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.

Pastimes : Gary Dobry Subpoenas 41 SI Aliases -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (387)	1/31/2002 1:56:39 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

Motion Granted - The Motion To Compel Dobry to: "immediately disclose the location and/or disposition of the hard drives which were contained in two computers which Dobry was to produce pursuant to prior orders of Court." was granted on 30 January 2002. Case Listing - 1 cases selected for Marchese, Richard Case No. Date Filed Plaintiff Defendant Type Judge Magistrate 1:00-cv-5606 09/12/00 Marchese Dobry CV George M. Marovich Ian H. Levin racer.ilnd.uscourts.gov

To: scion who wrote (387)	2/1/2002 10:52:11 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

<<Somewhere around 99 percent of all complaints filed against attorneys in the United States are dismissed by the local Bar Association and/or by agents working for the State Supreme Courts.>> This alone is enough to tell me that that guy has no idea what he is talking about. The reason non-lawyers are prohibited from practicing law without a license is because non-lawyers are not controlled or regulated and there are few, if any, effective mechanisms for relief when they think they know facts and law and misrepresent those facts and law to others. His generalizations are scary and, at times, seriously inaccurate. In Texas, a court would likely enjoin such conduct. Anyone charging for such "advise," would likely be prosecuted (a first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, a subsequent offense is a felony) and, IMO, likely be convicted. Since he claims to know the law so well, then this portion of the Texas Penal Code should not be any surprise to him. § 38.123. Unauthorized Practice of Law (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person: (1) contracts with any person to represent that person with regard to personal causes of action for property damages or personal injury; (2) advises any person as to the person's rights and the advisability of making claims for personal injuries or property damages; (3) advises any person as to whether or not to accept an offered sum of money in settlement of claims for personal injuries or property damages; (4) enters into any contract with another person to represent that person in personal injury or property damage matters on a contingent fee basis with an attempted assignment of a portion of the person's cause of action; or (5) enters into any contract with a third person which purports to grant the exclusive right to select and retain legal counsel to represent the individual in any legal proceeding. (b) This section does not apply to a person currently licensed to practice law in this state, another state, or a foreign country and in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and the state bar or licensing authority of any and all other states and foreign countries where licensed. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, an offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (d) An offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted under Subsection (a) of this section. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 723, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Just because a person does not directly charge for something does not necessarily mean that they have not done it "with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself...." I have no reason to believe that his heart and intentions are not in the right place. I do wonder, however, if he will back them up with cash if and when he gives someone bad "advice" and that "advice" harms or damages them. Has he found an insurance carrier to provide malpractice "advice" coverage? Somehow, I doubt it. It will not happen he may say? How about the poor guy who reads the material about various statutes of limitations and takes it at face value just to find out later that his State is not part of the "most" or "many." He misses his limitations date because the published material said it was probably 10 years -- when it was really two or three or four. He was never told him his State was one of the "many?" True, but it sure implied it and did nothing to tell him not to rely on the general advise. That guy may be very intelligent, he may be able to do everything he claims, and he may even be able to do it better than "many" lawyers, but anyone who takes his free advise in place of a lawyer's advise risks that they will be getting what they paid for: NOTHING. They also risk getting misled with less remedies than they would have against a lawyer. Who are these people to complain to when they get misled or wronged by his free "advice?" What grievance procedure is available to review his conduct and actions? To whom is he held accountable? Heck, if he says he can give medical advise I may never need to see a doctor again. NOT! Troy