General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 340

From what I understand, they're bookmark-type indicators for cross-sectioning and generating content. South African Communist Party is pretty hXc though, bruh.

 

I'm really interested to see Dom's versus a more centrist person like Clucky. I'm hoping they bookmarked something radical (in both a philosophical and colloquial sense) for the former.

 

I got liberal. And then when I clicked on it, they showed me nothing, just said they had no ads bookmarked for me. I'm not very politically active on Facebook but I've shared some human rights articles which is where I think they got the label, but I don't think it's accurate at all because they also seemed to think I'm interested in "doubt" (just the general feeling of doubt, apparently) and I'm almost positive it's because of a No Doubt show I posted pictures from a year ago. I think this says more about how inactive I am on Facebook than the technology, though.

 

Kinda bummed that it gives me "moderate" because when I was 17 and created a facebook I put my "political views" as "moderate".

 

I said it's an example.

Lawyers get reprimanded, suspended, and yes in extreme cases even disbarred for violating rules 1.7 and 1.8 in the RPC even without direct evidence of intent to defraud or conspire against a client. For example, in In re Blair, 840 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (La. 2003), a lawyer was suspended for three months for violating Rule 1.8(c) (receiving a testamentary gift from a client) despite the committee concluding respondent's violation was "unintentional" and the Supreme Court of Louisiana finding actions were not "due to any improper motive." In In re Caillouet, 800 So. 2d 367, 368 (La. 2001), A prosecutor was suspended for six months for failing to withdraw representation of private client when conflict existed with his prosecutor duties despite the committee acknowledging the prosecutor acted without "improper motive or intent." And in extreme cases where the lawyer stands to benefit financially, like in The Florida B. v. Doherty, 94 So. 3d 443, 444 (Fla. 2012) where the lawyer was disbarred for violating 1.8(a) after representing an elderly client to whom he provided both legal and financial investment services, including brokering the sale of annuities, and he did not disclose his financial interest in the annuity transactions. There was no finding by the court that his interests were adverse to the client, no fact finding of whether the transactions were actually unfair, and the committee found that he acted on a selfish motive based primarily on the evidence that he stood to gain a commission on the annuities and recommended to his client these annuities. The court did not find that he acted solely in his own interest, or even that he acted primarily in his own interest, they found that there was a substantial risk that his representation would be inhibited by his personal interests. Because there does not need to be certainty to raise ethical concerns over a conflict of interest as stated in 21 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Louisiana Lawyering § 8.2:

Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is the basic conflict of interest rule regarding current clients. It provides, in part, that “[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.”1 The exceptions are discussed below, but the first order of business is to identify a concurrent conflict of interest. The rule offers the following explanation:

A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

• (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
• (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.2

Thus, there are two ways for a concurrent conflict to arise—either because of direct adversity to a client, or because of a risk of a material limitation on the representation. In the first case the conflict arises when the direct adversity to a client is certain to occur. Note the reference to “will be” in subpart (1). In the second case, though, the conflict is based on a risk, rather than a certainty. Note the reference to “a significant risk” in subpart (2).

That is what people are saying about Clinton, that there is a substantial risk that her actions will be and have been inhibited by her personal interest in the Clinton Foundation. Now it's true that full disclosure can usually protect a lawyer from sanctions when it comes to these conflicts of interest, which makes this an imperfect comparison to the Clinton Foundation scenario, but there are still ethical red flags here. And if you're waiting to for a proverbial smoking gun in the form of an email to the KSA or one of the other oppressive regimes that received arms saying "give the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars and I will approve you arms once elected" you're going to be waiting ofrever because smoking guns like that in these sorts of situations are just not found. (Which is why I brought up Antitrust, as there are rarely if ever direct evidence in the form of a contract of say a price-fixing scheme). Which is why the 'intent' is imputed by the other actions and circumstances. So like how the Clinton Foundation received lots of money from the KSA and then later an increase in arms was approved by Clinton. Or, for another example, where a big donor to the Clinton Foundation was added International Security Advisory Board by Clinton's Chief of Staff despite the donor having no experience, other members of the board being "perplexed" by the choice, and then resigned immediately once the press started asking questions and internal emails at this time showing aides wanted to "protect" Clinton from questions. To sum up, if you don't see anything unethical with this type of behavior, well, to say the least, I think you're holding our government officials to way too low of a standard.

 

None of this is without evidence. Thanks again for proving my point, but I know this already. I said it.

 

edit: Man, the AP eyeroll emoji was a lot better.

 

Dude, you should write my casenote that I have to do for Journal write-on. Five days for 30 pages using over 800 pages of sources. By far the most challenging part of law school so far and it's not even for a fucking class.

But, really, kudos on being so thorough. I usually just call my opponent a fascist and post that "Deal With It" gif of Lenin.

 

So were your arguments.

You said someone would be disbarred ... without evidence ... for just any hint of a conflict of interest and then proved without a shadow of a doubt the evidence and process needed for such to occur ... and, even better -- that it happened in an actual legal case. And then rolled your eyes at the fact. Weird response, but again, thanks. You can't lose your license to practice law without evidence of impropriety and a lengthy process: thanks for showing that to be true. That is what I said. That is true. The rest of your post I didn't comment on.

 

Damn, my casenote for journal write-on only required like 15-20 pages hah. Pretty sure we got a full week to do it too. Do they at least publish the best submission? Would be pretty lame to write 30 pages with no chance at publication.

And thanks, I'm usually similarly flippant but sometimes topics are genuinely interesting.

 

Jason we're clearly miscommunicating because for starters:

I never said this.

The cases were in reference to our discussion on intent.

My eyeroll was in response to the fact that I posted a lengthy response with multiple citations and you responded in less than two minutes flippantly.

We can end this here if you'd like, I have to get some sleep anyway.

 

I responded quickly because your post agreed with my argument. No one loses their license just because ... Reason. Evidence. Legal cases. Far more thought and actual process begins, takes place, etc. These all occur far before anyone just loses a license. And with far more actual evidence than had been presented against the CF (by literally anyone). To discuss this entire ordeal it's important people be honest and be honest about not only what happened, but the actual burden upon proving anything wrong occurred AND what would happen in other avenues. Your first post and your last are at odds, it's nice to see that worked out, because I agree that a process by which to prove conflict of interest and that it is actually worthy of punishment takes, at the least, a process ... by which you've laid out nicely.

 

What's your point? That a foundation that receives 150 million dollars a year does charitable things? They raised a ton of money for the Haiti disaster too, much more actually. This has nothing to do with my post or the link I quoted.

 

Yeah. At my firm we sometimes won't take on a client if it creates the appearance of a conflict. That is, there is no actual conflict in the work or the outcome, but an outsider looking in might think there is one. This extends beyond a conflict between current clients usually, and comes up when a former lawyer, partner, or board member has an appearance of an interest in the case, however slight. I think getting huge donations from the military industrial complex and then becoming secretary of state would qualify lol
But I also doubt she's subject to the stringent legal rules of ethics.

 

Very liberal. But, there's a slew of other stuff referring to anti-racism, communism, socialism, pessimism, anti-imperialism, etc.

 

Re Clinton Foundation:

If the argument is, we need evidence, therefore, we should pretend as though everything is okay, despite implied conflicts of interest, then that is fine, but it isn't a standard that is applicable anywhere else. I mean, remember Halliburton and Cheney? It was permissible, but we all understood that this was nepotism and what not.

 

Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book

 

Yeah my original post, which got lost in the mess, was an argument by analogy and just stating we shouldn't hold, not legally but morally, high-ranking government officials to a lesser ethical standard than professional occupations where this type of behavior would be unethical. She isn't actually subject to such an ethical standard to my knowledge as well, but that shouldn't dissuade people from holding her accountable in other ways.

 

"Thank you Nigel, but I'm the actual Mr. Brexit"

 

I'm not sure I understand why Thiel funding Hogan's lawsuit is an issue?

 

Billionaires using other cases as a means to shut down publications doesn't concern you?

 

Is that actually what happened though? Gawker was afforded due process and they lost the case. Does it make a difference who wrote the checks to Hogan's lawyers?

No if Thiel had paid off the judge and jury, we would be talking about something else entirely.

 

The FBI was speeding up child porn sites in order to boost traffic and catch more people by infecting them with malware. So gross.

http://gizmodo.com/traffic-surged-to-a-child-porn-ring-after-the-fbi-took-1785649054