Originally posted by sh76
Okay, so you:

1) Used a comment to prove your point; and then

2) Argued that the negation of that same comment is irrelevant.

I'm quite sure I went to law school; but I'm not sure you attended high school Logic.

As for billing me, I'm not a miscreant so I doubt I'll ever be in need of your professional services.

If you want an estate plan, though, you can PM me.

The point was that the rules covered transnational practice, something you denied when you tried to say "all" didn't mean "all". But both the original and amended provision specifically mentioned transnational practice and applied the general rule to them.

That you can't grasp that rather simple point nor offer anything to support your claim that "all" means something besides "all" shows that high school logic is quite beyond your understanding. Or more probably you staked yourself to an indefensible proposition and are now too arrogant and stubborn to admit you erred.

Either way, it reflects badly on your debating skills. Stick to telling old ladies how they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes and stay away from a court of law if you can possibly avoid it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The point was that the rules covered transnational practice, something you denied when you tried to say "all" didn't mean "all". But both the original and amended provision specifically mentioned transnational practice and applied the general rule to them.

That you can't grasp that rather simple point nor offer anything to support your ...[text shortened]... ir fair share of taxes and stay away from a court of law if you can possibly avoid it.

what? i thought you were an environmental lawyer.

Originally posted by generalissimo
are you saying once you're on a plane the cabin crew makes the laws?

do you know how ridiculous this sounds?

it's not "making law" to refuse to serve more alcohol to a drunk passenger and to ask air marshals for assistance when the drunk passenger tries to serve herself in the galley.

have you ever been on a large passenger aircraft?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
it's not "making law" to refuse to serve more alcohol to a drunk passenger and to ask air marshals for assistance when the drunk passenger tries to serve herself in the galley.

have you ever been on a large passenger aircraft?

You asserted the woman's action was "illegal" which implies laws were broken, I replied that no such violation ever took place. The request for assistance wasn't the whole story, the woman was arrested, she was handcuffed, even though no laws were broken. I believe that is called "arbitrary arrest".

Like I said previously, the woman's reprehensible conduct, despite being what it was, wasn't illegal in any way.

have you ever been on a large passenger aircraft?
No, when I moved to Britain I did so on the back of a swimming burro, didn't you know?

Originally posted by generalissimo
You asserted the woman's action was "illegal" which implies laws were broken, I replied that no such violation ever took place. The request for assistance wasn't the whole story, the woman was arrested, she was handcuffed, even though no laws were broken. I believe that is called "arbitrary arrest".

Like I said previously, the woman's reprehensible ...[text shortened]...
No, when I moved to Britain I did so on the back of a swimming burro, didn't you know?

See!? I TOLD you burros could make the swim despite SOMEBODY saying they were unable to use snorkels.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
See!? I TOLD you burros could make the swim despite SOMEBODY saying they were unable to use snorkels.

LOL

Yes, that amusing interaction from the WWII thread was the inspiration for my burro remark, I simply couldn't get the image out of my head. It was truly one of the most hilarious posts I've ever read.

Originally posted by generalissimo
LOL

Yes, that amusing interaction from the WWII thread was the inspiration for my burro remark, I simply couldn't get the image out of my head. It was truly one of the most hilarious posts I've ever read.

Do you guys even have burros in Brazil?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you guys even have burros in Brazil?

Yes, although horses are more common.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The point was that the rules covered transnational practice, something you denied when you tried to say "all" didn't mean "all". But both the original and amended provision specifically mentioned transnational practice and applied the general rule to them.

That you can't grasp that rather simple point nor offer anything to support your ...[text shortened]... ir fair share of taxes and stay away from a court of law if you can possibly avoid it.

Did you read the way the comment used to read before the amendment?

Obviously "all" does NOT necessarily mean "all" in this case.

In any case, as an attorney, you really ought to know that you need authority for a statement of law and not just your general supposition as to what the word means. All I was doing was asking you for authority; I didn't even make an assertion.

You had no authority. You were guessing. You happen to have guessed right. I hope you have some more basis for your opinions before you go to a judge with an argument.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
it's not "making law" to refuse to serve more alcohol to a drunk passenger and to ask air marshals for assistance when the drunk passenger tries to serve herself in the galley.

have you ever been on a large passenger aircraft?

It's encouraging your faith on humanity. The way you believe every single word of the accused and thus proclaim their innocence is an inspiration to us all.

Originally posted by sh76
Did you read the way the comment used to read before the amendment?

Obviously "all" does NOT necessarily mean "all" in this case.

In any case, as an attorney, you really ought to know that you need authority for a statement of law and not just your general supposition as to what the word means. All I was doing was asking you for authority; I didn't even m ...[text shortened]... hope you have some more basis for your opinions before you go to a judge with an argument.

Are you serious? This isn't an "assertion":

sh76: It is not my ethical responsibility to tell my American client to follow Brazilian law. In this case, it would be malpractice to do so.

I've rather patiently explained to you that your assertion i.e. that American lawyers can do anything they want in foreign countries because the disciplinary rules don't apply ("all" doesn't mean "all) is without any basis. I've explained that comment 7, even in its previous form, made reference to transnational practice which, contrary to your assertion, is covered by the Rules (as clearly evidenced by the first sentence of 8.5). I am quite at a loss why you can't just simply admit your error.

I knew that lawyers have to follow ethical rules wherever they practice; this is Professional Ethics 101 not "guessing". That you didn't know this shows you are seriously deficient in this area; since you refuse to believe me because of your arrogance I suggest you add a Professional Responsibility course to your CLE ASAP.

EDIT: Please tell me which part of this you can't understand and I'll try to use smaller words to explain it this time:

That the choice of law provision was in the past subject to "agreements between jurisdictions or of appropriate international law" does not mean misconduct in a foreign jurisdiction was not subject to discipline. It merely means that the disciplinary rules to be followed would be, in the absence of said agreements, be those of the home jurisdiction. But since it is misconduct to disobey or counsel a client to disobey a court order in NY, it would still be misconduct for a NY lawyer to disobey or counsel a client to disobey a Brazilian court order. That's what the first sentence of 8.5 says.

i.e. "All" still meant "all".

Originally posted by generalissimo
You asserted the woman's action was "illegal" which implies laws were broken, I replied that no such violation ever took place. The request for assistance wasn't the whole story, the woman was arrested, she was handcuffed, even though no laws were broken. I believe that is called "arbitrary arrest".

Like I said previously, the woman's reprehensible ...[text shortened]...
No, when I moved to Britain I did so on the back of a swimming burro, didn't you know?

it's illegal not to follow instructions from flight deck and cabin crew.

if she served herself at a bar in Brazil after the bartender told her to stop imbibing, she'd be stealing, right? and subject to arrest?

Originally posted by Palynka
It's encouraging your faith on humanity. The way you believe every single word of the accused and thus proclaim their innocence is an inspiration to us all.

if you can find that enclave where everyone always believes what perpetrators say, and don't mind living alongside them, go to it.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
it's illegal not to follow instructions from flight deck and cabin crew.

if she served herself at a bar in Brazil after the bartender told her to stop imbibing, she'd be stealing, right? and subject to arrest?

No, it isn't. In order for something to be illegal it must break the laws, there are certain rules (unwritten or written) regarding a passenger's conduct on a plane, but the breaking of these doesn't necessarily constitute an illegal act. Deciding to take off your shoes along with your clothes while flying may probably be considered against conventional decorum, but it isn't necessarily illegal.

I don't think thats a comparable situation.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
if you can find that enclave where everyone always believes what perpetrators say, and don't mind living alongside them, go to it.

In this case, the alleged perpetrators i.e. the ones charged with a crime are the flight marshals.