No person may ... make a representation that he or she is authorized to [engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin] unless the person is currently licensed to practice law in Wisconsin by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin. — Wis. Supreme Court Rule 23.02(1).Don't you wing-nuts understand I know this stuff, having sworn to it?*
Your baseless presumptuousness is positively daft. See also SCR 23.01, "Definition of practice of law," especially sub. (5), "Any other activity determined to be the practice of law by the Wisconsin Supreme Court."
Be my guest. Put your money where your mouth is. Fill yer boots.
Otherwise kindly mind your own business instead of mine.
* Before none other than WaukCo. favorite Justice David Prosser.
5 comments:
Honestly, why bother?
Anyone with half a clue figured it out instantly or already knew it. Anyone sufficiently stupid or dishonest to say things like "X currently touts Y under conditions Z, because X formerly said Y under different conditions Z*" is not going to be edified by instruction.
Because the pair of them are liars. But your advice is sound and well taken, in that they're most likely incorrigible liars.
For example, here is an exchange between Kilkenny and Binversie memorialized at Binversie's blog, which took place after Binversie was put on notice that he was skirting the common law of defamation:
Kilkenny: So, he's really let his license lapse?
Binversie: That, or he never finished his continuing legal education (CLE) and has to wrap up some course work. [...] Also, I've had the fight with him over his law license once already. He tried to scold me by saying he could still go before a judge as an officer of the court and I would be some poor schmuck trying to attempt to say I know the law. Good times.
This is bald-faced, stupid, and irresponsible lying. In fact, if I did say I "could still go before a judge as an officer of the court," I would be in violation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule referenced above.
Here is the "fight" to which Binversie is referring (at 4:33 and 5:04 PM). It's abundantly clear I said nothing of the sort. As you probably know, there are few things I take 100% seriously, but these sort of accusations issuing from Binversie are among them.
And there are a number of other much broader issues attendant to the foregoing that I haven't had a chance to explain here yet, but have promised to, to those who've expressed legitimate concerns about those issues.
Incidentally, as a general rule I don't follow or care what either of these two buffoons have to say, but I have a couple of good friends who do, and alerted me to a number of their claims and statements.
Fair enough.
Yes, that "I've had the fight with him..." thing is a mire of delirious confabulation. One couldn't even call it a misreading; aside from some general resemblance of law-license theme, it's entirely made up.
How your note about his borderline-illiterate grammar was transmogrified into the claim that you "could still go before a judge as an officer of the court and [he] would be some poor schmuck trying to attempt to say [he knew] the law" is hard to fathom, on the normal assumption of a basically competent writer who is not wholly devoted to mendacity. Giving up one or both halves of that assumption is by far the most reasonable interpretive approach.
And would you believe that our illustrious U.S. Senator Ron "Sunspots" Johnson actually hired Binversie in some sort of "researcher" capacity during his election campaign last year? Of course you would believe it. It's entirely and predictably consistent within the larger wing-milieu. Binversie's correct about one thing: I think he's a jerk. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other prior to his latest escapades, and in fact was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, purely on account of the fact he has (or had) the Hartford Whalers' theme song as the ringtone on his cellphone. But he's successfully cemented "jerk" now.
Post a Comment