Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(05-18-2018, 10:57 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/racist-law...ice-space/

The world is doomed. The weak have officially taken over.

Thanks public education system.

(05-18-2018, 10:58 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 10:57 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/racist-law...ice-space/

The world is doomed. The weak have officially taken over.

Thanks public education system.

You Welcome.

---

For the record, he didnt commit any crimes other than just talking stupid so IMO he shouldnt lose his law licence or ability to practice elsewhere, but he needs to be punished severely for his actions.

Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

(05-18-2018, 11:21 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 10:58 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]The world is doomed. The weak have officially taken over.

Thanks public education system.

You Welcome.

---

Comedy Gold Jerry, GOLD!

As many articles that you post about racism, I wonder why none of them show racist black men or women?

The lawyer is guilty of a thought crime. He should be shot on the Washington Bridge at dawn.

(05-18-2018, 11:21 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]

---

For the record, he didnt commit any crimes other than just talking stupid so IMO he shouldnt lose his law licence or ability to practice elsewhere, but he needs to be punished severely for his actions.

Being stupid is not a crime.

If we are to start locking up folks with what is perceived as racism/racist remarks the OP KFC here has got some jail time coming his way. KFC is the most obvious racist that posts to this board.

I remember when people laughed at words..

Actions were punished. Words were nothing.

(05-18-2018, 11:01 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 11:21 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]

---

For the record, he didnt commit any crimes other than just talking stupid so IMO he shouldnt lose his law licence or ability to practice elsewhere, but he needs to be punished severely for his actions.

Being stupid is not a crime.

In more advanced societies it is.

(05-18-2018, 12:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

Either you've never read a commercial lease of significance or you don't have the mental capacity to be able to interpret the provisions of such leases.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say it's the former.

(05-18-2018, 09:55 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]As many articles that you post about racism, I wonder why none of them show racist black men or women?

Because there isn't any...I'm shocked you didn't know that

(05-21-2018, 12:09 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 12:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

Either you've never read a commercial lease of significance or you don't have the mental capacity to be able to interpret the provisions of such leases.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say it's the former.

Pretty significant statement for someone that has zero ideas of whom I am or anything related to my personal and business dealings. Feel free to show me a contract with "foot and mouth" clause ol' wise forum entity. There is not a contract on this planet that has an enforceable "Provision for Use", "Reasonable Use Restrictions", or "Permissive Use" clause that is detailed and enforceable for a guy appearing to be an idiot in his rant outside of his contracted business space. Also, he broke no applicable laws connected to the commercial space, nor did he break any applicable law outside the commercial space. Law precedence states, "the tenant may use the property for any lawful purpose not materially different from that in which they are usually employed, to which they are adapted or for which they were constructed." Even if some generalized language were included in the contract for behavior or term of use IAW published policy, it would be considered too ambiguous in interpretation, thereby unenforceable. With all this said, he has been using the space as contracted and intended. He has every right to seek remedy for breach of contract under the N.Y. Real Property Law and/or Retalitory Eviction Protection, section 223-b.

I will go out on a limb and state he will not be disbarred either. He will receive nothing more than a private admonition and perhaps a negative remark on some lawyer search website.

(05-21-2018, 02:25 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-21-2018, 12:09 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Either you've never read a commercial lease of significance or you don't have the mental capacity to be able to interpret the provisions of such leases.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say it's the former.

Pretty significant statement for someone that has zero ideas of whom I am or anything related to my personal and business dealings. Feel free to show me a contract with "foot and mouth" clause ol' wise forum entity. There is not a contract on this planet that has an enforceable "Provision for Use", "Reasonable Use Restrictions", or "Permissive Use" clause that is detailed and enforceable for a guy appearing to be an idiot in his rant outside of his contracted business space. Also, he broke no applicable laws connected to the commercial space, nor did he break any applicable law outside the commercial space. Law precedence states, "the tenant may use the property for any lawful purpose not materially different from that in which they are usually employed, to which they are adapted or for which they were constructed." Even if some generalized language were included in the contract for behavior or term of use IAW published policy, it would be considered too ambiguous in interpretation, thereby unenforceable. With all this said, he has been using the space as contracted and intended. He has every right to seek remedy for breach of contract under the N.Y. Real Property Law and/or Retalitory Eviction Protection, section 223-b.

I will go out on a limb and state he will not be disbarred either. He will receive nothing more than a private admonition and perhaps a negative remark on some lawyer search website.

Hurricane relies more on his feelings and emotions rather than any logical or rational thought.

(05-21-2018, 02:25 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-21-2018, 12:09 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Either you've never read a commercial lease of significance or you don't have the mental capacity to be able to interpret the provisions of such leases.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say it's the former.

Pretty significant statement for someone that has zero ideas of whom I am or anything related to my personal and business dealings. Feel free to show me a contract with "foot and mouth" clause ol' wise forum entity. There is not a contract on this planet that has an enforceable "Provision for Use", "Reasonable Use Restrictions", or "Permissive Use" clause that is detailed and enforceable for a guy appearing to be an idiot in his rant outside of his contracted business space. Also, he broke no applicable laws connected to the commercial space, nor did he break any applicable law outside the commercial space. Law precedence states, "the tenant may use the property for any lawful purpose not materially different from that in which they are usually employed, to which they are adapted or for which they were constructed." Even if some generalized language were included in the contract for behavior or term of use IAW published policy, it would be considered too ambiguous in interpretation, thereby unenforceable. With all this said, he has been using the space as contracted and intended. He has every right to seek remedy for breach of contract under the N.Y. Real Property Law and/or Retalitory Eviction Protection, section 223-b.

I will go out on a limb and state he will not be disbarred either. He will receive nothing more than a private admonition and perhaps a negative remark on some lawyer search website.

Yer one of them lawyer fellas, ain't ya?

Nellie, go fetch my shotgun.

(05-18-2018, 12:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/05/17/a...ent-viral/

Maybe there is no "foot in mouth" clause, but whether you like it or not, he's been removed from his office building with no recourse, and he's facing disbarment and working against the government now. He's toast, and he deserves it. 

If you research him on the internet you'll find that he's a white supremacist, he has more videos out there where he either speaks hatefully towards people he thinks are immigrants or bumps into them and threatens to call the police. The guy is a bag of garbage and he's getting his just desserts.

(05-22-2018, 07:18 AM)Achilles Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 12:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/05/17/a...ent-viral/

Maybe there is no "foot in mouth" clause, but whether you like it or not, he's been removed from his office building with no recourse, and he's facing disbarment and working against the government now. He's toast, and he deserves it. 

If you research him on the internet you'll find that he's a white supremacist, he has more videos out there where he either speaks hatefully towards people he thinks are immigrants or bumps into them and threatens to call the police. The guy is a bag of garbage and he's getting his just desserts.

The guy may be a tool bag, but your statement about no recourse and inevitable disbarment are false. Our rights are not assigned based on individual morals and ethics. Fortunately, law doesn’t typically rule on feelings and emotion either. While I don’t support his behavior, this guy can sue for numerous reason and would win. As far as the Congressman, this is a states issue where he has zero jurisdiction, unless this attorney files a constitutional rights grievance at the federal level. This may happen if he is disbarred based on public pressure, not cause.

Your link is nothing more than a synopsis of some exchanges and who is bothered. Discussion here was beyond that. If you are responding to my post based on “law”, perhaps you could provide a legal basis for why you think he has no remedy and he can’t continue to practice law based on his actions. 

Could you imagine if, lets say, Wells Fargo could just terminate your mortgage contract and kick you out simply because you are a ****?

(05-22-2018, 07:18 AM)Achilles Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2018, 12:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are ignorant and let emotions get the best of them. With that said, he broke no laws, nor ethical statutes related to his BAR association. As an aside, he'll most likely be bringing forth litigation against the business that contracted with him for his office space for breach of contract. Pretty sure there isn't a "foot in mouth" clause.

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/05/17/a...ent-viral/

Maybe there is no "foot in mouth" clause, but whether you like it or not, he's been removed from his office building with no recourse, and he's facing disbarment and working against the government now. He's toast, and he deserves it. 

If you research him on the internet you'll find that he's a white supremacist, he has more videos out there where he either speaks hatefully towards people he thinks are immigrants or bumps into them and threatens to call the police. The guy is a bag of garbage and he's getting his just desserts.

Just like all law breakers he will be punished.

But like it or not - being a racist isn't against the law. Idiots, on both sides, can spew all the hate they want.. unless they assault someone. And bumping into people can be classified as an assault.. so... I hope he's arrested.

(05-22-2018, 08:27 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2018, 07:18 AM)Achilles Wrote: [ -> ]https://washingtonpress.com/2018/05/17/a...ent-viral/

Maybe there is no "foot in mouth" clause, but whether you like it or not, he's been removed from his office building with no recourse, and he's facing disbarment and working against the government now. He's toast, and he deserves it. 

If you research him on the internet you'll find that he's a white supremacist, he has more videos out there where he either speaks hatefully towards people he thinks are immigrants or bumps into them and threatens to call the police. The guy is a bag of garbage and he's getting his just desserts.

The guy may be a tool bag, but your statement about no recourse and inevitable disbarment are false. Our rights are not assigned based on individual morals and ethics. Fortunately, law doesn’t typically rule on feelings and emotion either. While I don’t support his behavior, this guy can sue for numerous reason and would win. As far as the Congressman, this is a states issue where he has zero jurisdiction, unless this attorney files a constitutional rights grievance at the federal level. This may happen if he is disbarred based on public pressure, not cause.

Your link is nothing more than a synopsis of some exchanges and who is bothered. Discussion here was beyond that. If you are responding to my post based on “law”, perhaps you could provide a legal basis for why you think he has no remedy and he can’t continue to practice law based on his actions. 

Could you imagine if, lets say, Wells Fargo could just terminate your mortgage contract and kick you out simply because you are a ****?

I said he's facing disbarment.... I didn't say it was inevitable.

And the statement about no recourse is not false. He is no longer allowed to conduct his business in that space and there is nothing he can do about it. If you think he can or will do anything about it and come out victorious, I'll go ahead and place a bet with you now that you're wrong.