

Jerry Baumchen

[sfzombie13 307]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's a choice the client makes up front. It's called a contingency fee. If you lose all costs are borne by the law firm. I just recently was told of a firm that went under making the gamble. You always have the option to pay as you go with one firm or another. Lawyers aren't so bad, really. It's usually the client who sucks. They show up clueless and think that running off at the mouth telling half truths like they are schmoozing a new girlfriend is smart and free of cost. Lawyers may have fought cases like yours previously but they haven't fought yours yet so there is always a cost of learning for them. If you want a good attorney experience study your situation and the relevant laws as if someone was paying you 500 bucks an hour to do it - because they soon will be. Show up organized with materials in a binder and maps ready to spread if need be. Act smart and efficient and they will, too. Otherwise just pay and enjoy your new friends.

ya know, i have never once talked to a lawyer about this, and this is new to me.  i have had several friends who were lawyers, and one cousin now, and have not thought to ask them.  i even considered going to law school, and still may.  you would think that i would at least learn something about the way they get paid.  thing is, i have always been fascinated by it and even used to study precedents and read case law.  thanx for that bit of info.  i really appreciate it.

[ryoder 1,381]

On 2/6/2021 at 11:19 AM, gowlerk said:

By not yet. Lake Winnipeg from Gimli this AM....

Gimli? That was where Boeing did the original flight tests of the Low-Noise Low-Emission 767, right?

[lippy 771]

6 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Gimli? That was where Boeing did the original flight tests of the Low-Noise Low-Emission 767, right?

Well....not intentionally

[gowlerk 1,909]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Gimli? That was where Boeing did the original flight tests of the Low-Noise Low-Emission 767, right?

It was remarkably successful. But not repeatable.

[Phil1111 910]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's a choice the client makes up front. It's called a contingency fee. If you lose all costs are borne by the law firm. I just recently was told of a firm that went under making the gamble. You always have the option to pay as you go with one firm or another. Lawyers aren't so bad, really. It's usually the client who sucks. They show up clueless and think that running off at the mouth telling half truths like they are schmoozing a new girlfriend is smart and free of cost. Lawyers may have fought cases like yours previously but they haven't fought yours yet so there is always a cost of learning for them. If you want a good attorney experience study your situation and the relevant laws as if someone was paying you 500 bucks an hour to do it - because they soon will be. Show up organized with materials in a binder and maps ready to spread if need be. Act smart and efficient and they will, too. Otherwise just pay and enjoy your new friends.

I'd suggest people read this: Lawyers are Rats: A top legal scholar exposes the corruption of his profession

Every State and Province has a separate Bar. One of which licenses and regulates lawyers within that jurisdiction. One fact unique to the bar is that no state or provincial association makes it a requirement to report the crimes of its members to their prosecutors office for prosecution. Even though every prosecutor is required by its association to log onto their association regularly. To keep abreast of association disciplinary actions. of disciplinary issues.

Disciplinary matters typically fall into three main areas. Theft of client funds, usually trust funds. Failing to protect a client, i.e. fulfill their fiduciary duties to their clients. Lastly, obstruction of justice. There is the odd matter of discipline that falls outside these three broad areas. But 90% are within these three areas.

All lawyers are required by law and their associations to only submit facts and be truthful in every representation to the courts. Its against the law for a "officer of the court" to knowing lie or to deceive the court. As it is for a police officer.

Yet for every admission of criminal offense by a lawyer within a disciplinary committee hearing. For every finding by a disciplinary committee of criminal wrongdoing. None results in prosecution.

Associated with every association's right to self discipline and self regulate is a fiduciary duty to the public to uphold the law.To put the public interest in and of justice ahead of their own. In addition, to hold "the highest standards of integrity". Yet for every finding of civil wrongdoing or admission of civil wrongdoing. No association has ever informed a civil party subjected to the wrongdoing of their rights to pursue a civil action against that member. Let alone mandated that their members be available, or assigned to prosecute the wrongdoing of another member.

The internal investigation mechanisms that police forces have. Which must forward their investigations to prosecutors for review. Don't exist for lawyers.

Finally law societies allow their members to withdraw their licenses to practice law in serious criminal, or civil disciplinary matters. Then tell the public that since they are no longer active members. No further actions by the association can be undertaken. Such withdrawal of license also immediately terminates any law society investigations regardless of circumstance.

[billeisele 122]

On 2/6/2021 at 6:29 AM, timski said:

Touche. It just seems to me that some people can clearly see a shit sandwich when it's presented to them... 

And therein lies the conflict. Others see what you see and think the same thing as you just from the opposite side.

I'm finding that there is a large amount of agreement on many topics with just a few polar opposite views. Just wondering, if we could throw out the extremes on both ends how many folks cluster towards the center? 

[billeisele 122]

On 2/6/2021 at 7:36 AM, JoeWeber said:

I sort of agree on Keystone. It's bad policy to throw away infrastructure that has been paid for, really, in the same way every dam shouldn't come down to save fish. Too bad it was such a shit idea to start with. 

 

Been gone a few days. Wondering about Keystone. Why do folks think it was/is a bad idea? 
Pipelines are safer, less environmentally disruptive, more efficient and less expensive than any other form of liquid transport. The permitting and regs they have to follow are significant. Yes they have spills but they are easily managed vs. a truck that spills less but has more spills, they are less well managed and the exhaust, tires, fuel, etc. that are a constant pollutant. 

Thanks.

[billeisele 122]

On 2/6/2021 at 8:10 AM, wmw999 said:

I'm with Joe on this, too. Not that stopping Keystone is the worst idea in the world, just that it's not the best, either. It's become a symbol, and symbols should always be evaluated extra carefully.

Wendy P.

Good morning, been gone a few days. Please see my reply to Joe. I'm interested in your thoughts on Keystone. Thanks.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

Trucks are like dogs, as long as they aren't making noise they make you happy. They come and go bringing food and Christmas to everywhere spreading joy. Pipelines are like kids. Once you have one you are stuck with it for a very long time even when it causes expensive problems and turns you into the neighborhood jerk. And try as you might, you can't get rid of the thing even if you don't want a pipeline anymore. So you just get sadder and sadder wishing you were better at making decisions. Hope that helps.

[billeisele 122]

46 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Trucks are like dogs, as long as they aren't making noise they make you happy. They come and go bringing food and Christmas to everywhere spreading joy. Pipelines are like kids. Once you have one you are stuck with it for a very long time even when it causes expensive problems and turns you into the neighborhood jerk. And try as you might, you can't get rid of the thing even if you don't want a pipeline anymore. So you just get sadder and sadder wishing you were better at making decisions. Hope that helps.

I'm laughing but not really. Kids are a challenge but can bring a lifetime of happiness, at least mine do. Similar to a well-managed pipeline. A truck hauling Christmas joy isn't much of a concern if one ignores the noise, fuel and exhaust emissions. A truck hauling oil is another matter.

Pipes that are no longer needed or are obsolete are filled, often with sand, and abandoned in place. That's been determined to be the most environmentally effective and accepted method.

All I'm saying is if oil is used a pipeline is the best transportation method. It seems that the Keystone decision was more political than practical, and that's not good.

[wmw999 2,120]

8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

All I'm saying is if oil is used a pipeline is the best transportation method. It seems that the Keystone decision was more political than practical, and that's not good.

And the counter-argument isn't that pipelines are entirely unsafe; it's the two-pronged argument that

a. if we can make do with what we have now, are't we better off? By reducing our overall energy needs, we're making do. The short-term construction jobs are exactly that: short-term.

b. when something goes wrong, it has the potential to be huge. In these days of endless cost-cutting and "removing redundancy," we've used up the easy targets, and are setting ourselves up for ever harder ones.

NY Times Editorial on oil patch (use incognito mode to get past pay wall)

There's a really good editorial in this weeks NY Times by a writer who has been an oilfield worker (not as research, as a job). His take is what I would consider to be centrist, taking environmental concerns as being as important for investment as moving maximum oil. Keystone uses oil movement as the sole goal, with damage mitigation being something that retards the goal. If the actual goal is, instead, two-pronged (like this argument ), then a reduction of profit for one sector isn't seen as a loss.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

56 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I'm laughing but not really. Kids are a challenge but can bring a lifetime of happiness, at least mine do. Similar to a well-managed pipeline. A truck hauling Christmas joy isn't much of a concern if one ignores the noise, fuel and exhaust emissions. A truck hauling oil is another matter.

Pipes that are no longer needed or are obsolete are filled, often with sand, and abandoned in place. That's been determined to be the most environmentally effective and accepted method.

All I'm saying is if oil is used a pipeline is the best transportation method. It seems that the Keystone decision was more political than practical, and that's not good.

In some ways Keystone is it's own animal. The oil it will transport isn't the most environmentally friendly goop, compared to West Texas Intermediate, for example. If we need more oil that bad I'd actually be for more fracking instead. The pipeline jobs in the US are transitory, at best. And, with great respect for our Canadian partners, I don't think the tar sands oil industry is all that stable. I base that on my own experience leasing PT6-65B and -67D engines to support maintenance for the Beech 1900's that haul workers to the fields. I noticed that it didn't take much of a hiccup before maintenance was deferred and aircraft were sold off. I picked up a nice Caravan that way. Also, it seems logical to me that when oil is needed less products like tar sands oil would, or should, be the first to go. So from my perch it just wasn't a great decision.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Been gone a few days. Wondering about Keystone. Why do folks think it was/is a bad idea? 
Pipelines are safer, less environmentally disruptive, more efficient and less expensive than any other form of liquid transport. The permitting and regs they have to follow are significant. Yes they have spills but they are easily managed vs. a truck that spills less but has more spills, they are less well managed and the exhaust, tires, fuel, etc. that are a constant pollutant. 

Thanks.

While it's true that, once in place, pipelines are less intrusive and less risky than many (most?) other transportation methods, the installation can be messy. And they often are installed on land where the landowner doesn't want them. But the oil companies use emminent domain to take the land, and the owners are too small, too weak, too poor to successfully fight. Are you at all familiar with the proposed high tension powerlines that were proposed to be put in right next to SDC? And the fight that was waged to stop that? 

Also, the problems isn't as much the pipeline itself is the approval process (or 'lack of process'). The Rs wanted it approved. Obama wanted a full slate of environmental studies. The Rs said they wanted to shortcut the process and demanded an answer immediately. Obama said (more or less) 'the only answer you're going to get right now is "No".' When Trump took office, he just said 'do it, now.'
My understanding (and I could be wrong on this) is that the pipeline isn't cancelled permanently, it's just gone back to where it was in the approval process.

[brenthutch 383]

40 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

While it's true that, once in place, pipelines are less intrusive and less risky than many (most?) other transportation methods, the installation can be messy. And they often are installed on land where the landowner doesn't want them. But the oil companies use emminent domain to take the land, and the owners are too small, too weak, too poor to successfully fight. Are you at all familiar with the proposed high tension powerlines that were proposed to be put in right next to SDC? And the fight that was waged to stop that? 

Also, the problems isn't as much the pipeline itself is the approval process (or 'lack of process'). The Rs wanted it approved. Obama wanted a full slate of environmental studies. The Rs said they wanted to shortcut the process and demanded an answer immediately. Obama said (more or less) 'the only answer you're going to get right now is "No".' When Trump took office, he just said 'do it, now.'
My understanding (and I could be wrong on this) is that the pipeline isn't cancelled permanently, it's just gone back to where it was in the approval process.

I believe the Obama administration did no less than five studies on the environmental impact of the KeystoneXL, and concluded it was zero as the tar sands would be exploited regardless and the oil would just move by other (more CO2 intensive) means.  They held back approval for political reasons, just like Biden is now doing.

Edited February 8, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,297]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I believe the Obama administration did no less than five studies on the environmental impact of the KeystoneXL, and concluded it was zero as the tar sands would be exploited regardless and the oil would just move by other means.  They held back approval for political reasons, just like Biden is now doing.

What the holy hell does that have to do with environmental impact? My, let's not stop spraying DDT because they will keep on doing it somewhere else? 

[brenthutch 383]

10 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

What the holy hell does that have to do with environmental impact? My, let's not stop spraying DDT because they will keep on doing it somewhere else? 

Ask the Obama administration, they commissioned the studies, and drew that conclusion.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Ask the Obama administration, they commissioned the studies, and drew that conclusion.

If you want to post the EIS I'll read it and be amazed. Are you sure it wasn't a memo or internal something or other.