Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (8302)	9/6/2001 11:12:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

On legalese. <time to go cause more torment to those who think that they can ignore the law because they don't understand it, or it's not convenient, or they don't like it. -g- > I had the enjoyable experience in the 1970s of not paying our rent in an attempt to make the landlord clean up broken glass and generally maintain the condition of the apartment building. Of course, they got their lawyers in and did the usual stuff, ending in court. Being particular about stuff and impecunious, I thought I'd handle it myself. So I read the jargon, got my handwritten affidavit lined up and away I went. I paid the disputed money into the court just before the case was heard as required under the landlord and tenant act, failing which the case would be forfeited by me. Mr Smart Arse lawyer for the landlord hopped up and asked the judge to decide against me because the money hadn't been paid. He'd checked a little bit too early. When I explained that I had in fact paid the money into the court, and showed the receipt, the lawyer then tried to claim that it was okay now that I had surrendered and the judge could award the money and throw the case out. Having taken the trouble to actually get the legal jargon and read it, I knew what it said. I explained it to the judge and the lawyer, who seemed a bit surprised. The judge asked me if he could have a look please. I had taken the trouble to underline the relevant bits because I knew that the landlords and their lawyer were low-life scum, unacquainted with ethics, morals, good intentions, co-operation and other normal human characteristics and I did NOT expect a judge to do other than quickly shove it through the court as quickly as possible, with a self-defending person the likely recipient of judicial displeasure, [not contributing cash flow to the guild and not something to be encouraged even if they are right]. Interestingly, I heard later [from a fellow tenant after we'd moved back to NZ] that the landlord's property manager was prosecuted for manslaughter [I did wonder about his aggressive nature and why he wore a screwdriver so conveniently strapped to his leg]. I think the judge must have started to think this was fun too. He agreed that I was indeed right about what the act said and so we proceeded. Anyway, it was a back to front case which made it tricky for the lawyer to handle. The outcome was that the judge said "Look, why don't you two go into my chambers and figure something out". I said that was fine by me. The low-life lawyer did too [not much choice for him by then] but wanted the landlord to go in too. I said of course the landlord could come in too, but I would want to have the president of the tenant's association enter the discussions as well as this case represented other tenants' interests [I was the stroppy one prepared to take on the bullies who were trying to use legalese to get their way and their money]. The judge figured it could get a bit crowded in his chambers so suggested that being reasonably capable, their lawyer should be able to handle it alone if I was capable of handling it alone. So we had a nice chambric chat and came to an amicable agreement. The lawyer was quite irritated by the whole proceedings, cost of it etc, so I explained that legalese is quite expensive for those who abuse it and that was just his and the landlord's bad luck on the day. Anyway, we all went on our way, the judge enjoyed an eyeful of the woman on the landlord's team and had a bit of fun in the courtroom. We were leaving for NZ the following week so I wasn't really too concerned about the whole deal. The lawyer was prepared to torment somebody because they wouldn't be able to understand the legalese. Bad luck for them! Hahaha!! The hunter became the hunted. That was just one of the many times when I have had reinforced in my mind that lawyers, for the most part, are studious in maintaining an absence of ethics, morals and other human norms in their profession, adhering strictly to the law to whatever extent is possible to maximize their position or their client's at somebody else's expense. Then, they wonder why they and their jargon are unloved. Anyway, as you say, off you go to torment somebody else. Speaking of which, I'd better go see who is hunting whom in the markets....gotta watch my back [which is dripping some red stuff]. Mq