Jump to content

Gay Cheerleader of the Week Award


Doug69
This topic is 6758 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>But that is exactly the part that you and Woodlawn have been

>harping on for weeks.

 

No, Deej. I have not talked about the fact that Conway threatened a lawsuit that never was brought. I have talked - and laughed - and am still laughing - about the fact that Conway claimed to be a trial lawyer who offered to represent you "pro bono" even though he was lying about being a lawyer.

 

>You, yourself, now admit that it isn't the point yet you both

>keep bringing it up. Incessantly. You're stirring up shit

>around an issue that does not exist.

 

The issue that exists is that Conway claimed to be a lawyer who offered to represent you "pro bono" even though he's not a lawyer at all, as he now admits.

 

I thought that was one of the most pitiful things I had ever seen on the Internet - until I just read Conway's post to Vincent Michael, which makes his lies about being a lawyer pale in comparison.

 

Nice company you keep and defend there, Deej. Being the Preacher of Posting Civility and the Defender of Escorts, I'm sure you'll be condemning Conway's post to VM any minute now, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

>Sorry. But, I don't see where I claim to be an attorney in

>that text.

 

You offered to provide Deej with "pro bono" counsel. The ONLY meaning of that statement to someone who has an understanding of the terms you used is that you were offering Deej a lawyer who would not BE PAID BY ANYONE. That is because the meaning of the term "pro bono" is a lawyer who works WITHOUT COMPENSATION for the public good - not a lawyer who is paid by someone other than the client:

__________________

 

"Pro bono, is a phrase derived from Latin meaning "for the good". The complete phrase is pro bono publico, "for the public good". It is a term used to designate legal or other professional work

undertaken voluntarily and without payment, as a public service. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono)

 

S: (adj) pro bono (done for the public good without compensation)

(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pro+bono)

 

Pro Bono Short form of the Latin, pro bono publico, or "for the public good." This is when an attorney performs legal work without pay, in order to help social causes.

http://www.attorneykennugent.com/library/p.html

___________________

 

It is quite common for lawyers to represent clients where a third-party (i.e., someone other than the client) pays the attorneys fees. It happens in insurance cases, cases where the party has indemnification rights, and a whole host of other cases where, for any number of reasons, someone other than the client is paying the attorney fees.

 

Nobody with any basic knowledge of the term describes that arrangement as the lawyer working "pro bono". That's because a lawyer who is getting paid fees (even if it's from a third party) is not, by defintion, working "pro bono."

 

Since you offered to provide Deej with "pro bono" counsel, the only possible meaning is that you were offering him a lawyer who would not get paid by anyone. And your other statements - including the fact that YOU (not someone you work with, but YOU) would be selling Deej's case to the jury - makes indisputably clear that it was YOU whom you were claiming would be the pro bono lawyer.

 

I don't blame you for trying to deny it. Anyone who gets caught in a lie - particularly a lie like this - would be humiliated. But the way you're denying it - relying on transparently false statements and using terms you don't understand - is only making your humiliating more acute.

 

One last thing: lawyers do not need, as you stupidly asserted, to be admitted in a particular state in order to litigate cases in a court in that state. It is extremely common for out-of-state lawyers to be admitted pro hac vice (your term for next week, once you master "pro bono") in order to represent clients in out-of-state fora.

 

You should really stop embarrassing yourself. You got caught in a pathetic lie - claiming to be a lawyer when you weren't. Trying to lie again in order to cover it up is only making it much worse for you.

 

And you should especially stop using terms and talking about topics that you knowing absolutely nothing about. I'm honestly starting to feel sorry for you, which is undermining the fun I've been having at your expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>I can take conways BS I just wish he would grow the hell up

>and stop hoping I starve to death and implying I die as an

>escort....Grow up Conway didnt your mom give you any mannors?

 

I'm not sure if you read Conway's post before he edited out the worst part in embarrassment (once Hamlet correctly chided Conway for writing a post that was beneath contempt).

 

Posters have a right to edit their own posts. Do not follow them and reprint what they chose to edit. [/font color]

 

I hope anyone reading Conway's posts in the future will remember what he just wrote, along with his lies about being a lawyer. What more does anyone need to know about him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

We need to start calling you Sit 'n Spin, Doug.

 

>Nice company you keep and defend there, Deej.

 

I haven't defended anyone. I've pointed out that you're beating a dead horse that never existed.

 

>Conway claimed to be a trial lawyer who offered to represent

>you "pro bono" even though he was lying about being a lawyer.

 

He never made that claim. You did. You, yourself, have posted his words that prove YOU wrong. Conway *is* right that you're the kind of plaintiff a good trial attorney prays for -- an easy mark.

 

>sure you'll be condemning Conway's post to VM any minute now,

 

It's not my place to condemn him, although I certainly don't approve, and it has nothing to do with this conversation. However, when you drag my name into a conversation founded on lies based on innuendo you can bet I'll call you on it.

 

You're a liar. And when called on a lie, you reply with unrelated spin. What unrelated spin are you going to drag into your reply to this message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>I'm not sure if you read Conway's post before he edited out

>the worst part in embarrassment (once Hamlet correctly chided

>Conway for writing a post that was beneath contempt).

 

>Posters have a right to edit their own posts.

>Do not follow them and reprint what they chose to edit. [/font

>color]

>

 

That's right, Doug, you should not reprint here what Conway chose to edit out of his post in embarrassment. You should simply post it on Escortspeak so that everyone can read it without fear of editorial interference. :)

 

 

>I hope anyone reading Conway's posts in the future will

>remember what he just wrote, along with his lies about being a

>lawyer. What more does anyone need to know about him?

 

I see that while I was off doing one or two things in the non-virtual world you once again made fools of both deej and Conway. Perhaps I should be angry with you for beating me to the punch, but you are so good at covering them with (well deserved) ridicule that I can't be angry. I can only express my admiration for your diligence and perspicacity.

 

Can you imagine that creature trying to weasel out of responsibility for his fraudulent behavior by pretending he really didn't mean to express that he is a lawyer? What are people supposed to gather from his statement that he has "sold" things "to a jury," that he works behind the counter at the courthouse cafeteria? Incredible! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

Why do you keep drawing attention to your inability to comprehend rather common use of the English language Doug.

 

You cannot even point out one quote made by me where I claimed to be an attorney. The best you can do is draw assumptions which highlights the fact that you're a mental midget incapable of basic reading comprehension.

 

Let's reveiw what we have learned about you this week.

 

1. Your claims regarding the success of escortspeak were completely proven to be untrue when I did a survey of the site showing the infrequency of posts made there as well as the fact that many of the forums had not been posted in for months. It becomes all the more laughable based upon the fact that some tempermental social turd like yourself wanted/wants it to succeed so badly. Yet, it cannot because your bad behavior, poor people skills, and lack of intelligence are like a counter-magnet driving potential users of that site away.

 

2. You lack basic reading comprehension skills as evidenced in the post that I am replying to now. One of my favorite parts of proving your idiocy with such frequency, is that you never reply to the posts which conclusively prove a) that you're a goddammed liar b) that your intelligence only exists in the myth created by your own ego and c)that you're such amiserable person that you probably couldn't get a dog to rim you without shoving a porkchop up your ass.

 

3. You can't EVER admit you're wrong although the rest of the world can see it clearly. Your claims of intelligence are like a reproduction of the fable in which the emperor has no clothes.

 

It's been fun toying with you, Doug. It was more fun watching your claims of victory against me when I was just playing you like a cheap intellectual fiddle waiting to drop a bomb on you like you were some kind of spear toting intellectual aborigine.

 

But, I have better things to do tonight. First a workout with my hot young boy toy. Then, a night out on the town with friends, Don't you wishj you had friends, Doug?

 

Loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

LMAO!! God, I'm not sure you're smart enough to do anything other than sell your ass on the internet. Well, maybe cry which you seem to be doing here.

 

I've known the company of a number of escorts who are intelligent, interesting and convivial company. You aoppear to be a pathetic moron with no ability to do anything else in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

"That's right, Doug, you should not reprint here what Conway chose to edit out of his post in embarrassment. You should simply post it on Escortspeak so that everyone can read it without fear of editorial interference."

 

Since when does three people (one of whom is functionally illiterate) constitute everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>Since when does three people (one of whom is functionally

>illiterate) constitute everyone?

 

Here's an excerpt from one of your recent posts in the "Decreased activity" thread:

 

"You really live your live via internet drama, son't you"

 

Who are you to call anyone else illiterate? :)

 

And what do you mean, "three people"? Both you and deej have recently indicated that you read Escortspeak frequently. Oh, I see -- you feel that you and he are not really "people." Well, I can't argue with that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>He never made that claim. You did. You, yourself, have posted

>his words that prove YOU wrong. Conway *is* right that you're

>the kind of plaintiff a good trial attorney prays for -- an

>easy mark.

 

Squint and concentrate really hard, Deej:

 

Conway claimed that he has sold things to juries in the past and that having the jury hate Woodlawn would be the "one of the easiest sells I have ever made to a jury."

 

See, in our judicial system, Deej, nobody "sells things to a jury" EXCEPT for lawyers. Nobody is permitted to make "sells" to a jury except for lawyers (or pro se litigants, which he obviously couldn't be in your lawsuit).

 

A person who goes around talking about the things they've successfully sold to juries in the past, and who threatens someone that getting the jury to hate them will be "one of the easiest sells I have ever made to a jury," is, BY DEFINITION, claiming to be a lawyer, since only lawyers sell to juries.

 

Are you really incapable of understanding that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You offered to provide Deej with "pro bono" counsel. The ONLY

>meaning of that statement to someone who has an understanding

>of the terms you used is that you were offering Deej a lawyer

>who would not BE PAID BY ANYONE.

 

If I offered to introduce Deej to an attorney who would represent him on a pro bono basis because he enjoys torturing self worshipping assholes like you and Woody, then I would be providing him with pro bono counsel for all intents and purposes. That was the intent of my statement and the reality of wat I offered.

 

Please show me where I claimed I was an attorney or agreed that I would pay Deej's legal fees. You can't because I never did. Once again, you've made an assumption without carefully comprehending the words that were written. You should try being less imaginative and more literal in your translations of the words that people speak and write to you. Because, once again, you look like a pathetic half wit who cannot read.

 

In addition to being a flaming asshole, you're a very sloppy thinker, Dougie.

 

>Since you offered to provide Deej with "pro bono" counsel, the

>only possible meaning is that you were offering him a lawyer

>who would not get paid by anyone. And your other statements -

>including the fact that YOU (not someone you work with, but

>YOU) would be selling Deej's case to the jury - makes

>indisputably clear that it was YOU whom you were claiming

>would be the pro bono lawyer.

 

Assumption is not your friend, Dougie. It leads you down a path that makes you look like a damn fool. It has done so twice in this argument. First, I never said that I would be selling Deej's case to the jury. I said that I knew how to make a jury hate a guy like you or Woody (not a difficult task as you have the uncanny ability to make nearly any human hate you with your pompous self promotion, conceit and general boorishness). As an advisor to the potential pro bono attorney in this case case, I would have had the opportunity to share with Dee's counsel, the little things that I have noted in reading numerous examples of your angry, ego driven drivel here. If I advise him of a couple of the triggers that I have seen that cause your nasty temper to explode and he uses them causing you to meltdown on the stand, then I have succeeded in making a jury hate you. Just as I said I could.

 

 

>

>One last thing: lawyers do not need, as you stupidly asserted,

>to be admitted in a particular state in order to litigate

>cases in a court in that state. It is extremely common for

>out-of-state lawyers to be admitted pro hac vice (your term

>for next week, once you master "pro bono") in order to

>represent clients in out-of-state fora.

 

How would I ever know such a thing. I'm not an attorney nor have I ever claimed to be one. The point is irrelative to this argument. Just another example of you trying to change the course of the argument because you have been humiliated because of your sloppy assumptive thinking.

 

>You should really stop embarrassing yourself. You got caught

>in a pathetic lie - claiming to be a lawyer when you weren't.

>Trying to lie again in order to cover it up is only making it

>much worse for you.

 

Please, once again, I beg you. Give me one direct quote in which I claimed to be an attorney. If you cannot, I didn't lie. Rather than call you a liar, I'll just assume that your inability to compprehend these arguments is related to the fact that you're not aging so gracefully from a mental perspective.

 

I really don't hate you, Dougie. I pity you as you've spent your life kicking people in the teeth. Now that you're old and your mind is slipping, there's no one who cares enough of a rat's ass about you to care for you as your mind and body wither away. You'll probably die in a bed full of your own excrement, because no one can bear you even to care for you in death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to Vinnie Mike, the moderators, and anyone else who may have seen my comment. It was inappropriate and made in the heat of argument. There was no excuse for it.

 

Vinnie Mike has the right to make a living anyway he chooses. If clients understand the risk of his past actions where their privacy is concerned and still choose to hire him, that is a personal decision that each client makes.

 

I've spoken my position on Vinnie Mike. I will not comment again on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>See, in our judicial system, Deej, nobody "sells things to a jury"

>EXCEPT for lawyers. Nobody is permitted to make "sells" to a jury

>except for lawyers

 

Bullshit. The lawyers have litigation support personnel who build their cases. I've done litigation support and I know that what *I* put in front of juries (via the lawyers) won cases.

 

Remember Erin Brokovich? Not a lawyer, but she won some damn big cases.

 

And you, of all people, know this. No matter how good you look to your clients when they get the decision they want, it was the support staff that built the case and fed you the data you needed to get the win. Of course someone with your hyper-inflated ego would never admit it. (I'll bet you blame them when you lose, though!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

LOL...the only thing you have in common with Erin Brokovich is that you both wear push-up bras....and have vagina's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>Bullshit. The lawyers have litigation support personnel who

>build their cases. I've done litigation support and I know

>that what *I* put in front of juries (via the lawyers) won

>cases.

 

You have never put anything in front of a jury. In a courtroom, only lawyers, witnesses and judges are permitted to say anything to members of a jury.

 

>Remember Erin Brokovich? Not a lawyer, but she won some damn

>big cases.

 

As I recall, the litigation she was involved in was settled.

 

 

>And you, of all people, know this. No matter how good you look

>to your clients when they get the decision they want, it was

>the support staff that built the case

 

Bullshit. As the Merck trial in Texas recently illustrated, it is the trial counsel's ability to connect with the jury that wins cases, not a weeks-long drone of scientific evidence by one side contradicted by a weeks-long drone of similar evidence from the other side. You wouldn't know that -- I doubt you've ever even seen a trial.

 

You may as well stop wasting your time. Those who read your idiot friend's statement about the things he's "sold to a jury" believed he was portraying himself as a lawyer since that is the common usage of that phrase in our language. The tortured evasion you and he are trying to put over makes Clinton's statement about the meaning of the word "is" look sincere by comparison. The longer you keep on in this vein, the more foolish the two of you look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

Whatever.

 

Lawyers do it all. OK, I take your point. There is no reason for those expensive researchers or HELLISH expensive IT budgets because Woodlawn says it's all done by the Lawyer.

 

I'm done for this week. Be sure to have your parking ticket validated on your way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>Oooohhhhhh ...... grade school playground insults. Hey,

>that's adding a lot.

 

It could have been something brilliant like..."What KIND of pizza do you like?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>There is no reason

>for those HELLISH expensive IT

>budgets

 

Skippy,

 

We have enormous IT budgets so that the IT people can write, teach and maintain programs directed towards each practice group's specific needs. This, of course, leads to the attorneys doing much more of their own work. So, Woodlawn and you are both right. Congrats, tiger. You got one partially right.

 

Later.

 

PS. And for Lucky, this was written at 4:02am and I'm tweaking terribly. Please send large Latin cock immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Conway the Make-Believe Trial Lawyer

 

>Whatever.

>

>Lawyers do it all. OK, I take your point. There is no reason

>for those expensive researchers or HELLISH expensive IT

>budgets because Woodlawn says it's all done by the Lawyer.

 

What are "IT" people? They're file clerks. Their job is to arrange documents and other information so that it's easier for trial counsel to use. That's it. That's all they do. They don't figure out which documents to present to the jury. They don't figure out what to ask witnesses on direct or cross. They don't figure out what needs to be said and what left out in opening statements and closing arguments. They just file things.

 

If expensive IT solutions are the key to winning cases, why did Microsoft lose its antitrust trial? I don't think you can convince anyone that Microsoft didn't have enough money to provide its attorneys (Sullivan & Cromwell) with sufficient IT resources for the trial. They have all the money in the world. But they didn't have David Boies.

 

>I'm done for this week. Be sure to have your parking ticket

>validated on your way out.

 

Feel free to run away whenever you've had enough. I'm not going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...