I know this has already been discussed but...


Recommended Posts

And then too will the lawyers be happy. This, like so many other frivolous cases, has been driven by lawyers.

B.S.

The lawyers can't start anything without a complainant. Whether or not this idiot was coerced by someone it was still his responsibility (both when they went out of bounds and when he decided to go to court).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's recap

Arrive unknown at an unfamiliar and very large, remote ski area. Do not check in at a hotel or leave any other trace of your existence; immediately go skiing. Go out of bounds late afternoon on your first day on the mountain despite the inbounds area being one of the best and least crowded in the country. Do not take any common backcountry precautions or equipment. Despite you being on a fabulous and enviable ski holiday, none of your closest family members or friends investigate why you haven't called in over a week to tell them how much fun you are having.

Link to post
Share on other sites
B.S.

The lawyers can't start anything without a complainant. Whether or not this idiot was coerced by someone it was still his responsibility (both when they went out of bounds and when he decided to go to court).

Disagree completely. Complainant asks if something can be done maybe because a friend/relative/whatever suggested he ask, then lawyer blows smoke up his butt to convince him it can.

Case opened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree completely. Complainant asks if something can be done maybe because a friend/relative/whatever suggested he ask, then lawyer blows smoke up his butt to convince him it can.

Case opened.

I'm with you on this one dry.gif..in fact that happens alot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big mountain 101 quiz:

1. A row of bamboo poles with a rope strung between them is?

a. A pine beetle experiment gone sideways

b. A place to hang your clothes on a hot spring day

c. A ski area boundary marker

2. Untracked snow anywhere and especially if beyond a row as in above means?

a. You lucky devils, no one else has ever found this spot. Not even the locals.

b. You are hallucinating about heli-skiing

c. That area is not lift serviced or is closed due to avalanche or other hazards

3. A pocket trail map is?

a. Good for wrapping your corned beef sandwich

b. Useless because it does not have the red "you are here" arrow

c. Useful to orient yourself to lift serviced, closed or hazardous areas

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this one dry.gif..in fact that happens alot.

Kip...I'd say I'm surprised...but I'm not. And Moon? Well...the name itself says a lot.

Think about the proposition just for a very brief second but first, shelve the bias against "legal representatives".

Client comes in to the office and describes a scenario which you know reflects a personal prejudice when it comes to the facts recounted. The question is asked; "Do I have a claim?"

You know...you don't stand on the corner and grab them by the collar demanding; "Did anything happen to you or a loved one today?"

There you have the question; "Do I have a claim?"

Well---that depends. If the facts are as you have recounted; if in fact the hotelier staff misdirected rescue personnel; or if an official agency charged with the responsibility to pursue rescue operations refused or neglected to do so; or (etc.) then PERHAPS you might have a claim subject of course to a defence or mitigating factor of contributory negligence etc. And my hourly rate is......and there is a 70% chance you'll lose and have to pay costs.

And perhaps the question is asked; "Will you take the case on a contingency basis?" (which means-----as the lawyer---you get NOTHING unless you win...and you pay all expenses!!) and you ask yourself; "Is this issue SO important that I'm prepared to accept that risk?" And...by the way....many, many lawyers undertake representation in a case despite adverse odds and on a contingent basis because they honestly believe that a principle exists that must be asserted or that a particular cause deserves a voice.

Is that what you think it's all about? About the almighty dollar? Then you have no understanding of the love of aviation; or the thrill of medical research or the intellectual stimulation of pursuing the logical extension of precedent to set new law.

Sit back on the couch---or laze before the computer and spout drivel...or take just a moment----just a sec.---and THINK!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree completely. Complainant asks if something can be done maybe because a friend/relative/whatever suggested he ask, then lawyer blows smoke up his butt to convince him it can.

Case opened.

I'm with you on this one dry.gif..in fact that happens alot.

Well ... I'll go with UD' on this one. Pilots' flippant opinions about the poor professionalism of lawyers are about as well-grounded as the reciprocal would be - but usually dismissed with a little more humour. My own experience? When I've been hot under the collar to take 'my day in Court', Counsel has advised against it, even when likely to prevail. Without going into details, retrospection validates the advice.

Given that we're perfessionals an' all, too, most of us no doubt know some lawyers (Gawd, I'm related to some of them rolleyes.gif). They seem to take their professional obligations as seriously as most pilots do. I'll leave an assessment of that ... standard ... to you guys tongue.gif

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit back on the couch---or laze before the computer and spout drivel...or take just a moment----just a sec.---and THINK!

Upperdeck If that comment is directed toward me ,or "Moon", I find it insulting. Do you really think that as professionals we don't have the right to put forth our opinion, be it different from your interpretation, concerning the ethics of some of your peers?

Your standards with respect to attorney/client relationship may be your holy methodology but I would suggest that you don't pontificate to all of us that ALL lawyers are beyond reproach with respect to their willingness to take a case....unless they have a "claim"........and I certainly won't tell you that all pilots are equal in talent and ability.

You may consider our points as drivel but you have no idea of what I, or Moon for that fact, have done during our lives and to espouse that we just "laze before a computer and spout drivel", with respect to lawyers and their role in society is an asinine statement.

My job has had me in court numerous times and I have been hooked up with the "ambulance chasers" as well as professional attorneys so don't pretend to preach to me about the ethics of lawyers.

Based on my life experience, there are good pilots and bad pilots and there are bad lawyers and good lawyers, and to characterize me, and perhaps others, as not having the ability to think is absurd.

Is that what you think it's all about? About the almighty dollar? Then you have no understanding of the love of aviation; ...blah ..blah.. blah.

Yes, many lawyers are in it for $$ just as many pilots are in it for the $$. To state that all professions are in their job purely for the love of the job is unadulterated BS. Why do you think so many pilots go "off-shore" for the big bucks when they could have had a job here in Canada ??? I have had a very junior qualified Mil pilot ask me how long he would have to stay in the CF as he wanted to go airlines and make the big money.

Cripes I have flown with guys in the airline industry who admitted that the money was good and that is why they were staying but they would rather be doing other things.... Again, don't attempt to lecture me about the love of aviation seeing I spent 42+ years in the cockpit, of which 28 were in the Mil where I was making less than 1/2 of what I could have made on the civil side. I went civil cause I loved to fly and in my time I was going to be released from the CF due to age anyway.

Upperdeck...you may accuse me being a driveler, (sp?) but perhaps you should realize that you do not know what thought process/experience people use to arrive at their suppositions .......and finally insulting individuals on this forum may get your point across, although I am sure you know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to direct it to specific individuals will certainly not endear you to some on this forum dry.gif .

Link to post
Share on other sites

OTTAWA — A hostile encounter between Hasibullah Sadiqi and his sister's fiancé, Feroz Mangal, occurred in a shopping mall months before Mangal and Sadiqi's sister, Khatera, were gunned down, an Ottawa court heard Friday.

The testimony emerged during the emotional second day of Sadiqi's trial.

The 23-year-old faces two first-degree murder charges, accused of shooting his sister and Mangal with a revolver while they sat in a car at the Elmvale Acres shopping plaza shortly before 1 a.m. on Sept. 19, 2006. Khatera was pronounced dead at the scene, while Mangal was taken off life support 10 days later.

The Crown's theory is that the slaying was an "honour killing" sparked by anger over the couple's engagement.

Sadiqi's defence lawyers, meanwhile, do not deny that their client is responsible for the deaths, but are expected to argue he was provoked, which could reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.

Ah, the "provoked" defence. He [they] might even pull it off. Maybe not for money, given the prevalent topic of this thread, but in illustration of our adversarial system of justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Kip. Although there may be some lawyers who take a case here or there based on principle I have never met one. In my experience the main concern of most lawyers is billable hours. You know the maxim, "Never ask a barber if he thinks you need a haircut."? Well, it works for lawyers too, "Never ask a lawyer if he thinks you should go to court."

I just read something yesterday about a lawyer advising his client to close his Facebook account. Apparently the client had been posting pictures of himself partying and socializing over a period of a year and a half while being involved in a court case claiming that his injuries from an accident had severely impacted his life to the extent that he had no social life! Sounds like insurance fraud to me and, apparently, the lawyer was complicit but do you think he'll be sanctioned?.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer (obviously!) so I don't know if the search and rescue organization and the RCMP failed in their Duty-of-Care or if such a thing even exists in this case - maybe it does, maybe they did. Maybe the end result of this will be a improved process for initiating searches that will save a few people from themselves - that's a good outcome if it happens I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Look at it this way....

I jump in my 172 without filing a flight plan or intineray. Go up for a nice pleasure flight with the wife. Something goes wrong and the plane crashes with no Mayday called. ELT not installed in the aircraft.

Who is going to come looking for me.... There is no record, no flight plan.

I stamp an SOS in the snow and wait. There is a slight chance that someone sees it and call the local FSS to see if there are any missing aircraft.

NOPE...

Now what???

Yes there probably is a reason to search and chances are searching close to the signal is a good place to start. But what are we looking for? Plane? hiker? Dogsled team? 1 person? 20?

The people who make the decision to go out un prepared are taking a risk and it is their responsibility to mitigate that risk by being prepared.

The fault lies with the person who made the original decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moon says; "Complainant asks if something can be done maybe because a friend/relative/whatever suggested he ask, then lawyer blows smoke up his butt to convince him it can. Case opened. "

Kip replies; "I'm with you on this one dry.gif..in fact that happens alot."

As usual Kip, you do not react well to any sort of adverse response and also typically, you are disinclined to self-criticism. I can imagine your response to my observation regarding an incompetent aviator; "Yes. And there are a LOT of them!".

There are been many threads on this forum in which you and others "of your ilk" have found the opportunity to cast blanket aspersions regarding lawyers. I have previously conceded (and without hesitation) that there are members of the Bar whose skills and ethics (either/or/both) are suspect.

And there are some who just go about their daily job and there are yet others who are motivated by intellectual curiosity---not intellectual conceit.

And yes, Kip, there are MANY who laze on the couch or slouch before their computer spouting drivel. I pointed no fingers but apparently the observation itself touched a nerve.

You have said it before--you say it yet again; "You know nothing about me". In that, you are wrong.

Done. You may have the last word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible Misunderstanding alert!

[.... edited to say it better:] Kip may have meant that what happens alot is him agreeing with Moon.

UpperDeck believed him to be saying lawyers act like that alot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual Kip, you do not react well to any sort of adverse response and also typically, you are disinclined to self-criticism.

As Usual
Man, you are so presumptious, it is unbelieveable. You come out bombastically proclaiming lawyers don't take a case unless there is a feasible "claim" then, in rebuttle start back peddling that there are some that have questionable ethics but you decide to then deflect the discussion and attack my ability to take criticism. You certainly are a work of art.

I have previously conceded (and without hesitation) that there are members of the Bar whose skills and ethics (either/or/both) are suspect

NOW you back peddle, reread your initial post where you proclaim that "lawyers" do due diligence prior to accepting a client.

And yes, Kip, there are MANY who laze on the couch or slouch before their computer spouting drivel. I pointed no fingers but apparently the observation itself touched a nerve.

You pointed no fingers?? Then why the initial comments directed at myself and Moon, more back peddling?? If that was not your intent then perhaps YOU should proof read and THINK before hitting the POST button.

You have said it before--you say it yet again; "You know nothing about me". In that, you are wrong.

Really?? Prove it.

The PM function is available, as is the ability to use your real name if so inclined, and I will leave YOU with the last word....cause I have more important things to do than banter with an individual who feels they are beyond reproach...no smilies

Link to post
Share on other sites
Possible Misunderstanding alert!

[.... edited to say it better:] Kip may have meant that what happens alot is him agreeing with Moon.

UpperDeck believed him to be saying lawyers act like that alot.

Thanks Mitch.... but what I meant was that I think there are more and more frivolous lawsuits in Canada than there used to be....becoming sorta like the USA.

Many first hand experiences when working in YHZ RCC..Been the subject of a Ministerial Enquiry as well as many appearances in civil court ....too numerous to mention and would take up too much bandwidth. As well, one only has to read the national newspapers and reputable Canadian magazines to see the trend. Sad really...common sense is/has died as well as "manning" up to ones responsibilities..

Have a nice week..glad you are back. wink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like to clarify - I was with UD' in disagreement with the generalized slurs on lawyers, & not with his over-the-top second response which, in unfortunate timing, preceded my own post without me seeing it (& which kinda belied my suggestion that the begowned ones deployed humour in the face of intemperate slags wink.gif). And slags they were. At least to my reading. If the intent of "... lawyer blows smoke up his butt [etc]" or "I'm with you on this one dry.gif ..in fact that happens alot", were really just a suggestion that some lawyers are over-zealous in the service of their clients' wishes, I missed the translation. UD' & Kip: I think both of you were over-sensitive and over-reactionary. So there! box.gif

Moon (who keeps to the thread's direction) - Not sure where you're going with your warnings about our "adversarial" system. I'll not be expecting you or anybody else to cooperate if you find yourself in a defendant position. Most anybody will welcome any and every defense available, and we all lose that choice if we start discounting them willy-nilly (usually wrt unpopular/repugnant cases). And corollary to that, most will want legal representation to pull out all the stops in their own defense. To avoid sheltering legal cowardice, lawyers are duty-bound to do that. It's up to our judges and juries to pass on the validity of any defense. They generally get it right, but we lay folks mostly hear about the exceptions. Guess that looks to some like "alot".

A wide berth for the defense is not to coddle criminals; my freedom and yours depend on it. When I see this impatience with the process unfolding (about the best, fairest system anywhere, ever, in spite of a few high-profile outrages), it seems to me we're way too complacent and accustomed to our freedom. It's not necessarily the natural order of things.

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.