StoneMtn

Theme - Water 1. Dire Straits - Down to the Waterline 2. Melissa Ethridge - Bring Me Some Water 3. Louis Armstrong - Up the Lazy River 4. TLC - Waterfalls 5. The Who - Drowned 6. Deep Purple - Smoke on the Water 7. Slowcoaster - Drink the Water from the Palm of My Hand 8. Led Zeppelin - The Rain Song 9. Bright Eyes - At the Bottom of Everything 10.The Wiggles - Water Buffalo Song 11. Mos Def - New World Water 12. New Monsoon - Downstream

Will St. Anthony assist a young, heretical Jew-boy like the Rev, though? He's not even in the right "club".

Actually, that's true. Just this morning it was dark out, but then I prayed for the sun to come up. Voila! You can't argue with success like that.

Good thinking, Deeps. As well, the manufacturer of the truck also has the ability to get you new keys. (I will not go into the story that explains why I know that.)

Ah! Well, you did. The way my work-week goes, I constantly go back and forth from waking up at 5 am to waking up at 7 am, such that I can never get into a routine, and every Friday night I'm ready to pass out by dinner time. This makes me a lot more fun on Saturday nights. Given that this show is on Saturday, I'm almost certainly IN.

Even better. Thanks for that clarification.

He's playing at GM place, tickets go on sale March 5. (I must admit that I've never really forgiven him for "Radio KAOS", but he was an integral member of Floyd, so what are you gonna do?)

Hey! Toronto's a Friday night! A definite "maybe".

DirtyBird: In this case, I would have referred this person to a particular lawyer who is well known for acting for similar clients. The particular lawyer I am thinking of would have no personal biases that could possibly interfere with upholding his duty to act as prudently for this client as he is sworn to, and also has the appropriate legal expertise to handle this matter. Birdy: We take oaths that essentially say we will represent our clients to the best of our ability. That includes making arguments on that client's behalf and asking questions that we may find distasteful. That said, we are still entitled to take on any client we wish or refuse any client we wish. The only real restrictions on that are in the unusual case that you are in a very remote location and the potential client has no access to another lawyer, or in the case that the court orders you to represent a client. Once we take on a client, however, things get a little trickier. We don't have to represent that client forever, but we also cannot abandon that client at a moment that would prejudice the client's case. There are further rules on that, too, but that about sums it up.

I said nothing about "defending" a client. The potential client was looking to commence a lawsuit. Incidentally (again IF this had been me) I WOULD LIKELY have suggested and referred this to a more appropriate lawyer.

For you, Jared? Anything.

You are correct, popo weenie. The question in this thread is not a legal question, suited to court disposition. It is a philosophical question. There is no "legal issue" here, at all; at best it is a moral issue.

In my view, there is no clear answer to this. IF THIS WERE ME, and not just a HYPOTHETICAL situation, I would decline the work, but I would have some philosophical problems with doing so. It would be a struggle between my views as a civil-libertarian and my personal views of particular issues. (I can tell you, though, that during law school I would have said exactly what Zero did.) There is no correct answer, here. BTW: popo weenie, as a point of interest, if you ever find yourself looking for a lawyer to commence a lawsuit, you would likely do better to hire someone who actually practices civil litigation; rather than a criminal defence lawyer like Greenspan (despite what an amazing litigator he is).

We decline work for any number of reasons. Those include: - lack of expertise - lack of time - personal biases that could impact on a lawyer's ability to diligently run an action - personal dislike of the client (which relates to the one just above) - lack of belief in the viability of the action on a legal or economic level The list goes on. Any lawyer can decline any work (unless ordered otherwise by a Court).

Uh, okay.

Huh?

I think you need to re-read the original post.

In this hypothetical situation, the potential client is not asking for a "defence" to anything. He is asking for someone to launch a lawsuit on his behalf.

Five Alarm Funk is playing with Aphrodesia (10 piece afrobeat from San Fran) at Richards on Richards on Feb 23.

Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. I'd be interested in the Skank-viewpoint. A Jewish lawyer is consulted by a potential client. The potential client runs a website and online talk-show, which is being hacked and attacked. This is happening because the hackers do not like the content of the website and talk show. It sounds like a clear case of "trespass to chattels", and possibly other torts. It sounds like grounds to obtain an injunction preventing the hackers from continuing this behaviour. The Jewish lawyer has the expertise in Internet law to do this. At the close of the conversation with the potential client, the lawyer asks, "Out of curiosity, what is the content of this website that offends the hackers?" "Well, you might call it 'white power' with some anti-Jewish content too. I am aware you are Jewish." Now, officially, this person has the right to run his website. The content may or may not be protected content, because "hate speech" is not protected, but generally a person can say what they want within fairly liberal limits. This may or may not breach those limits, but in any event that is not the issue the lawyer is being asked to litigate. In the end of this hypothetical scenario, the lawyer opts not to act for this person. Any thoughts?

In.

Yes. That is pretty much trite contract law. I would argue, however, that a forced infringement of civil liberties, without an overriding societal interest in protection of the public or some other reason outside the "de minimis range" (similar to a Section 1 Charter analysis under the Oakes test) would also be contrary to public policy. The fact is that no one will ever litigate something like this. That is why such deplorable policies are put in place, and manage to sustain themselves. (Then again, maybe *someone* will one day litigate this. Hmmmm. Food for thought.)

hahahaha Cully managed to take 400 words of mine, and distil it down to the bottom line: IT SUCKS. That is really all I needed to say, eh? (Geez am I ever wordy!)

I suspect I have experienced at least as many bad touches in the USA as you have. Touring with the Grateful Dead, and later Phish, causes a person to be put in such a situation regularly. It does not change my opinion. It merely bolsters my resolve to avoid the States, apart from when absolutely necessary; as has been my policy since the inception of the Patriot Act. Now, I should say that this is not unique to the States, either. In the old days, Kingswood was notorious for their searches, and armies of security and cops at the gates. The States certainly does not have a monopoly on over-zealous security. It is not a matter of learning to live with it. I have long since done so. It also has nothing to do with hiding anything. I am not in any way concerned about being found to be in possession of something I shouldn't have. Rather, I'm offended to be told that I have a choice to see a band I wish to see, or to give up some of my civil liberty. It is inappropriate, offensive, and a complete overreaction to any real "risk" there may be to the venue. I put up with it, every time actually, because it is simpler. It's still offensive.