3 ms·

With respect, this advice is tremendously dangerous. The existence of a helpful theory of the case does not provide you with the protections you seem to believe

by ABCLAW 10y ago

With respect, this advice is tremendously dangerous. The existence of a helpful theory of the case does not provide you with the protections you seem to believe it does.

logfromblammo 10y ago
With respect, it was not advice, as I am not a lawyer. It is my opinion. If the entire legal profession chooses to hold a different opinion, and enforces it upon one another via their cartel, that is their prerogative. It will not affect my opinions upon what I would consider to be fair or just. Sharing my opinion may well put you on the losing side of a lawsuit, but I don't judge my value as a person according to my victories and defeats in court, and neither should anyone else. My advice would simply be to not do business with Gigster--not as an employee, and not as a customer. They have at least one asshole in their upper management, and it only takes one to ruin a company. And further, I would advise re-examining one's previous opinions on collective bargaining organizations. If software professionals had a real labor cartel, it could blacklist companies that try stuff like this.
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  I doubt you have ill intentions in mind. The idea that one's personal conception of 'fair' and 'just' is sufficient to espouse how the justice system should work is common, but often misleading, as it is in this case. Your statement on consideration, for instance, is incorrect. As is the leading statement in the post I replied to. Neither of those were constructed as statements of opinion. In any event, I hope that readers recognize that there is a lot of misinformation in this thread and seek out proper experienced counsel to provide accurate answers to their questions.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Please do not equate the current legal system with a justice system. The system has to be based on law, and not justice, because everyone may have a different opinion on what is just and fair. The courts system may seek out justice whenever it is possible to do so, but in my anecdotal experience, and in my exposure from [likely biased] sources, it declines to make the attempt, and seeks out simple expedience instead. In cases where a jury may be employed to decide the outcome, the public opinion on how justice should work is relevant. If you are ever offered a potentially abusive contract, by all means consult a lawyer if you intend to proceed with it. But if you're ever on a jury hearing a contract dispute case, for the love of justice, please refuse to enforce a fundamentally unfair contract, where the party that drafted it refused to negotiate--or even explain--any of its terms.

by ABCLAW 10y ago

With respect, this advice is tremendously dangerous. The existence of a helpful theory of the case does not provide you with the protections you seem to believe it does.

logfromblammo 10y ago

With respect, it was not advice, as I am not a lawyer. It is my opinion. If the entire legal profession chooses to hold a different opinion, and enforces it upon one another via their cartel, that is their prerogative. It will not affect my opinions upon what I would consider to be fair or just. Sharing my opinion may well put you on the losing side of a lawsuit, but I don't judge my value as a person according to my victories and defeats in court, and neither should anyone else. My advice would simply be to not do business with Gigster--not as an employee, and not as a customer. They have at least one asshole in their upper management, and it only takes one to ruin a company. And further, I would advise re-examining one's previous opinions on collective bargaining organizations. If software professionals had a real labor cartel, it could blacklist companies that try stuff like this.

ABCLAW 10y ago
I doubt you have ill intentions in mind. The idea that one's personal conception of 'fair' and 'just' is sufficient to espouse how the justice system should work is common, but often misleading, as it is in this case. Your statement on consideration, for instance, is incorrect. As is the leading statement in the post I replied to. Neither of those were constructed as statements of opinion. In any event, I hope that readers recognize that there is a lot of misinformation in this thread and seek out proper experienced counsel to provide accurate answers to their questions.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Please do not equate the current legal system with a justice system. The system has to be based on law, and not justice, because everyone may have a different opinion on what is just and fair. The courts system may seek out justice whenever it is possible to do so, but in my anecdotal experience, and in my exposure from [likely biased] sources, it declines to make the attempt, and seeks out simple expedience instead. In cases where a jury may be employed to decide the outcome, the public opinion on how justice should work is relevant. If you are ever offered a potentially abusive contract, by all means consult a lawyer if you intend to proceed with it. But if you're ever on a jury hearing a contract dispute case, for the love of justice, please refuse to enforce a fundamentally unfair contract, where the party that drafted it refused to negotiate--or even explain--any of its terms.