The dumbest lawyer in America – Tea Party Nation

The dumbest lawyer in America – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Who is the dumbest lawyer in America?  This one will give you a laugh.  You might be able to guess.  You’ll have fun not only trying to guess but once you find out, you will be amused.

 Who is the dumbest lawyer in America?

 It is far left wing, Botoxed nut job fame whore Gloria Allred.

 Everyone knows the most dangerous place in America is the turf that stands between her and a TV camera

 This time she really beclowned herself.

 Poor little Gloria thought she had the October surprise.  She was going to bring down the Romney campaign.

 How?

 Staples founder Tom Stemberg, who is a friend of Mitt Romney, went through a nasty divorce a number of years back.   All of the testimony from depositions and other hearings in the divorce was ordered sealed.  While the news stories do not specify this, it seems likely at some point the divorce settled by Tom Stemberg’s ex-wife agreed to a really tight non-disclosure agreement as a part of the settlement.

 Such agreements are not uncommon.  Top-level executives do not want bitter ex-wives (or now ex husbands) running around saying nasty things about them.  Those kinds of things can destroy a career.

 Gloria Allred somehow connected with Stemberg’s ex-wife and figured she had just hit the win-win scenario.  Mitt Romney testified in a deposition in the divorce.  According to published reports, most of his testimony dealt with the valuation of Staples. 

 Yawn.

 Allred figured either there was something really damning in the deposition or better yet, Romney would raise hell about releasing the sealed deposition.  That could be even better because it would open the door to all kinds of speculation.

 Romney threw her when he said he had no objection to the deposition being unsealed.

 Oops.

 Turns out there is nothing there.

 Of course, given Gloria Allred’s track record, that should be no surprise.

 But then came the really funny part. 

 Allred wanted the Judge to release Stemberg’s wife from the non-disclosure agreement so presumably she could trash Mitt Romney.

 The Judge told her no.

 Why did the Judge tell her no?

 Because Allred did not file a motion requesting this!

 Every lawyer will tell you and even first year law students know, if you want the Judge to do something, you have to file a motion.  The purpose of a motion is to put the other side on notice as to what you want.  Due process requires notice so that if there is an objection, they have time to raise it and properly prepare.

 Allred apparently thought just because she was Gloria Allred, this judge was going to simply roll over and grant her request, without a motion.

 Allred was stunned.  She went out later and blamed this on the Boston Globe, which had also filed a motion to have the transcript unsealed. 

 It looks like the Botox has gotten to Allred’s brain.  Of course, she is a far leftist, so she isn’t that bright to begin with.  She is fortunate that California does not require lawyers to be recertified or take the bar over. 

 Otherwise, she might have to find a real job.

 

Job Killers – John Stossel – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Job Killers – John Stossel – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Job Killers - John Stossel - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Politicians say they “create jobs.” In fact, only the private sector generates the information needed to create real, productive jobs.

Since this current post-recession job recovery is the slowest in 80 years, you’d think that even know-it-all politicians would want to sweep away the labyrinth of government regulations that hinders job creation. Successful job creators like Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Staples founder Tom Stemberg tell me there are so many new rules and taxes today that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to create the thousands of jobs they once made.

The feds now have 160,000 pages of rules. Does anyone read all that? I doubt it. (Members of Congress don’t read the bills they vote on.) Do the rules make life safer? No. A few new rules are useful, but most are not. Their sheer volume makes us less safe and less free.

In fact, the thick rulebooks help cheaters by giving them an indecipherable screen to hide behind. They also mislead consumers by giving them the illusion of protection. “I don’t need to worry because regulation protects me.” It’s why some sophisticated people gave all their savings to Bernie Madoff.

A false sense of security is worse than none at all.

And the waste! Americans will spend $46 billion a year to obey just the new regulations the Obama administration imposed. Think of the money diverted to lawyers, accountants and “compliance officers” — money that might have created jobs and financed products that could make our lives better.

Alison Fraser, who keeps track of these things for the Heritage Foundation, points out that George W. Bush’s administration was a big regulator, too. “President Bush … had 28 major new rules passed in the first three years alone,” said Fraser. “We’ve had a virtual explosion — almost a regulatory assault on our system of free enterprise and on our job creators.”

The mainstream media portray Bush as a deregulator and blame his nonexistent deregulation for the housing and financial debacle. But the opposite is true. Bush hired thousands of new regulators. He only looks good in comparison to Obama — which is not saying much.

Advocates of regulations don’t acknowledge the law of unintended consequences. The Department of Energy demands energy-efficient appliances. But the extra cost deters some consumers from buying new appliances, so they stick with the old, wasteful ones.

On top of doing little good, endless rules kill the freedom that made America the land of opportunity. We preach entrepreneurship, and try to teach children the value, satisfaction and excitement of starting their own businesses. Then we let entrepreneurial opportunity be crushed under the weight of the regulatory state. The byzantine rules send this message to Americans: Don’t try. Don’t build anything. Don’t innovate. Don’t create anything new.

Let’s not overlook the fact that big businesses often have no problem with this. They frequently benefit from complex regulation because it increases the chance that potential competition won’t even get off the ground. Big business’s hand has been behind the regulatory state at least back to the Progressive Era.

I could give you endless examples of small businesses crushed by big government. Here are two:

Shelly Goodman paid millions to buy a 13,000-square-foot mansion on 10 acres in Arizona in order to create a wedding reception center and bed-and-breakfast. Local bureaucrats forced her to spend thousands of dollars on studies to show that her business would not create burdensome traffic or noise. She did. The studies said it wouldn’t. Yet the big house sits empty because her local government refuses to let her operate a business, even on her own property.

In Virginia, Greg Garrett started farming oysters. His neighborhood is zoned for livestock. He could raise buffalo, but local bureaucrats decreed that he could not sell oysters. Why not? My staff talked to the zoning official, and we still have no clue. That’s the case with a lot of American law. It’s arbitrary power. Regulations are so numerous and complex that no one really understands them. This diminishes our ability to flourish.

Big government makes us all small.