|
Post by ALJD on Jul 31, 2009 7:51:39 GMT -5
I really like the First Amendment. It's alive and well here, let's not get too timid about it. I like First Amendment too. But it only applies to government's interference of free speech. This is a private board and has no connection to any government entity. Thus, First Amendment is merely a guiding principle here. The main purpose of this board is to provide information related to ALJ hiring in a civil and supportive manner. The fact that ODAR conducts its hiring in a certain way is a valid issue to bring up. However, when it is discussed multiple times a day in a heated and uncivil manner by a select few, it becomes contrary to the purpose of this board. I don't have a bone with the content of the message, it's the frequency and style of delivery that I find problematic. Now if someone wants to go set up a board or website devoted exclusive to attack the ills of ODAR, please go ahead. But that's not what this board is about. ODAR hiring practice is one of the issue that's a part of ALJ hiring, and a important one at that. But it's not the only issue. I appreciate a passionate argument, but not when it's the same argument 10 times a day, 7 days a week. C'mon, we been talking about the same thing for the last two years. Doesn't it get old when certain folks keep on bellowing at the top of their lungs for months on at end? So please be a bit more civil and temperate and I think we'll all be happier for it. I will take action if I deem any poster to have crossed into "Anon" territory. I would prefer not, but I'd rather keep this board focused on its purpose than let it get hijacked. So please keep that in mind. Anyway, I'd like to think we're all mature professionals. Thus, please behave so we can continue the discussions we had for the past two years. Regards, Admin
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Jul 31, 2009 9:19:20 GMT -5
Sometimes the desire for civility, like the desire for bipartisanship, is so overwhelming that it gets in the way of actually accomplishing something important. I would hate to see debate limited here because TOB got out of control, so the only solution is to go to the other extreme and limit debate here out of paranoia that TOB will reappear here. At its worst, this Board has never approached what I saw on TOB. People disagree. Lawyers disagree for a living. Its in our DNA. Let's relax a bit about the tone, not get too paranoid, and not let the Board get so vanilla that it cannot continue to serve the important purposes it serves for all of us. So ALJD, I respectfully dissent. Stay reasonable and respectful to each other and I think we'll all be fine. From what I have observed in my litigation days, the best counsels attack the issues without making it personal to the opposing counsel or the judge. On the other hand, the ones who scream and act in high theater are usually the ones who have neither the laws or facts on their side.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 31, 2009 12:47:15 GMT -5
This guy fancies himself as the Charles Hall of New York. If he is right about one hour cross-exam of VEs, hearings must last two hours or more. I don't know too many ALJs who could get out 500 decisions a year with a steady diet with this guy. Maybe he practices "cockroach" hearings- you know ask a million questions and maybe something will turn over. Does anyone know if he is as successful as he advertises?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 31, 2009 16:52:56 GMT -5
I think that high theater comes with the territory.This Board is full of drama junkies. Personal attacks on the other hand should be deleted and the sender criticized. I think we all can agree to that even if we slip up (in a blue moon).
Membership should hath its privileges. If you're a guest, you should not get much latitude, because you haven't demonstrated your fealty to us--in its most rudimentary form. More stars should mean that we cut you a little more slack. You've shot your mouth off more--heck, you need the space.
I agree with pf on this one, but with the above caveats. I don't necessarily agree that this Board should only be about becoming an ALJ and all its ancillary sidelines. However, ALJDisc and Pix do hold the trump cards, as well they should.
|
|
|
Post by justahuman on Aug 1, 2009 2:42:23 GMT -5
Does anyone know if he is as successful as he advertises? I was wondering the same thing. He sure has some pretty bold posts on his blog, but does not have anyone commenting on them. Do you think he is the same person in this article that also represents pets? www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/fashion/03lawyers.html
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Aug 1, 2009 8:19:07 GMT -5
And your point is??? Animals and disabled persons are both very deserving of representation. My first jury trial was a dog bite case - representing the dog (and her owner) when they were sued by an Orkin Man who was soliciting for business and picked the wrong house. We counter-claimed for trespass, and won a judgment for the biter against the bitee for $650.00 for te trespass.
|
|
|
Post by lawdog98 on Aug 1, 2009 8:43:54 GMT -5
Did you chase your tail trying to collect? Did you have to bug his employer? Or was he an independent contractor who scurried away?
;D
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Aug 1, 2009 9:29:26 GMT -5
Not really - they decided to settle for the cost of the transcript they woul have to buy for the appeal. I did add Orkin Inc as a defendant to the counterclaim, because they train their people to go to the back door to solicit business, because "only salesmen go to the front door." Unfortunately the judge didn't bite on that claim, and let the company off the hook.
|
|
|
Post by justahuman on Aug 1, 2009 10:20:01 GMT -5
My point is what I stated my point is. The question was asked if anyone knew if the guy was as successful as he advertises. I stated that I was wondering the same thing. At this point I neither imagine he is as successful, nor doubt that he is. At this point I am still wondering, because I don’t really know. I stated he has some pretty bold posts on his blog, but does not have anyone commenting on them. And I asked if anyone thought he is the same person in the article that also represents pets? Animals and disabled persons are both very deserving of representation. I agree. My first jury trial was a dog bite case - representing the dog (and her owner) when they were sued by an Orkin Man who was soliciting for business and picked the wrong house. We counter-claimed for trespass, and won a judgment for the biter against the bitee for $650.00 for te trespass. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Aug 1, 2009 16:34:55 GMT -5
Thanks JAH - my canine sensitivities sometime perk up when they don't need to be.
|
|
|
Post by justahuman on Aug 1, 2009 18:50:06 GMT -5
Thanks JAH - my canine sensitivities sometime perk up when they don't need to be. No problem. I will have to admit I considered biting an Orkin man myself one time. Not that I have anything in particular against Orkin men. But one of them was particularly rude. So I had a real “Don’t come to my home and give me any $^*” attitude about the whole thing. I imagine the dog felt the same way, and lacking verbal skills, stated his objection in the best way he knew how. It is interesting that there is a whole field of law related to pets. Concerning the attorney who blogs, it is puzzling that he has been blogging for several years and doesn’t seem to have any following. No comments. No discussion. Just his blog entries. That seems unusual. It does seem like his blog entries are more designed to promote himself to claimants, than to actually discuss law, or Social Security issues. But it still seems like he would have drawn a few faithful followers along the way. He does seem to have a tendency to like to name names when discussing his disagreements with ALJs. Though I understand he has his reasons for doing so, I question the usefulness of the practice. By the way, congratulations on completing the ALJ training, Your Honor! Hopefully you will be able to enjoy a few “non-sitting” days before going on the bench – so your rear won’t still be numb when it gets there.
|
|