[snip]

somewhere back, i believe i wrote an OPED in which i referred to a news anchor that read a letter to the editor from a viewer. this was in that time period leading up to the Iraq war, and the letter referred to learning the "lesson from munich."

anyone versed in 20th century history would've known (especially from the viewer's letter's context) that this referred to the munich conference in 1938 where england's PM neville chamberlain returned triumphantly proclaiming "peace in our time." (chamberlain gave away half of czechoslovakia to hitler in an act of what became known as "appeasement").

anyway, the news anchor ignorantly explained that the CNN reader's reference to "munich" obviously meant the 1972 olympic games assasination of israeli athletes.

i didn't mention the anchor's name because i didn't see any reason to embarrass anyone. but in light of your post's theme...

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Cafferty's lawyer is as bad as Cafferty. To say it's "acting responsibly" to run two redlights while dragging a bike is ridiculous at best.

99.9% of all Lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.

Cafferty should be brought to court on assault charges. Let's reconsider that last sentence since the court system is so screwed up. Cafferty should be brought to a court of bicyclists to face their wrath.

Why is it that in the USA, so many people dodge responsibility, and can get away very lightly with nearly killing someone...on the other hand, so many others will sue you for the most inane things and win large monetary judgements? The legal system is broken, and that's a bad thing. The worst thing is that those that run it (lawyers) see no reason to change it, because they (lawyers) are winning on every case.

I cringe every time I hear of a young person saying they are going to law school. What a waste of brainpower that could be used doing something productive for society, instead of sucking money from one set of pockets into another.

Can you tell, as a group, I don't like lawyers? I have more respect for prostitutes in many ways, because when lawyers screw you they enjoy it AND get money. Prostitutes only do it for the money.

It's so easy to forget there was a PERSON lying in the road injured as Cafferty drove off dragging the bike through two red lights. Cafferty might as well have been given a first place blue ribbon for his "responsible" act...250 dollars fine and 70 hours community service isn't a punishment that fits the crime.

As Kramer says, "serinity now, serinity now...

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Few things I hate more than hit and run, it takes a real coward to injure somebody and leave him behind. As far as I could see, CNN has done nothing in this matter. I could have lived with that until this coward's lawyer called him responsible. Sicne he speaks for his client, I have to fear the anchor's views of reality are skewed, and hence he should not work for a news outlet (other than maybe the NY Times as a fiction writer :-).

I just sent the following to CNN, you can do the same at cnn@cnn.com:


I noticed that your anchor Jack Cafferty has pleaded guilty to a hit and run charge. His lawyer said "Jack acted responsibly in this, as he always has."

He hit a cyclist, dragged his bike, ran two red lights and never stopped. This is responsible?

If your organization agrees that this is responsible, your attempts at responsible journalism are as meaningful as the punishment Mr. Cafferty has received from you so far (if any). Please remove this "responsible" man from your organization so that you show your viewers you understand the meaning of the word.

If you condone this man's behavior and show us you do not understand the meaning of "responsible", your legitimacy as a responsible news outlet vanishes.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

OK, the guy is a news anchor.

He's so arrogant that when he makes a mistake and hits a cyclist, he drags the bike for 2 blocks and refused to acknowledge his mistake.

He's such a coward that when his cohorts in the media call for a sound bite that he "refers all calls to his attorney".

And you go off on a rant about lawyers. Did I mention that the guy is a news anchor?

What do you expect his lawyer to say, "Yeah, he's a pathetic piece of shit. How could he drag a bike for 2 blocks and not realize he had hit someone? I hope a bunch of cyclists catch him in Central Park next week and beat the hell out of him"?

Sure I'm a lawyer, and I'll admit our legal system isn't perfect, but your rant is misplaced here.

Here you all go...



http://www.cnn.com/...ms/american.morning/



I sent an e-mail asking Jack to try and explain himself - rather than trying to explain the actions of others.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

mr. Mike, perhaps you are correct, my rant may be misplaced here, although it doesn't make it any less true.

However, I'm not through, because this is a public forum. Your statement that "what did you expect his lawyer to say" is a perfect example of the twisted logic lawyers have. To lawyers, telling the truth isn't supposed to be expected...yes, what he did was the action of an irresponsible (at best) action, and you simply expect his lawyer to say something other than that.

Typical. You prove the point once again, so many people that make up your profession are professional dodgers of owning up to the "right thing" as seen by the majority of the populace.

Bill Clinton's "...depends upon what the meaning of "is" is..." comes to mind.

I stand firmly by my rant.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Ack...I made it all the way trhought he "Arnie for Gov" thread without losing it then I turn to this thread to read about the misdeeds of a CNN anchor and run headlong into a bizarre attack on the legal profession. God knows there are bad lawyers, just like there are bad politicians, bad doctors, bad pro basketballball players, bad businessmen, bad teachers, bad priests, etc. But, yaquicarbo, what gives? You apparently had a bad experience with an attorney at some point, and that sucks. But your Jack Cade-esque tirade seems a bit over the top. Moreover, your passion seems to have sent your reason off the back. You seem more upset by the PR statement of attorney than teh underlying conduct. What is up with that?

i don't think cafferty's lawyer's statement is proof that he's a dishonest lawyer. just that, as a lawyer, he's a bad PR man. such a transparently cynical and callous statement serves only to further demonstrate what an ass cafferty is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Cafferty is always playing the tough, no-nonsense guy. He really showed what he's made of-jello. As for the lawyer's comment, he was just doing what every lawyer is paid to do, protect his client. Figure this, the lawyer probably cost JC (the initials are too ironic) $2500-$5000. Why do you think a guy who shows up with a pricey lawyer gets such a deal? Judges were lawyers once. If JC had paid all that money and gotten some jail time, the lawyer wouldn't have looked too good. That's bad for business. Now, show up with a court appointed lawyer and watch how you get screwed. :)

But, here's a question? What is a biker doing on an American highway? This war has been lost. Detroit won. Buy a Computrainer and a fan and help a Slowtwitch sponsor. He was a bike messenger? Oh, God, they have a death wish anyway....

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

 Your quote garth "You apparently had a bad experience with an attorney at some point, and that sucks."

I don't think there is an American over the age of 40 that isn't a part of that group. Careful launching rocks in that glass house of a profession in the US. Admit it, if we had a european legal system, we would have more doctors, less lawsuits, less crime.

The bad conduct speaks for itself. I didn't let the conduct go unmentioned.

Also, my comments aren't really good for the triathlon forum, so this is it as far as this topic from my end. Any comments made to me about this thread will go undisputed by me, so take your shots without worry about my weak, unreasoned reprisals.

However, the callous acceptance that lawyers aren't supposed to be expected to "tell it like it is" is what makes me so "upset". And no, there aren't bad lawyers just like bad basketball players (they are cut); bad doctors are sued (RIGHTFULLY SO, I might add) out of existence, bad businessmen (their competition beats them out of existence), bad politicians...well, I'll leave that one alone. Bad lawyers seem to just keep on rummaging around picking up and feeding upon whatever scraps they can, but, they certainly aren't the only lawyers out there bringing up frivolous suits and twisting the truth whenever it suits their position to do so. That's what the profession allows, even de facto encourages, so much so that we're supposed to just expect their statements to be not true.

Well, I have a hard time accepting what so many others accept as acceptable, i.e., that lawyers can be expected to speak something other than the truth. PR statement? Why not call it what it is? It's a lie. That's what has me upset. Too bad more people don't get irate about it. Maybe this could be changed. I won't hold my breath, though.

I will say the statement that 99.9% of the lawyers give all the rest a bad name is not 100% accurate. But, there seems to be enough truth there to satisfy the legal profession's accepted standards of truth.

Sorry to all the wonderful lawyers out there that get lumped in with the ones I'm talking about. I've met lawyers I really like. One in particular only practiced a year before he became a novelist...he writes good books.

I hope the cyclist recovers completely, and gets his property returned in good order, or gets it replaced. Maybe this was done and we just didn't hear about it.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

The thing about our legal system is that it sets up an adversarial relationship between two sides in any case, criminal or civil. Certainly it may be difficult to stomach a criminal defense attorney's statements about his client from a purely moral standpoint, but as long as he does not lie about facts, he is bound to put his client in the best light possible, and give him the best legal defense he can. If a judge or jury fails to see through the defense attorney's smokescreen or arguments, then the lawyer has done his job well. I would be very concerned if I found myself in a tough spot, my fault or not, and my lawyer only wanted to tell the jury or judge that I was an irresponsible jerk, as this CNN anchor seems to be. In fact, I'd sue for legal malpractice, and use inadequate representation as grounds for an appeal. The fact is that we only get to hear about big profile cases, with big profile clients, who get the defense attornies most profficient at legally twisting the truth to fit his defense strategy. There are tons of lawyers who practice law in good faith, many that never even see the inside of a courtroom.

The lawyer doesn't have to "own up to the right thing". Hell, the lawyer didn't run over the guy on the bicycle. You are aware of that, correct. The jackass who ran over the guy is the lawyer's boss, ok. What the lawyer is doing is covering for his boss. Not very well, as Slowman points out, which is probably an indication he thinks the guy is an ass, by the by the way. But, anyway, what he is doing is covering for his boss--saying what his boss told him to say. People in every occupation in the world do it.

I would love to hear an example of what you think he should have said that would not have gotten him fired from his job of representing the NEWS ANCHOR (remember him, he's the one who ran over the guy on the bike?).

Bill Clinton was lying about what Bill Clinton did. The lawyer was saying what his client wanted him to say.

Buzzy,

I wasn't aware I had "launched any rocks." If I do, you will know it. In fact, I thought the sentence of mine that you quote was rather sympathetic. I was actually just trying to understand where all the misplaced venom was coming from, given that all we know about the attorney in question is (1) he makes bad sound bites, and (2) he seems to have gotten a fairly good deal for his client. By the way, why is no one attacking the NY DA for rolling over? A hit-and-run with personal injury and property damage, and thsi guy gets a $250 fine and a few weekends of image-rehab? Thats the real travesty.

Your lust for a "european legal system" seems like a "grass is greener" sort of fantasy. You don't think they have morally reprehensible attorneys across the pond?

Yaquicarbo,

Come now, don't take your argument and go home. Kinda lame to start the mudslinging and then announce "This is my last word" and disappear, don't you think? Anyway, this thread certainly does no more violence to the forum than many others that have gone on for far longer. My comment about the lack of reason in your post was maybe a bit harsh, but you read your second posting and tell me if it makes a whole lot of sense. As for my laundry list of "bad" folks was not meant as "bad" in terms of incompetence, but "bad" in terms of moral/ethical deficience. Lawyers hardly have the corner on that market.

Its curious that you keep ending your posts with some variation of "I stand by my statement/opinion that XXXX"? Whenever I hear such staunch rhetoric, I always think of what that guy from Concord, Mass. said about foolish consistencies. I think I'll stand by his statement.

"There are tons of lawyers who practice law in good faith, many that never even see the inside of a courtroom."

-------

That gets to my point, I guess. I think I practice law in good faith, and I have never seen the inside of a courtroom. I have LIED when my clients have told me to do so, however.

Atty: They want to close the acquisition next Friday, ok with you?

Client: No way, we won't have our financing lined up by then.

Atty: Ok, I'll tell them you're working on the dollars and we'll get back to them in a couple of weeks.

Client: No you moron, they'll think we're not going to be able to come up with the cash, go back to X and take the all-cash deal, and we'll never go public. I knew I should have hired the New York firm.

Atty: Uh, OK, I'll go start an inane argument with them over the mispelled words in the recitals, pretend to be on vacation, then tell them that your wife is sick. That should put things off for at least 3 weeks.

Client: Good boy, maybe you'll work out after all.

My boss told me to cover for him. I did so. Everyone else does too.

One more time: what's the guy in NY supposed to say: "yeah, my boy is an ass, I can't believe he did that? I mean, how the hell could you run over some dude on a bike and not know it?" Tell me how he's honest and keeps his job.

The following is totally out of line now in a triathlon forum, and I apologize for the wasted space that I've taken.

Garth, just at your request, I'll respond, so as not to act as I have taken my ball and left the game, I'm not leaving because I don't want to play, I just don't want to waste the space Mr. Empfield has so graciously allowed wind-bags like myself to occupy. I really rather go into a PowerCrank discussion, but that is coming after this record-breaking (for me, at least) season comes to an end.

I don't think I was mudslinging, I was expressing my disgust with the wanton and purposeful lying that is accepted in the "legal system", and how this lying seems (to me) to erode the value of our legal system.

Furthermore, I think that as a country with the highest per-capita attorney-to-citizen ratio, we don't really need more smart young people going to school to learn how to lie on command (pretty good pun, huh?) in order to keep their job. I have never understood that common statement, "I did it because it was my job". Well, the "hit-man" did it because it was his job, it doesn't make it fundamentally right. Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I couldn't sleep at night if I had a profession based upon lying "because it was my job." Lying ticks me off, I don't care if it is someone's job or not. Bahgdad Bob was just being a "good lawyer", in his own way. Disgraceful.

Just because someone from Concord. Mass., made a statement about standing by a statement, that doesn't change the value of my "I stand by my statement" statement. Logically speaking, they are irrelevant to one another.

I actually enjoy the logistical word-play that lawyers use, and have often been told that I would have made a good lawyer. I didn't even take it as an insult!

But, let's move past the lying for a minute. Here's another example of lawyering-gone-wild; when my company sent a change of address notice to a company with which we contract, they sent back a TWO-PAGE Addendum to acknowledge the change of address. It contains the phrase "whereas" a total of FIVE times. Do you people get paid by the whereas? Now, there was no lying involved, but there certainly was an overabundance of lawyering...I can only imagine it was done to justify someone's position as a lawyer. What's up with that nonsense? Just drop me a line that says you got the change of address and will make a note of it in our contract.

I REALLY believe the smart people that are in the legal profession could do so much better for the society if they put their efforts into something other than lying on command and whereas-ing us so much. Then again, I may just be naive.

Lastly, I don't think your comment about my lack of reasoning was harsh at all. Things written in this medium shouldn't be taken in worst light, and I certainly wasn't insulted...thanks for the concern, though.

I actually like arguing with lawyers, at least they don't give up because it gets complicated or heated, PLUS, they are such easy targets because of things like...well, see the first of this thread for a good example.

Maybe we could take this to another forum where we won't be boring everyone to death, do you guys have a forum where people can discuss this stuff?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

YaquiC:

I appreciate your ideals, and in many contexts would support them. I think most folks would. But, trust me on this, you would want your lawyer to be, uh, "creative" if you were in a jam.

And the reasons the guy got a deal are:

1. He was probably a first offender;

2. The DA thinks a bike is an athletic supporter;

3. The Defendant is a media personality;

4. The bloody docket is 5000 cases deep and the last thing the DA needs is another case going to trial. (The dockets in most cities are so heavy that justice is literally meted out in a few minutes per case.)

Note to Garth: Defending lawyers is a full time job without pay. Don't bother. :),

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Robert, the athletic supporter thing is a classic...that's what I love about you guys, most of you are smart enough to be really creatively funny!

I figure every hour I spent arguing with a lawyer saves somebody at least $350.00/hour! Hey, I do what I can for the good of society, even though it is naive and probably to no avail.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"Maybe we could take this to another forum where we won't be boring everyone to death, do you guys have a forum where people can discuss this stuff? "

Come on over to the California/Arnold thread (the other "hot" thread at the moment on this "triathlon" page)...the water's warm :)

Since I am a plaintiff-side, class action attorney, you are, unfortunately, not saving anyone any money. I work on a contingency fee basis, meaning I do no work, and then lie about 5 years from now when I submit my fee app. to the court for approval. This is in contrast to the defense, who do no work, and then lie about it every month when they submit their bill to their client.

I agree that the legal system is a bit of a mess, but I guess I have trouble blaming lawyers for this entirely. Like any service, legal ones are based on supply and demand. If someone says, "I want the slimiest, meanest SOB I can buy who can tie this thing up and make life hell for the other side" then that is what they will get. That lawyer, however, does not work for himself. I doubt anyone has ever heard a client say, "Wow I don't know why my attorney continued to contest my obvious liability all these years. Had I only known, we could have ended this thing a long time ago."

I guess what usually gets to me (and gets me writing these things) is the sentiment that if we just didn't have all these damn lawyers everything would be great. Yeah, women would get paid $.50 /$1.00 and black peple would have their own water fountains, too. Those things don't change themselves. I'll put up with a few misspoken criminal defense attorneys if that is the price of the cases you can find in any Con Law textbook.

Funny enough, it is the classic ambulance chasing, fender bender attorney that comes closest to a reasonable model for dispute resolution. Liability is often uncontested and the attorney and the insurance adjuster just send a couple of letters back and forth until they reach a damages figure that is acceptable to either side. Minimum of transaction cost and, typically good and quick results for the injured party.

[reply] Atty: Ok, I'll tell them you're working on the dollars and we'll get back to them in a couple of weeks.

Client: No you moron, they'll think we're not going to be able to come up with the cash, go back to X and take the all-cash deal, and we'll never go public. I knew I should have hired the New York firm.

Atty: Uh, OK, I'll go start an inane argument with them over the mispelled words in the recitals, pretend to be on vacation, then tell them that your wife is sick. That should put things off for at least 3 weeks.

Client: Good boy, maybe you'll work out after all.

My boss told me to cover for him. I did so. Everyone else does too.
[/reply]

Wow. So you're a lawyer and you claim it is OK to lie because everybody does it. I don't believe I have ever heard that argument outside of a sandbox. And by the same logic:

Athlete: I am going to race clean

Coach: No moron, all your competitors use drugs

Athlete: OK, then there is nothing wrong with me doing it too.

I have to say, I am truly shocked somebody can say something like this, it must be a troll.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

Gerard:

While we all like to believe we are the most ethical and honest people living in utopia...do you honestly believe you are without sin so that you can cast the first stone? Sure, lawyers practice in a field where deception and puffery are common-place - but so do most professions. When you first invested or participated in a business acquisition - did you really say to yourself "I believe this investment is worth $ABC so I will offer $ABC. Or did you say This investment is worth $ABC, so I'll tell the guy that there are risks, that the economy is shaky, that it is an unproven prodect and offer $XYZ"? Really, have you been 100% up front and honest in all business dealings? If so, please tell me the names, makes and models of each bike out there that has performed in some way or another better than a Cervelo in wind tunnel tests. Also, please tell me the profit margin on each of your bikes. And while you are at it - can your tax returns survive an audit...or maybe there was a deduction here or tehre that may fail? I mean - don't hide now, you are the one preaching 100% truth and honesty.

No Gerard, we all deceive and puff..."lie" if you like. Its true in law, its true in business, its true in life. For you to attack a prfession that, as stated above, helped repeal equal-but-seperate laws; men-only voting; no workers' rights; etc., etc. is as dishonest as that which you attack.

I won't sit here and claim that all lawyers deserve a place in the Bible - but I can tell you that in 12+ years of practice, some of the absolujte most moral, ethical and best people I have ever met are attorneys....at the same time, some of the worst, unethical and corrupt people (and here I use that term loosely) are attorneys. Just like other professions such as CPA's, politicians, CEO's, Roman Catholic priests and insurance company execs (the most evil in my opinion) - there are the good and the bad. There is no universal.

Alan

Alan wrote: some of the absolujte most moral, ethical and best people I have ever met are attorneys....at the same time, some of the worst, unethical and corrupt people (and here I use that term loosely) are attorneys.

Fair statement. Too bad the most moral, ethical people get lumped in with the worst, and that the most moral, ethical people of the group don't seem to be as high profile as the worst.

Another fair statement: without lawyers, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are.

That certainly doesn't mean that our current system couldn't use a MAJOR overhaul...it's like a big, stinking, smoke-billowing, polluting garbage truck, that's barely making it's way down the street while collecting the worst that humanity has to drag to the dump.

The owners of the truck (which includes the garbage producing customers to some extent, but, mostly it is the responsibility of the company that operates the truck, i.e., the Bar) are responsible for operating this beast well past the point that the vehicle needs to be repaired. It's overloaded, unreliable, filthy, unsafe, and it's a travesty to be allowed to continue to be operated in this manner.

Something as vital to the health of the populace; garbage removal, should be kept in better repair. The vehicle that helps remove the garbage shouldn't be compounding the problem.

I challenge you garbage-removal company owners to do your part to repair the beast that you operate. It's easy just to accept that garbage trucks stink, until you see one that shines because the operators really care, then you realize that complacency has allowed the stinking ones to keep on stinking. Customers even try to keep their garbage bagged better, and to put out less garbage for collection on the "clean garbage-truck" route.

Our society needs the service, without a doubt. It doesn't need something that adds to the current garbage-collection problem, so doing something about the current system is important. I'm on the garbage-producing side of the equation, and I produce as little legal garbage as possible...when I do have some legal garbage that needs to be collected, I bag it and keep it tidy so it's as neat as possible. When I see a dirty garbage collection truck, I complain to the operators. If more people did this, I think we could see a difference in the system over time.

This public service message brought to you by somebody that cares, and refuses to give up trying to improve the way things are done, regardless of the seemingly insurmountable odds against effecting a significant change.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

This is my biggest problem with the legal profession. I see three areas of practice for attorney:

1. Criminal law - I really think this area works fairly well, despite a few high profile cases to the contrary. The guilty are usually convicted (of something, anyway) and the innocent usually aren't.

2. Contract law - not sure what attorneys call it but I mean business transactions, wills, etc. I think most attorneys in this area do a good job.

3. Civil law - this is what most of us think is screwed up. The reason liability isn't contested in most of these cases is that it's cheaper to send a check than it is to defend a frivolous lawsuit. I know of an attorney who makes about $3-4 million a year in $10,000 settlements. He's figured out what it would cost an insurance company to win a lawsuit in which the defendent is clearly not liable and asks for slightly less than that amount. For the cost of two letters written by a staff paralegal, the plaintiff gets $5,000 of free money (after "expenses", the largest of which is the cost of his picture on the back of the phone book), the attorney pockets $4,000 and someone's insurance premiums go up by $10,000.

Are there cases where someone has truly been injured, physically or financially, and deserves compensation? Of course. But they are swamped by the cases above. IMO, those small examples of legalized extortion do more to harm our economy than the jackpot awards we hear so much about and tort reform proposals completely ignore them. Someone mentioned the European legal system, and I assume they meant the "loser pays legal costs" aspect. I'm all for it. Let an ambulance chaser actually go to court and pay the opposition's $350/hr attorney a few times and they'll be a little more selective.