Blog Wars! The Cheddarsphere edition

There’s a lot of ugly brewing in the Wisconsin blog world. Right-sided Kevin Binversie (Lakeshore Laments) has outed Lefty Tom Foley (Illusory Tenant) for a couple of things. (Follow those links in that order and you’ll get the basis of the argument.)

One, that Foley’s law license is suspended, is of interest to me because he really came down hard on me for not being an attorney and having an opinion last month. I guess the way I see it, if this information from the Wisconsin Bar is accurate he’s not an attorney either. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation. In this case, even if the Bar records are inaccurate, I’m betting one would still avoid the attack because they relied upon a report published by the Bar.

Which leaves that other matter. Really? A liberal would sue for defamation to prove he isn’t gay? Gee. That would be some trial to watch.

*Before you go off, remember, I’m out of this realm. There’s still so much to tell you, but there’s a reason I’m waiting. When I do, you can expect to see it on Brookfield City News for precisely the reasons Mr. Foley mentioned. It’s why I went back to the published paper as a volunteer blogger.

Comments

  1. John Foust says:

    Binversie intended to slur and insult. I don’t think there is any dishonor in getting a law degree, practicing, and then not keeping up on your CLEs and dues – for whatever personal reason he has for that, I have no idea. Maybe he prefers teaching piano. He is trained in the law profession, and his blog clearly shows he’s kept up on the issues and enjoys doing so.

    Your “The law and lawyers” post is timelessly comical, though. There’s nothing wrong with you having an opinion on a legal matter. You must entertain the notion, though, that you could be completely wrong because you do not have the vocational or avocational experience or understanding to be correct.

    Binversie, like many conservatives/GOP folks, looks down on homosexuality and anyone who defends it. He seems to think calling someone “gay” is an insult stronger than calling someone a “jerk”, yet he felt comfortable enough to do both, in public in his post.

  2. So now instead of being a general pain in the ass, John Foust is now capable of divining intent.

  3. John Foust says:

    No, I’d say Binversie’s intent was marked by his 5/31 5:06 p.m. tweet that said “Oh no, I made Tom Foley mad. Mission Accomplished.”

  4. Do-to-doo! (That was a trumpet introduction.) John Foust: Defender of all people liberal has entered the forum.

    Dude. They don’t even care. Why do you have to rally to the call?

  5. John Foust says:

    What? I’ll defend anyone who needs defending.

    Who doesn’t care? And why are you blogging about it, then?

    Any experience in this area, Cindy? What happens when you slur someone on the Interwebs?

  6. They. The word was THEY.

    Anyone with $256 and a law license can sue. That second bit puts Foley at a disadvantage on this one.

  7. John Foust says:

    I guess I’m not hearing the same subcranial broadcasts that you’re receiving, Cindy. “They” means the court system?

    Foley would be free to retain a practicing attorney, wouldn’t he?

    But feel free to jump in on the substance of the issue. Why would Binversie think his post was a good idea, and hours later, still consider it successful?

  8. They would mean the two bloggers involved. Yes, Foley could hire an attorney, but since he’s not paying to have his license renewed, I’m assuming (yes assuming) he might not have the financial means to hire an attorney.

    No need to argue the substance. My points, that truth is a defense and it would be a funny trial to watch an ardent liberal sue to prove he wasn’t gay, were made. I’m content.

  9. anti-neocon says:

    “There’s a lot of ugly brewing in the Wisconsin blog world.”

    And you are certainly part of the problem, Cindy! This is exactly why a person’s worst characteristics come out, whether it be you, Foust, Foley, Dad29, etc., regardless if it is once in a while or on a regular basis. No wonder our country is torn apart…stupid partisanship!

    I mean, really, just because a man supposedly has his legal license suspended automatically calls into question their authority on the law or the substance contained in their writings?

    Please, that’s third grade stuff.

  10. *snicker* Funny how when someone on the left is called to accountability we are third graders for doing so.

  11. John Foust says:

    “Called to accountability” for what, Cindy? Being a jerk, not keeping his license active, or accusing him of being gay?

    How does not fulfilling enough CLEs in the last few years invalidate his experience and opinion in the law? On one hand, you crow about your opinion being just as good as his, but he has a law degree. On the other, you think he’s deficient because he’s not practicing. He got his law degree in 2007, for heaven’s sake.

  12. anti-neocon says:

    “*snicker* Funny how when someone on the left is called to accountability we are third graders for doing so.”

    To use your own words , “I just call them as how I see them.”

    Now, to be FAIR, lefty bloggers can also be third graders, too. I readily admit that Chris L.’s blog, for example, may be denigrating and demeaning. Can you admit that you also engage in similar behavior?

    That is why I frequent the partisan blogs. It makes for good entertainment, and, on occasion, some valid points are made that makes me ponder and challenge my own assumptions and beliefs. Partisans, in my opinion, are unwilling to do so.

    Moderates in this country are becoming extinct, no thanks to the blogosphere!

  13. Anonymous Politico says:

    Why can’t we all just get along? 🙂

  14. This has been an interesting exchange.

    So no one finds it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed.

  15. It seems to me this post is inherently flawed as Binversie didnt out anyone one anything. The only thing that came out of this is how ridiculous binversie is but I dont think he outed himself there either.

  16. So no one finds it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed?

  17. “Any experience in this area, Cindy? What happens when you slur someone on the Interwebs?”

    Ooooooh oooooh….I know the answer to this question!

  18. And by the way, does no one find it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed?

    I guess it’s also relevant to ask if calling someone gay is a slur. I’ll let you argue that one if you’d like.

  19. John Foust says:

    Cindy, show us a mention or two where Foley describes his status or credentials, and we can talk. Show me what you are asserting.

    Is it a slur to say that someone has a personal attribute that they do not have?

  20. Foust, show me where Foley explains his law license has lapsed.

    “Is it a slur to say that someone has a personal attribute that they do not have?”

    Let’s test it out: John Foust, you have the most amazing intellect.

  21. Here’s what Cindy really wrote in response to me:

    “Poor assumption, Zach. Don’t lash out personally to make your point.

    I was sued because a man with a law license plunked down $256 and demanded court time. Getting sued – even having your insurance company settle a lawsuit instead of paying to litigate it – is not the same as being guilting of a “slur (to) someone on the Interwebs?”

    It’s really not that complicated. I’m sure you’ll catch on if you try hard enough.

    And by the way, does no one find it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed?”

    And to answer one of your points Cindy, I didn’t make any assumptions; I simply pointed out that I knew the answer to Foust’s question, just as anyone with an internet connection and access to CCAP could find the answer to his question.

    And for the record, you were sued for a reason; it’s not as if some random person that you didn’t know and had never mentioned just “plunked down $256 and demanded court time” without any reason at all.

    It’s really not that complicated.

  22. I joined the Wisconsin blogosphere not that long ago so I dont understand the whole cheddar wars. However I like you and know your smarter than that! Just because he did not keep up on paying the fees to be licensed does not mean he is not a lawyer. Not keeping up on fees, does not negate the countless hours spent at law school or the graduating with a law degree. You know that as well as i do, and you know its not the story. The story was binvinersies ridiculous post and I hope TF sues the living daylights out of him.

    The fact that binvinersie pretends he is sorry yet keeps the post up, speaks to what a horrible person he is.

    Hmmm Maybe he is seeker…..

  23. http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/print-article-15006-print.html

    “The Response: As noted by Milwaukee attorney Tom Foley on his Illusory Tenant blog, the state Supreme Court ordered Judge Sumi to file a…” Dated June 1

    http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/

    On Point by the Wisconsin State Public Defender

    “Illusory Tenant Milwaukee attorney Tom Foley — sometimes arch, always interesting”

    http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=582202

    Milwaukee Magazine: “And over at his own Illusory Tenant, blogger/attorney Tom Foley offered a riveting play-by-play…” Dated April 26, 2011

    One might conclude Foley’s been telling someone he’s an attorney recently.

  24. I was sued for a reason. But that reason wasn’t necessarily valid. The case was settled by my insurance company in order to save money, so we’ll never know for sure. Do not assume that every lawsuit has a valid reason or that every judgement is an admission of guilt. Two years later I know first hand what a joke the system can be, especially when it’s an attorney acting on his own behalf who sues you.

    Now, what I’d like to know, Zach, is why you want to come here and make this about me when the point of the post was to call out Tom Foley’s willingness to let many of us, myself included, think he was a practicing attorney when in fact he’s let his license lapse according to state documents. Why would he imply a threat to another blogger about suing that blogger instead of simply setting the record straight or actually suing the writer? Poke fun at me all you want, but the left’s rally to defend Tom Foley is rather fascinating to me.

  25. I just find it interesting that over at Binversie’s blog you seemed almost disappointed in how things ended up, as if it’s good fun to see folks tear each other down personally

    “Rats. And here I thought it was going to get interesting.”

    I made this about you because you seem to derive some sort of pleasure from seeing others get torn down personally, whether it’s you or someone else doing the dirty work, and that’s disappointing, because I thought you were better than that.

  26. That’s what they DO, Cindy. They have no standards except that Lefties are always right and Righties are always wrong.

    Ted Kennedy was a rapist and murderer–but you’ll never see that on a LeftyBlog.

    Someone named AntiNeocon has determined that you and I are ‘haters’ or something. So the Left is also capable of divination.

    They call that ‘progress.’ I think it’s madness.

  27. John Foust says:

    Foley received his law degree from Marquette, which automatically admits him to the State Bar. You said “Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed”. I asked you to show me where Foley describes his status. You provide three references, none of which come from Foley. One is a blurb from a blog roll. One is a blog. One is an online article or a print article, I can’t tell. That’s what you mean by “Foley touts”? Or are you weakening your assertion to the implication that the other people got it wrong because Foley misled them? One might ask the difference between attorney and lawyer.

  28. As in a catfight. You know. Scratching and yelling and all that. The two have walked away from the issue completely.

    Calling Foley out for his lawyer/not-a-lawyer status is not tearing him down personally. It’s acknowledgement of a public record. It’s a notice to readers that he’s not an attorney right now when it seems he’s been telling others he is. (See links in previous comment.) Do I take pleasure in telling Foley I’m on to him? Think of it instead of leveling the playing field.

  29. JF, you did make me smile. You must be Tom Foley’s special friend to take up the cause so ardently.

    Go look up the definition of “touts” and let me know when that word means “says.”

  30. Well, I can’t even say it’s been fun, but it’s certainly occupied an evening. I’m done on this topic unless Foley wants something specifically, and then it needs to actually come from him. You guys have been gallant men of the round table, I must admit.

  31. John Foust says:

    I’ll go with the “to promote or praise energetically; publicize” definition. So where did Foley do that? Which of the lawyer vs. attorney definitions that I presented would you like to use? Is Foley a lawyer?

    Three comments in a row to yourself, within the span of ten minutes? Is that a record?

  32. John Foust, Foley has been publicized as an attorney within recent months as those links will attest. I didn’t read your definitions. I won’t. You aren’t trying this case, so to speak, so really, I’m done. If Foley intends to bring it on, I’ll know soon enough. I suppose a professional ethics committee could eventually decide on the lawyer vs. attorney thing if you really wanted to push it.

    I really need to finally set up nested comments. It would all make more sense then. Until, I do, let’s just hope you can handle the occaisional three comments to myself in a row.

  33. A couple things….

    1. the original post had nothing to do with IT, it had to do with Binvinserie and it speaks volumes about him(especially that its still up)..

    2.. Just because he did not finsih his continuing credits does not take away the fact he is a lawyer, nor does it take away the fact that he can speak intelligently using his law background on his blog.

  34. Anthony says:

    Update from Binversie:
    “As Tom has pointed out, I appear to have libeled him. Most likely on the gay comment, and for that I sincerely apologize for. Maybe over the past couple of years of skimming over Tom’s posts on gay marriage and his criticisms of conservative Christians on homosexual issues, I mistook his passion on them as a piss-poor assumption that he was gay himself.

    I honestly meant no harm or malice from it. … So again, Tom, my sincerest apologizes. I AM AN ASS.”

    I wonder what the test would be to prove he wasn’t gay, besides his posts, of course.

  35. He has a doctorate degree in law … he’s an unlicensed doctor.

    Regardless of how he’s labeled one thing is abundantly clear (to me, at least), when it comes to the law he knows wtf he’s talking about.

  36. Randy in Richmond says:

    So if I publicly accuse someone on the left of being a Christian, which to most of us on the right is an okay thing, and there are even laws designating certain crimes against Christians as hate crimes, and if the person so labeled objects to that specific term even though they defended Christians in the past, I have committed a libelous act.

    Seems a situation comedy could be made of this as long as the characters use the qualifier, “but there’s nothing wrong with that.”

  37. That would be the thing about taking something like this to trial. It could be a free for all.

  38. Nothing to do with IT (Tom Foley.) Wow. I want to live in your world. Are the unicorns pink or blue there?

  39. John Foust says:

    Foley has said he’ll post more on the issue soon if not today. As with almost any issue, there’s plenty one can do short of actually taking someone to court. As for who proves what, I would suggest that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. It would be left to Binversie to prove his claim was true. It’s not Foley’s obligation to disprove his claim. It is sufficient for him to claim Binversie set out to damage Foley’s reputation. Binversie has admitted as much.

    Cindy’s fretting is silly. On one hand, she thinks her opinions are is just as good and as possibly correct as anyone else’s, on the other she doesn’t think a law degree might give someone’s opinion an edge. Cindy claims Foley is “touting” himself but fails to provide an example. I don’t see how Foley is somehow misrepresenting himself. The license status is public info. He’s not giving advice or misleading clients. It’s not like he’s tried to trick the court into allowing him to practice in some way. I’m not going to get the vapors because some blog I’ve never heard of calls him an “attorney” in a link.

    Binversie has dodged my most pointed questions over at his post. He’s busy with the old blog trick of adding fluffy stories so his foul post drops from the front page. What will be the long-term effect of this on Binversie’s reputation and career? Why, he’ll probably add it to his resume! It’ll give him street cred that will lead to his next WisGOP operative job or PR opportunity. Herp derp, isn’t it funny that he called Foley “gay”?

    Randy – I guess that depends on how upset you’d be if someone called you a Christian and you were not.

  40. So you say far-left blogger Foley is upset that someone called him gay when he is not? I’m trying to get the base of your argument, Foust.

  41. John Foust says:

    By no means do I think Foley is “far-left.” He seems to be as reasonable and fairly centrist as myself, which is one of the reasons I’m a fan.

    Base of my argument? Binversie said “mission accomplished” because he believed he angered Foley. What’s the base of Binversie’s argument?

    Where’s the base of your argument that Foley is misrepresenting himself?

  42. I’ll try again. So you say blogger Foley is upset that someone called him gay when he is not?

  43. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–“So no one finds it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed.”

    A lawyer received training to articulate the law. A license gives a person in a State the opportunity to practice law. Now, certainly having a license makes a lawyer “more qualified” to offer opinions about the law in the eyes of the State, but it does not mean that an unlicensed lawyer or a lawyer who lost his license lacks the capability to offer cogent arguments about the law. Why? They still have the training and background!

    Moreover, a lawyer generally has a MORE INFORMED, DETAILED opinion about the law compared to the everyday man and woman on the street. Not surprising given the fact that they have the expertise and knowledge in their area of specialty. That is, their opinion is MORE VALID compared to others, like Foust, Cindy, etc. who may know something about the law, but not to the same extent or level.

    I would acknowledge that Cindy, as a former politician, would probably be well-versed in certain matters compared to myself because she was directly involved in the process of city government. It doesn’t mean my opinion is “wrong” if I challenged certain things that she experienced, it just means my opinion may not have the evidence necessary to fully comprehend the situation.

    Please tell me, Cindy, if these statements are “liberal talking points” so I can avoid making that dreaded mistake in the future.

    Dad29–That’s what they DO, Cindy. They have no standards except that Lefties are always right and Righties are always wrong.

    Mmmm, after viewing your blog, it seems you give anonymous posters the repeated opportunity to gleefully advocate the rape of another human being (John Foust, I would assume he is one of your blogging opponents?). Some “standards”!

  44. Randy in Richmond says:

    Cindy
    There are some who still don’t see that elephant in the room–or they are ignoring it.

  45. Randy,

    You can make a more coherent argument than one of the most tired talking points there is that only those on the right are “Christian”.

    God Bless you all, now lets cut medicare!

  46. Randy, my bet is they are ignoring it.

    Anti-neocon, as I explained earlier, the professional ethics board could probably decide on the matter if it’s that important to you that it all be sorted out. Wisconsin has one of those for attorney-types, you know.

  47. The elephant in the room is that I expected this blog of all the right wing blogs in WI to denounce Binversie not jump on board……

  48. No, not that elephant Jeff.

  49. John Foust says:

    Cindy, you and I can read Foley’s one post. He quotes Wis. Stat. § 895.05(2), the libel statute. Foley has stated elsewhere (privately) that he’s not gay. The one time I met him, his date was a woman. I think it would be reasonable to assume he wasn’t talking about libel due to his license.

    Don’t we have some consensus between us that Binversie intended to slur Foley by stating he was gay?

    Jeff, I’ll wait for the denunciations. I suspect I’ll wait a long time. There are many out there who this sort of personal slur is hilarious, and there are many who will play along just for the thrill of it. Cindy wished this would turn into a big fight. It didn’t. Binversie caved and admitted things that Cindy won’t even acknowledge.

  50. Kind of like how we’re waiting on the left-wing denunciations of Bert’s racist rant on Folkbum’s site, no?

    Maybe Tom Foley should complain about being libeled on blogs for years, sort of like how John Foust complains about receiving crank phone calls far and wide.

  51. That Foley is or is not gay was never an issue with me. I only stated it would be interesting to watch a trial where a liberal was suing because someone called him gay. You see, even though you don’t want to admit it, to do so would be an admission among a left-leaning thinker that gay is not as cool as has been argued in the past.

    The same when you continue to say that Binversie “slur(red)” Foley by stating he was gay. Is that a slur? You seem to indicate it is, and I guess that surprises me. That is the elephant in the room. If you assert that Foley has been libeled then you assert that gay is less than straight as measured by society.

    How kind of you to finally give in on the law license issue. I’ll put a notch on my laptop for that win.

  52. Randy in Richmond says:

    Jeff
    We live in two different worlds. You miss the point entirely. It could be Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, it doesn’t matter.

    And your talking point of constantly referring to talking points has grown old. It has zero effect on me and I suspect others. One could argue most every entry made here and elsewhere by anyone are talking points, even though I find on this site unique and sometimes fresh points of view.

  53. Randy,

    I find that on this blog occassionally also. However I took your post as the stale only republicans are christian which is very tired and proven false over and over…..im glad thats not what you were saying

  54. John Foust says:

    It’s true, the question of whether someone is legally defamed by calling them “gay” has been raised in the courtroom. It didn’t take me long to find several articles about it. (one, two, a three, a four.) I would assume Foley has seen these and more. Who knows how he’ll respond?

    Apart from a courtroom, can we return to the facts? Based on his Twitter, Binversie intended to “anger” Foley and said he succeeded. He did it by pointing out a non-controversial fact of his license suspension due to unfulfilled CLEs and Bar dues. He also did it by promoting the notion that he was gay. Yes, I think it’s reasonable for someone to get angry when accused of being something they’re not, whether it’s calling them Irish, drunk, lazy, or overweight. The insult is the falsehood. You know, as one place puts it, bearing false witness. Spreading a falsehood about someone’s sexuality – yes, that’s a sensitive spot. So why did Binversie think it was a good idea? In his backtracking, he used the “can’t you take a joke?” excuse.

    Giving in on the law license issue? All I said was that I doubted that Foley wasn’t reacting to the statements about his law license.

    Seeker, it’s a fact that Mickey O’Leary crank-called my office. At least one other person did, too. I believe they were all connected to BadgerBlogger in one way or another, due to the timing and content of their messages. When I say this, the only people who question it or even deny it are people associated with BadgerBlogger. Do you care to reveal your true name?

  55. The “facts” as you stated them have nothing to do with my post. Go argue on Binversie’s site. Or Foley’s. Oh, wait! They’ve dumped the topic entirely. Maybe you could take a cue?

  56. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–Anti-neocon, as I explained earlier, the professional ethics board could probably decide on the matter if it’s that important to you that it all be sorted out.

    Wow, where did I ever infer in my post that I wanted that course of action??? Must be an Alinsky tactic you are employing.

  57. Oh, no. Not at all. I’m simply explaining that if you (and others) want a definitive answer you’ll need to go to those who decide this kind of thing for real. We’d just keep fighting about it without any resolve.

    Paranoid much?

  58. John:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKwGG-miImQ

    Cindy, in the real world being called gay is not the big of deal. In the world of bigots like binversie he was seriously trying to slander tf by calling him gay and “outing” him. Yet your smart enough to know that and I al uvery disappointed that you (and randy) of all people jumped on the bandwagon here.!

  59. John Foust says:

    I must confess I recognize an error in a statement I made above in (39). Right logic, wrong application. If you file a libel suit, it is your obligation to show the other’s statement is not true. In this case, if someone felt aggrieved because someone called them “gay”, then they’d somehow need to show they were not gay. The other might choose to present evidence the statement was true. Apart from that, as I linked, the court would no doubt consider whether this was an insult or not.

  60. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–Please stay on point. You made a statement “So no one finds it relevant that Foley touts himself to be a lawyer when he isn’t licensed”, I provided a response, and you have chosen not to react to that response, but rather
    claim that I am “paranoid” for wanting a resolution to the Foley’s problem, when I clearly did not make that implication.

    Partisans never cease to amaze me!

  61. Yes I did. I said if you want a definitive answer it’ll have to go to a Wisconsin State Bar professional eithics committee who can give you one. You and I are going to argue in opposition without resolve.

    My final response is that one who is not licensed to practice should not be publicized as an attorney.

  62. Looks like Jeff Simpson has been drunk computing again.

  63. John Foust says:

    But Cindy, you said “Foley touts himself to be a lawyer” like it was a bad thing. If common usage doesn’t make the fine differentiation between lawyer and attorney, what are you railing against? Foley does have a degree in the law, which would make him a “lawyer” in the strictest dictionary sense. You’ve been unable to show where he’s misrepresented himself (such as acting as an attorney before the court). File a complaint with Bar and tell us how it goes. Send a correction email to the three blogs you mentioned above.

    Foley has posted a small addition.

  64. I see John is able to divine that Kevin Binversie is adding/padding posts to knock the original post off the front page. Or would that be another baseless accusation John Foust is famous for?

    She’ll file a complaint the same day you do on your alleged crank callers.

    Until then, be quiet.

  65. Foust, you are either stupid or stubborn, but neither of those traits will stand in the way of Foley having allowed himself to be publicized as an attorney (aka lawyer) without having a legitimate license to practice. How interesting that now you want me to file a complaint with the Bar when anti-neocon is so against escalating the issue.

    Foley’s update has nothing to do with his legal status to allow himself to be known as a lawyer/attorney. Your point?

  66. Seeky…you could be the toughest anonymous commenter on the net

  67. John Foust says:

    Foley’s update has everything to do with an interest you’ve expressed here several times… how would someone sue for libel for being called “gay”. Maybe you can explain how you, Cindy, allow yourself to be described by others. How much control do you have over that? Again, this is over the distinction between “attorney” and “lawyer”, right? Ask the average person on the street to explain the difference. How many could?

    Seeker, as I’ve explained many times and you well know, when the police asked me if I wanted to ask them to press for charges for the documented and traced crank call, I said I’d be fine with them talking directly to O’Leary. They did. If you need to confirm that, ask the police or ask O’Leary.

    You’re absolutely right. It is my imagination and supposition that Binversie would like this whole matter to go away, and that bloggers never try to push mistaken stories down the front page. Oh, wait. Binversie has stated he’d like this matter to go away. Even still, you’re absolutely right, Seeker.

    So what’s your real name, Seeker?

  68. Oh, so we’re back to that. I will confess I can’t keep up with you.

    No one is claiming I have a professional license, so it’s no problem to me.

    PS We’re done now. I’m playing for the rest of the weekend and will be giving other updates, but this conversation is old and unable to be resolved, so it won’t be occupying any more of my time.

  69. It makes one wonder why a known stalker and a person with documented poor conduct (in the public record no less) are wanting someone’s real name.

  70. John Foust says:

    Go ahead, Seeker, tell us all about it.

  71. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–I said if you want a definitive answer it’ll have to go to a Wisconsin State Bar professional eithics committee who can give you one. You and I are going to argue in opposition without resolve.

    Cindy, this issue is YOURS. How can I be \”in opposition\” when I never directly or indirectly challenged you on this issue was in the first place! Again, another Alinsky maneuver!

    Cindy–My final response is that one who is not licensed to practice should not be publicized as an attorney.

    It is clear that you ignored my posting on this matter. Please refer to my 10:48 a.m., which details how a lawyer, regardless if they are licensed or not licensed, is a professional who can offer advice to the general public about their expertise. Just because a lawyer may lack the recognition from the state does NOT mean he/she is unable to publicize their status as an attorney to family members, friends, or the public, because they 1) earned a law degree and/or 2) passed the bar exam. Regardless of the lawyer’s status, their opinion on the law holds more credibility compared to a layman. Case closed!

  72. sicker, i know who you are, so it doesnt matter if you announce it or not. the fact that you keep sniping anonymously, shows your lack of character and courage not ours.

  73. I have no problem with your being done with this topic, anti-neocon. No problem at all.

  74. I have warned you two to take it outside before. Don’t do this on my blog or you are both out.

  75. You know what? Simpson, Foust, and probably Anti, you guys need a cooling off period. No posting comments until at least next Wednesday. If you do, I’m just going to pull them.

    You are welcome back after that if you can manage your troll-like behavior in a less offensive manner.

  76. anti-neocon says:

    What did I do? A few snarky comments, I admit, but a possible memorandum on me posting here? For troll-like behavior? Seriously? WOW!

  77. cindy is correct in a sense. a law school graduate from MU or UW WI is per se admitted to the state bar of WI on payment of the dues and fees. other requirements include stating to the bar your malpractice insurance coverage and trust account bank data. from there you must annually attend clew/continuting legal education courses sanctioned by the state bar and earn those credits and attend periodic ethics courses and earn those credits. failure to do any of this may cause your license to practice law to be suspended. you could be reinstated by catching up of the education. any attorney who is suspended cannot advertise that he/she is an attorney in fact and/or cannot practice law. but sometimes pre-paid advertising is very difficult or impossible to cancel, i.e., telephone directory already distrubuted. there are sources to determine whethere a lawyer is active in the law practice such as the Wisconsin Lawyer Directory and the State Bar. there are many law school graduates who never try to practice law and licensed attorneys who go into another line of work. every graduate from MU and UW law schools is given a juris doctoris degree. a legal education is a wonderful thing to have even if not used as a profession. it is also very expensive and time consuming to achieve.

  78. Thank you for weighing in on this one, Dick. I appreciate it.