"Philadelphia lawyers" of Dover ID case
Some trolls here say that they hang around this blog just for the entertainment, so I decided to give them some.
Fittingly, the private law firm that helped represent the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Pepper-Hamilton LLP, is headquartered in Philadelphia. "Philadelphia lawyer" is a pejorative term meaning "shyster" or "pettifogger." A Woody Guthrie song titled "Philadelphia Lawyer" has the following lyrics:
Lyrics as recorded by ROSE MADDOX & THE MADDOX BROTHERS, 1940s;
transcribed by Manfred Helfert.
© 1949 Michael H. Goldsen, Inc.
LOL
Fittingly, the private law firm that helped represent the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Pepper-Hamilton LLP, is headquartered in Philadelphia. "Philadelphia lawyer" is a pejorative term meaning "shyster" or "pettifogger." A Woody Guthrie song titled "Philadelphia Lawyer" has the following lyrics:
Lyrics as recorded by ROSE MADDOX & THE MADDOX BROTHERS, 1940s;
transcribed by Manfred Helfert.
© 1949 Michael H. Goldsen, Inc.
Way out in Reno, Nevada,
Where romance blooms and fades,
A great Philadelphia lawyer
Was in love with a Hollywood maid.
"Come, love, and we will wander
Down where the lights are bright.
I'll win you a divorce from your husband,
And we can get married tonight."
Wild Bill was a gun-totin' cowboy,
Ten notches were carved in his gun.
And all the boys around Reno
Left Wild Bill's maiden alone.
One night when he was returning
From ridin' the range in the cold,
He dreamed of his Hollywood sweetheart,
Her love was as lasting as gold.
As he drew near her window,
A shadow he saw on the shade;
'Twas the great Philadelphia lawyer
Makin' love to Bill's Hollywood maid.
The night was as still as the desert,
The moon hangin' high overhead.
Bill listened awhile to the lawyer,
He could hear ev'ry word that he said:
"Your hands are so pretty and lovely,
Your form's so rare and divine.
Come go with me to the city
And leave this wild cowboy behind."
Now back in old Pennsylvania,
Among those beautiful pines,
There's one less Philadelphia lawyer
In old Philadelphia tonight.
LOL
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/05/2006 02:37:00 PM
15 Comments:
Recycling old material again, eh? That can of legal whupass Kevin opened on you must still smart.
At least you admit that ad hom is all ya got.
> The problem is that you don't make serious arguments or ask serious questions, so there is nothing to answer. <
I will make this simple for you. I will ask the most innocuous question that I have asked recently. If you can answer it, you might be able to step up to some tougher ones, but I doubt it.
A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?
There is a very simple question for a start. Now everyone will be able to see that you will either ignore the post or find some breathtakingly inane excuse why you won't answer.
> Here is a typical argument from you: Q: Why do you think that irreducible complexity is unscientific? Your answer: Irreducible complexity is unscientific because it is unscientific. <
Here is a typical argument from you: "Irreducible complexity is scientific because it is scientific." While I have never made the argument that you have cited, you are constantly making the type of statements that I have just cited. You believe that repeating your unsupported claims is proof of them. You are fooling nobody but yourself.
> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <
Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.
> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <
Why should he answer your inane questions?
> preparing new posts, which is no easy task because many of them require a lot of research. <
You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem? Mostly you just take something that you don't understand, even linking to it, and then give your misinterpretation of it. If it takes a lot of time for you to do this, you sure have little to show for it. Perhaps you could save a little time by stopping your impersonations. (I have to admit that they have decreased in number recently. There was only the pathetic post you labeled "Anonymous".
Well here it is, folks. Larry is a coward and a hypocrite. I gave him one very clear cut and innocuous question and he will duck it so as not to further reveal his ignorance. Naturally he will give a lame excuse for not doing so.
I can just see you frantically trying to find new songs and poems to post to distract people from seeing that you are petrified by questions. You only seem to know two ways to "debate". One is to repeat unsupported claims enlessly in the hope that they will eventually make sense. Another is to either write ad hominems or accuse others of them although you still have shown that you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief".
Reply to Voice In Wilderness --
You stupid fathead -- you posted the same comment in four different places. It was not worth being posted in one. So I'll have to answer it in the different places (on what other blog do you think that you could get away with this crap?)
>>>>>A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?<<<<<<
I already gave you my answer to that question -- I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office.
<<<<<<> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <
Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.<<<<<<
No -- what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views, then posts articles directly attacking me and my ideas and won't let me defend myself on his blog. And I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.
<<<<<<> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <
Why should he answer your inane questions?<<<<<<
Why should I answer yours? Furthermore, you are demanding that I answer yours -- many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs.
>>>>>You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem?<<<<<<
Some articles require more research than others, moron. And that was not a poem -- that was another song.
>>>>>you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief". <<<<<<
What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief?
As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo.
I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog.
> you posted the same comment in four different places. <
And you dodged my question on four different places.
> I already gave you my answer to that question <
No. You dodged it in four different places.
> I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office. <
Is there anyone except this idiot who can see a relation between my question and his? This shows his cowardace. His lunacy has long since been demonstrated.
> what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views <
He doesn't suffer fools gladly but he does allow opposing views on his blog. When someone posts something with which he disagrees, he gives his reasons, rather than the personal attacks which seem to be your only weapons.
> I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.
> many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs. <
There are many reasons that they may not. Your reason is that you are afraid to show your ignorance. Don't worry, you have nothing to lose. Everyone already has seen your ignorance displayed on this blog.
> Some articles require more research than others <
Your articles seem to be the result of a word search followed by the inevitable misinterpretation.
> What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief? <
I would call it a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled. Relief may be provided along with the finding but the finding is never relief in itself.
> As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo. <
No. It is your misunderstanding of the situation, despite Kevin's attempts to educate you, that are voodoo. You should not make the assumption that if you don't understand something that means that the explanation is not simple and obvious to sane people.
> I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. <
It is worth every minute of it. In contrast, the time you waste trying to convince people that black is white doesn't seem very productive for you.
> My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog. <
The fact that you would post it is funny. You are funny. The funniest thing is probably your impersonations. I expected to see you post as "anonymous" again and congratulate yourself for your latest efforts. The funniest were your pathetic attempts to impersonate your brother, the real Dave. Does anyone else have any favorites?
Meanwhile we get yet another example of your cowardice, you pathetic jackass.
jujuquisp said...
> Let the lunacy reign supreme! <
You seem to be getting as big a kick out of this as I am. What are your favorites?
This could be a new contest like the Lunatic of the month contest already established. So far Larry has been sweeping the field. Let's start a new category for the most entertaining posts. We could give as a prize a statue of Emperor Napoleon. I can't help but think the Larry will sweep the field again.
Legal Encyclopedia
Philadelphia Lawyer
A colloquial term that was initially a compliment to the legal expertise and competence of an attorney due to the outstanding reputation of the Philadelphia bar during colonial times (emphasis added). ...
Idioms
Philadelphia lawyer
A shrewd attorney, adept at dealing with legal technicalities, as in It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to get him off. This expression dates from the late 1700s and, as lexicographer Richard H. Thornton observed: “Why members of the Philadelphia bar should be credited with superhuman sagacity has never been satisfactorily explained.”
>>>>>Legal Encyclopedia
Philadelphia lawyer
A shrewd attorney, adept at dealing with legal technicalities<<<<<<
Definition of "pettifogger" from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 : a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER
2 : one given to quibbling over trifles [e.g., Kevin 'Vicklund, Colin, Rob Serrano]
Doesn't look to me like there is any real difference between a "Philadelphia lawyer" and a "pettifogger" or "shyster."
Also, here is what a former Philadelphia mayor had to say about the term (and being a Philadelphia lawyer himself, he should know):
Q. When you hear people talk about it, do they speak of the Philadelphia lawyer in a flattering way or as an insult?
A. It depends. If you hear other lawyers talk about it, it's flattering: a lawyer who is very astute, very knowledgeable. When you hear the public talk about the Philadelphia lawyer, it's sort of an insult: a clever lawyer who knows all the angles.
Also, it is obvious that Woody Guthrie did not have a very high opinion of Philadelphia lawyers.
It looks like jujuquisp has you nailed. Now to address your new blather.
> Definition of "pettifogger" from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:...
2 : one given to quibbling over trifles <
e.g. Larry(?) Fafarman
> Doesn't look to me like there is any real difference between a "Philadelphia lawyer" and a "pettifogger" or "shyster." <
If you don't understand the term there is no difference between a bowling ball and a coconut.
> Also, it is obvious that Woody Guthrie did not have a very high opinion of Philadelphia lawyers. <
It is doubtful that Woody Guthrie knew any more about lawyers than you do. Let's see what Wikipedia says about Woodie Guthrie around the time that this song was written:
"By the late 1940s, Guthrie's health was worsening and his behavior becoming extremely erratic ... He received various diagnoses (including alcoholism and schizophrenia), before he was finally discovered to be suffering from the Huntington's disease, the genetic disorder that had caused the death of his mother."
For those of you who don't know Huntington's disease, the mental symptoms are :
"Includes loss of cognitive ability (thinking, speaking), changes in personality (such as irritability, moodiness, or antisocial behavior). These symptoms may develop into dementia."
It seems clear why Larry(?) would empathize with such a person.
Voice In the Wilderness said --
>>>>>>>Let's see what Wikipedia says about Woodie Guthrie around the time that this song was written:
"By the late 1940s, Guthrie's health was worsening and his behavior becoming extremely erratic ..."<<<<<<<
You stupid fathead -- Woody Guthrie wrote the lyrics to the song around August, 1937. Here is the history of the song, from a link that I added to the opening post:
Woody Guthrie was a writer of hundreds of songs, however, he composed very little music. His style was to parody folksongs, and 'Philadelphia Lawyer' is one of his best known parodies, which was based on the old folk ballad 'The Jealous Lover.' Woody wrote the lyrics sometime around August, 1937, while he was singing over KFVD in Los Angeles. He first titled it 'Reno Blues'.... It is possible that when it was sung over KFVD, that someone wrote it down and that it eventually was brought to the attention of Rose Maddox who recorded it. Her words are identical to Woody's version; only the title was changed to 'Philadelphia Lawyer.'
Larry (?) said:
< Also, it is obvious that Woody Guthrie did not have a very high opinion of Philadelphia lawyers. >
Isn't this a "meta-irrelevancy" -- i.e., an irrelevant observation about an (independent) irrelevancy? (Except that it is nested more than two irrelevancies deep?)
Plumbing heretofore unrecognized realms of illogic ...
< 2 : one given to quibbling over trifles [e.g., Kevin 'Vicklund, Colin, Rob Serrano] >
That's three.
> At UW-Milwaukee, there was this crazy guy with wild hair <
What little of Larry(?)'s hair is wild since he grows one side very long combs it over the top of his head, and it doesn't stay down. He looks like a one eared dog who has just been startled. He adds to the effect by wearing pants that are too large and then over tightening his belt. His expression is always that of one who has just made a narrow escape and is expecting a new attack soon.
> who would frequent the Union and try to pick arguments with any students who passed within earshot. <
No. Larry just tries to argue with diners at the restaurant at which he is fressing, sometimes screaming at them for not appreciating his heroic efforts to save humanity from the attacking windmills.
Larry(?) has dodged answering my questions out of fear of exposing his ignorance. He dodged a challenge by Paul Collier posted on the same thread where Larry(?) accused Ed Brayton of being a coward and a hypocrite. Larry(?) is obviously terrified about the prospect of any real debate.
A Philadelphia lawyer would know a lot more about the validity of notarizations than the average four year old who, in turn, would know a lot more about the subject than Larry(?) has been shown to know.
Larry wonders why I am still here. You can only pull the wings off a fly so many times before the game is over. In contrast, you can show Larry(?) to be a liar, a hypocrite, a coward, and a buffoon so many times and he will still keep coming back for more. I love it!
jujuquisp had wondered about what set Larry(?) off on this track of mental deterioration. I would be curious myself but I think that it is much more interesting to watch the continuing process. Larry started this blog just looking like a egocentric dimwit. With time he has developed into a wildly insane megalomanic. The idiot clearly doesn't see how obvious his insanity and hypocrisy has become.
The funniest stuff recently has been his impersonations. He doesn't have a clue how they are so easily detected. Let's keep the secret, boys. He will never figure it out.
He would really like to know how to show the latest posts on the front page of his blog, as is shown on most other Blogger blogs as a regular feature of the system. The answer has already been given and is still posted on this blog but he is too stupid to figure it out, despite his junior college computer certificate.
Let's start a new contest. The idea is to figure as close as possible to the date that Larry(?) is carried off to the funny farm. I would say that it would not be a long time. Perhaps the little green men, whom he believes have been publishing the Los Angeles Times, will get him first.
In the culture of journalists, William Andrew Hamilton (or was it Andrew William? No matter) is usually referred to as the "original Philadelphia lawyer."
Hamilton was the guy who defended John Peter Zenger against libel charges in pre-revolutionary New York. Hamilton argued what is now the basis of our First Amendment and libel law: Truth is a valid defense, and people should have the right to criticize bad government and other wrongdoing.
Post a Comment
<< Home