US veterans favor McCain ?

[MobBoss]

"Tame paralegal"?
Sounds like a term of endearment to me.
You shouldn't get so worked up about things so fast. Chill, Winston.

Neither should you. So take your daily dose of Ritalin and relax.

 

[nonconformist]

I see what you did there.
You're making fun of the mentally ill now.

Wow, that whole Jesus Christ thing was kinda lost on you huh

 

[Zarn]

Mobby, just ignore trolls.

 

[MobBoss]

I see what you did there.
You're making fun of the mentally ill now.

I am making fun of you.

Wow, that whole Jesus Christ thing was kinda lost on you huh

Not at all. Never said I was perfect now did I?

Mobby, just ignore trolls.

Yeah, I know. You are entirely correct. I will happily take your adivce.

 

[otago]

Who said I would do what your boss does? I could likely find a competent person to do it for less money.

So you are doing something that is apparently repetitive and high volume in nature. Again, the private sector is better at doing such things less expensively. There are law firms that are basically "mills", so there is no reinventing the wheel to set one up. Setting up a profitable legal mill is not that hard to do. The most challenging part is getting the volume, so signing an outsourcing contract with the military would solve the hardest step.

Really? If the military were to pay my firm 10% less than the total compensation it is paying the army of lawyers, paralegals, and other bureaucrats for your project (remember, the taxpayer is footing some pretty inefficient extras onto that total compensation - so I'm not just talking monetary salary), I could be profitable.

You spend a lot of time working for the government performing a task the private sector can and does perform perform (reptitive high volume legal services) and you don't think of yourself as a bureaucrat? Interesting.

I'm not so sure you have a firm grasp of how the competitive private market works anymore.

So if your private law firm ends up in a rather warm place and the call goes up, they are coming through the wire, what then ?
Do your untrained beyond the law people try and find the deepest bunker they can ?
Or do you spend what the military spends on training it's legal types in the workings of a Martel toy to put them on the line ?

 

[JollyRoger]

So if your private law firm ends up in a rather warm place and the call goes up, they are coming through the wire, what then ?
Do your untrained beyond the law people try and find the deepest bunker they can ?
Or do you spend what the military spends on training it's legal types in the workings of a Martel toy to put them on the line ?

That work would be out-of-scope in any outsourcing contract I would sign - just like drafting a will is out-of-scope for a Blackwater mercenary. Let the military do what it does best (or at least used to do best in the 1940s) and let the private sector more efficiently handle the tasks that taxpayers are currently overpaying for.

 

[Ecofarm]

a Martel toy

I can pop your head at 300m with that "toy" (over iron sights). Noone can do that with an AK, not even at 200m.

 

[MobBoss]

That work would be out-of-scope in any outsourcing contract I would sign - just like drafting a will is out-of-scope for a Blackwater mercenary. Let the military do what it does best (or at least used to do best in the 1940s) and let the private sector more efficiently handle the tasks that taxpayers are currently overpaying for.

Thats part of the reason you wouldnt sign any such contract. You see, you utterly fail to comphrehend that soldiers lives continue regardless of being in the middle of Iraq and yes, they often have legitimate legal assistance needs right in the middle of a warzone. Which is why we have paralegals and attorneys deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan right alongside combat arms troops.

If you are unwilling to draft a will in the middle of Bagdhad then you are unable to do the job. And like Blackwater, the taxpayer would undoubtedly have to pay you far more for your services if rendered in Iraq (assuming you found the stones to go). So it would result in a vast increase in taxpayer dollars...not less.

 

[JollyRoger]

Thats part of the reason you wouldnt sign any such contract. You see, you utterly fail to comphrehend that soldiers lives continue regardless of being in the middle of Iraq and yes, they often have legitimate legal assistance needs right in the middle of a warzone. Which is why we have paralegals and attorneys deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan right alongside combat arms troops.

If you are unwilling to draft a will in the middle of Bagdhad then you are unable to do the job. And like Blackwater, the taxpayer would undoubtedly have to pay you far more for your services if rendered in Iraq (assuming you found the stones to go). So it would result in a vast increase in taxpayer dollars...not less.

Why would I need to be in the middle of Baghdad to draft a will? We are in the 21st century after all . . . or at least us non-bureaucrats are. Nevertheless, there are thousands of contractors that secure military work without commiting to being physically present in a warzone and most of them have not utterly failed. Sure, there is a need for attorneys and paralegals in a warzone . . . and military personnel would be the likely best candidates for the function (or perhaps ex-military on the payroll of a private law firm). But once you move away from the battlefield, you start dealing with bureaucratic fat. My office would never, for example, restrict a certain type of case to every other weekend.

 

[MobBoss]

Why would I need to be in the middle of Baghdad to draft a will?

Because thats when a soldier may decide he needs one. So where are you to fullfill that need? How much are you going to charge to fullfill that need?

We are in the 21st century after all . . . or at least us non-bureaucrats are. Nevertheless, there are thousands of contractors that secure military work without commiting to being physically present in a warzone and most of them have not utterly failed.

Sure there are. They do things that they cant get soldiers to do cheaper. If you can prove to congress that you can do what I do cheaper then go for it. I personally think your full of crap as usual, but hey, your the guy that makes his living trying argue lost causes anyway so go for it.

Sure, there is a need for attorneys and paralegals in a warzone . . . and military personnel would be the likely best candidates for the function (or perhaps ex-military on the payroll of a private law firm). But once you move away from the battlefield, you start dealing with bureaucratic fat.

I can do the same job I do here or in Iraq for the same amount of cash. Can you?

My office would never, for example, restrict a certain type of case to every other weekend.

Your office is small potatos compared to the amount of work we do.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because thats when a soldier may decide he needs one. So where are you to fullfill that need? How much are you going to charge to fullfill that need?

Again, this is the 21st century. Physical presence of an attorney or paralegal is not needed to get a will done.

Sure there are. They do things that they cant get soldiers to do cheaper. If you can prove to congress that you can do what I do cheaper then go for it. I personally think your full of crap as usual, but hey, your the guy that makes his living trying argue lost causes anyway so go for it.

Until you trim the fat from the military, you might as well use the sunk cost for something. However, if the fat was trimmed, then the poprivate sector could do many stateside functions currentlyhandled by bureaucrats.

I can do the same job I do here or in Iraq for the same amount of cash. Can you?

Assuming that is true (you don't get more pay for being in a combat zone?), you could likely be less expensive to the military in the warzone (not that physical presence is needed for much of what you do). If you are not willing to lower your cost stateside, my firm could do it for less. You are too inflexible in that you won't go down on price stateside.

Your office is small potatos compared to the amount of work we do.

Right - a bureaucratic nightmare where a portion of your client base can't even get service on most days.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, this is the 21st century. Physical presence of an attorney or paralegal is not needed to get a will done.

Hmmm. How would you execute the will? Witness it? Ensure that the soldier did it correctly?

If you arent 'hands on' as an attorney, especially for soliders who sometimes really have no comprehension of the document they are requesting, then you are simply doing them a disservice.

What about other legal issues that do indeed require your presence? Or have the courts down in Texas all instituted telecommuting as a rule and you no longer have any requirement to appear personally in court? Yes, we have court martials in Iraq too? How can you represent your client and not be there?

Assuming that is true (you don't get more pay for being in a combat zone?),

You do get extra, but its nowhere near a multiple of what you already make. Your money is taxfree and you get family seperation allowance and hazard/danger pay. Maybe a grand or so more a month. Certainly not comparable to a blackwater employee.

Right - a bureaucratic nightmare where a portion of your client base can't even get service on most days.

They always have the option of paying you the blood money you require for the same service. Funny, it still seems a lot of people would rather stand in line to see me I guess. I guess they think it better value.

 

[bhsup]

Hey Jolly? If you contracted with the military, could the military come to your office someday and go "You, you, you, and oh yeah, YOU (that last one being you, Jolly) grab your 782 gear and get your ass on the cattle car outside. You're getting shipped out for the next year as a provo infantry batallion."?

 

[JollyRoger]

Hmmm. How would you execute the will? Witness it? Ensure that the soldier did it correctly?

Neither the attorney nor the paralegal executes it. I sometimes use a paralegal for a witness. However, a will can be executed with two witnesses (in most jurisdictions). A self-proving affadavit requires a notary, but in most jurisdictions, the affidavit does not need to be signed or notarized concurrent with the will. The client base has been trained to follow instructions, so my already drafted will-ceremnony instructions could be followed. If that is an issue, there is technology that would allow me to see follow the signing ceremony in real-time and make sure it goes correctly. Witnesses should not be hard for the will signer to come by and I could likely get the military to assign me an on-site notary for the self-proving affadavits.

If you arent 'hands on' as an attorney, especially for soliders who sometimes really have no comprehension of the document they are requesting, then you are simply doing them a disservice.

Have you heard of a telephone? E-mail? Videoconferencing? How far behind is the bureaucracy?

What about other legal issues that do indeed require your presence? Or have the courts down in Texas all instituted telecommuting as a rule and you no longer have any requirement to appear personally in court? Yes, we have court martials in Iraq too? How can you represent your client and not be there?

Yeah, you've got me on that one, which would be an out-of-scope item in the contract unless the military was willing to cover the cost of travel and the necessary security. So you've covered one item in a combat zone where a military attorney would be more efficient. I haven't seen you present a successful argument for stateside. The point is, that you are having to grasp at a pretty narrow range of services that are far removed from the stateside bureaucracy in order to argue that the stateside bureaucracy should stay in place.

You do get extra, but its nowhere near a multiple of what you already make. Your money is taxfree and you get family seperation allowance and hazard/danger pay. Maybe a grand or so more a month. Certainly not comparable to a blackwater employee.

So you concede that not even military personnel cost more in a combat zone?

They always have the option of paying you the blood money you require for the same service. Funny, it still seems a lot of people would rather stand in line to see me I guess. I guess they think it better value.

Well, if the service to me was no-money-out-of-pocket-for them, then my guess is that you would lose business. I'm talking a government contract where the government pays me instead of a bureaucrat. Nevertheless, I have still drafted-for-pay the wills of military personnel, despite the fact that they could havve gotten it free.

Hey Jolly? If you contracted with the military, could the military come to your office someday and go "You, you, you, and oh yeah, YOU (that last one being you, Jolly) grab your 782 gear and get your ass on the cattle car outside. You're getting shipped out for the next year as a provo infantry batallion."?

It would be a breach of contract as that would certainly made be out-of-scope before I signed on the dotted line. Might have to call in Blackwater to boot the guy out of my office.

 

[bhsup]

It would be a breach of contract as that would certainly made be out-of-scope before I signed on the dotted line. Might have to call in Blackwater to boot the guy out of my office.

So then you'd have to acknowledge, wouldn't you, that Mobby is far more versatile and useful to the military than some random civvy paralegal?

 

[JollyRoger]

So then you'd have to acknowledge, wouldn't you, that Mobby is far more versatile and useful to the military than some random civvy paralegal?

I'm not arguing diversity or usefulness. I'm arguing efficiency, something that should interest you as a taxpayer.

 

[bhsup]

Efficiency is great, but when it comes to the military, I'd rather they have the greatest capacity to seek out and destroy our enemies around the world. That is their foremost duty. If that costs a bit more for the sake of dual-role soldiers, so be it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Efficiency is great, but when it comes to the military, I'd rather they have the greatest capacity to seek out and destroy our enemies around the world. That is their foremost duty. If that costs a bit more for the sake of dual-role soldiers, so be it.

Right, so by offloading some of the dual role junk, you can focus more on the seek out and destroy stuff and make it the foremost duty rather than a remote maybe. More literal bang for your buck.

 

[MobBoss]

Neither the attorney nor the paralegal executes it. I sometimes use a paralegal for a witness. However, a will can be executed with two witnesses (in most jurisdictions). A self-proving affadavit requires a notary, but in most jurisdictions, the affidavit does not need to be signed or notarized concurrent with the will.

Nope. I cant speak to 'most jurisdictions' and I am not sure how you can either since you practice in Texas. But every will done by our office is witness by two individuals and notarized - sometimes with a state notary and sometimes with a title 10, 1044a notary.

The client base has been trained to follow instructions, so my already drafted will-ceremnony instructions could be followed.

Rofl. Then you really dont know Joe do you?

If that is an issue, there is technology that would allow me to see follow the signing ceremony in real-time and make sure it goes correctly.

i.e. additional cost.

Witnesses should not be hard for the will signer to come by and I could likely get the military to assign me an on-site notary for the self-proving affadavits.

A lot of enlisted paralegals are also notarys.

Have you heard of a telephone? E-mail? Videoconferencing? How far behind is the bureaucracy?

None of which are sufficient to deal with Joe. Again, your ignorance of the Army (and of Joe directly) speak volumes to those of us in the know.

Yeah, you've got me on that one, which would be an out-of-scope item in the contract unless the military was willing to cover the cost of travel and the necessary security. So you've covered one item in a combat zone where a military attorney would be more efficient.

There are plenty more.

I haven't seen you present a successful argument for stateside.

Yes you have. You yourself indicated that you wouldnt do the job of a JAG captain at his salary, even stateside. You make more by being in the civil sector. People who serve in the military dont do so for the cash bubby. Or hadnt you gotten that idea yet?

The point is, that you are having to grasp at a pretty narrow range of services that are far removed from the stateside bureaucracy in order to argue that the stateside bureaucracy should stay in place.

Again, they are not removed from the stateside at all. We perform the same services in garrison that we would in Iraq. You cant or wouldnt for the same amount of money. There isnt really any arguement here.

So you concede that not even military personnel cost more in a combat zone?

There is nothing to concede. A troop gets paid slightly more for serving in a danger zone, but its no where near what a civilian makes for the same job in the same location.

Well, if the service to me was no-money-out-of-pocket-for them, then my guess is that you would lose business. I'm talking a government contract where the government pays me instead of a bureaucrat.

Again, if you can sell it to the government go for it.

Nevertheless, I have still drafted-for-pay the wills of military personnel, despite the fact that they could havve gotten it free.

Of course you have because even military personnel have need to see specialists sometimes. I myself recommend that soldiers with over 2 million in assets seek an estate planning attorney for help instead of getting a freebie from the military. Why? Because for those folks paying the fee is more than worth the cost to get it done by a specialist. Plus, soldiers cant really sue the government if we screw their crap up, but they can sue you.

I'm not arguing diversity or usefulness. I'm arguing efficiency, something that should interest you as a taxpayer.

So, how much do you pay your wage serf paralegal so I can get an idea on who's more efficient?

 

[JollyRoger]

Nope. I cant speak to 'most jurisdictions' and I am not sure how you can either since you practice in Texas. But every will done by our office is witness by two individuals and notarized - sometimes with a state notary and sometimes with a title 10, 1044a notary.

I bet if you look closely, you will see that the will is witnessed, but not notarized. The self-proving affidavit is notarozed. Same with every will that comes through my office.

Rofl. Then you really dont know Joe do you?

I was just relying on you with how well the military does on training. Itn't following instructions a core competency that is being taught?

i.e. additional cost.

Not really. It's a fixed cost to set up couple with a variable cost to use. Those costs are much lower than the costs of having someone overseas and physically present.

A lot of enlisted paralegals are also notarys.

Right. Becoming a notary isn't that hard to acjieve, meaning the military can easily provide me an onsite notary - doesn't even have to be a paralegal. maybe the barber can even double as a notary.

None of which are sufficient to deal with Joe. Again, your ignorance of the Army (and of Joe directly) speak volumes to those of us in the know.

You sound loke John Kerry here when you drone on about how Joe can't comprehend simple instructions despite being specically trained to follow instructions. ANother one of my missions accomplished in this thread.

There are plenty more.

A court appearance is the only thing I can think of. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

Yes you have. You yourself indicated that you wouldnt do the job of a JAG captain at his salary, even stateside. You make more by being in the civil sector. People who serve in the military dont do so for the cash bubby. Or hadnt you gotten that idea yet?

I don't work for salary, I work for profit,. There is a reason some of us don't choose to be trapped in a bureaucracy. Or hadn't you got thatthrough your head?

Again, they are not removed from the stateside at all. We perform the same services in garrison that we would in Iraq. You cant or wouldnt for the same amount of money. There isnt really any arguement here.

The private sector is way ahead of government bureaucracy in terms of technology and workflow process. I am confident that private law firms willing to compete for the work could do the stateside work more effciently than the bureaucracy does.

There is nothing to concede. A troop gets paid slightly more for serving in a danger zone, but its no where near what a civilian makes for the same job in the same location.

Correct. Which is why it makes sense to have the military do the work overseas that can't be performed stateside since the free market price exceeds the bureaucratic price. Once you move away from the battlefield, the free market price comes down faster than the bureaucratic price.

Again, if you can sell it to the government go for it.

Can and should are two different thinks. You've got a lot of pork barrelers protecting your job.

Of course you have because even military personnel have need to see specialists sometimes. I myself recommend that soldiers with over 2 million in assets seek an estate planning attorney for help instead of getting a freebie from the military. Why? Because for those folks paying the fee is more than worth the cost to get it done by a specialist. Plus, soldiers cant really sue the government if we screw their crap up, but they can sue you.

I've done simple wills for members of the military. And thanks for pointing out the inability to sue the bureaucracy - yet another inefficiency.

So, how much do you pay your wage serf paralegal so I can get an idea on who's more efficient?

In the 30s for fulltime. Plus, one of my corporate clients lends me employees for bulk projects at a very reasonable rate - meaning I don't have to carry them full-time - I only pay for what I use.