The problem often cited with the English rule is that it discourages the small plaintif with a valid claim from suing a large corporation. The risk if they lose is too great. Who would sue a major tobacco or chemical company or GE for example if they might be subject to paying the fees of both sides?

There also is some scholarly debate over whether the English rule results in an actual decrease in the number of cases that go to trial.

I am not litigous by nature and am not advocating for either position but thought perhaps more than one side of that argument should be presented.

As far as the lawyer bashing, I see it a lot but I also see a lot of the same people later looking for free legal advice or a "pit bull" lawyer when the feel their ox has been gored.

As to Texas probate courts, that is a surprise to me but I freely admit to little knowledge of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:
As far as the lawyer bashing, I see it a lot but I also see a lot of the same people later looking for free legal advice or a "pit bull" lawyer when the feel their ox has been gored.

I dislike all attorneys, except of course the one that I use, he is OK

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I dislike all attorneys, except of course the one that I use, he is OK

I hear you on the lawyers.

I once got sued for $80 million. It was totally BS. After 4 1/2 years, they settled it for nuisance value. My insurance company had spent $2.2 million defending me.

When the papers were signed, the opposing lawyer looked at me and said "Larry, we know you didn't do anything. You were just in the way and politically we had to sue you."

I am here to tell you that is the closest I have ever come to going to jail in my life. I went across the conference room table and I was going to extract my pound of flesh from this guy. I had to be restrained.

This can leave a bad taste in your mouth for lawyers.

Larry,

I have night vision equipment...

Just sayin...

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I hear you on the lawyers.

I once got sued for $80 million. It was totally BS. After 4 1/2 years, they settled it for nuisance value. My insurance company had spent $2.2 million defending me.

When the papers were signed, the opposing lawyer looked at me and said "Larry, we know you didn't do anything. You were just in the way and politically we had to sue you."

I am here to tell you that is the closest I have ever come to going to jail in my life. I went across the conference room table and I was going to extract my pound of flesh from this guy. I had to be restrained.

This can leave a bad taste in your mouth for lawyers.

I've never seen anyone say that. Most state bars have ethics committes and in egregious circumstances sanctions are available.

I am not suggesting that the conduct violates any ethics rules or is subject to sanction but on the facts you suggest it seems at least unprofessional.

Lawyers are just agents of other forces. Anger is properly directed at the puppet master, not the puppet.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Anger is properly directed at the puppet master, not the puppet.

Let God sort them out.

Just finished a frivolous but annoying and wasteful event involving lawyers who knew their client didn't have a leg to stand on. The clients didn't know it and the lawyers encouraged their fantasies for a year or so.

Dean

I wondered how long it would take before this thread devolved into lawyer-bashing. I would normally stay away from such "discussion," just as I normally would not consider kicking a skunk in order to get it out of my yard. But it's Friday, the day is a bit slow and I'm feeling kind of cranky from having dealt with other people's problems all week, so here goes.

1) Lawyers do not sue people; people sue people, and they hire lawyers to represent them in the process, often at no expense to themselves (except in those very rare instances where the plaintiff-- person initiating the suit-- is him- or herself a lawyer, but even then one normally retains someone else to do the suing.) What does this mean? It means that the lady who tried to recover bazillions of bucks from McDonald's for burning herself with the hot cup of coffee she put in her lap hired a lawyer to do it-- the lawyer did not initiate the suit. She did. She hired the lawyer to represent her. While it is true there are lawyers who go out and seek specifac clients to represent, this is rare and until recently was almost universally seen as an ethical violation that could get the lawyer's license pulled if the practice were discovered.

2) There are unethical/venal/incompetant lawyers, just as there are unethical/venal/incompetant doctors, teachers, building contractors, salesmen, PH's and hamburger-flippers. As in all those lines of work, however, they are a minority. I have been in practice for 17 years now and have dealt with hundreds of lawyers during my career. A couple were theives. They tend not to stick around very long before they get thier ticket pulled. A couple have not been very competant or are lazy. They tend to be forced out of practice because they simply aren't suited for the work. The vast majority of us are very good at what we do: helping other people deal with their problems. Those problems might be getting divorced, writing up a business contract that protects the rights of the parties involved, trying to get GM to refund a car buyer the money he is out for repeatedly fixing a problem GM knew about but refuses to acknowledge, or trying to keep people from selling heroin (my own particular practice.) Do we make a good living for doing this work? Sure. But if you had seven years of college behind you and your work consisted of listening to other people whine about their (often self-created) problems all day, wouldn't you charge a lot of money for your time? I know priests don't, but they are a special breed of person.

3) While it is true that many lawyers are liberals, at least as many are not. Of the 15 assistant district attorneys in my office, about half are registered Democrats and the other half Republicans. In the Public Defenders Office down the street the ratio is about the same. I suppose if you see "liberal," "lawyer" and "Satan" in the same category you can't help but believe that since all lawyers are evil and all liberals are evil then all lawyers must be liberals.

4) Someone seemed to think that the best way of cutting down on lawsuits is a legal system where if you want to sue an entity for $100,000, you must first post a bond of $100,000, which you would lose if you lost the suit. By that same logic, one could cure breast cancer by drowning at birth all baby girls. (If they don't grow up, they can't get cancer.) In some cases, parties agree beforehand that if a dispute arises between them, they will reslove the dispute by arbitration, along the lines of what the previous poster suggested. But what if you don't have $100, much less $1,000,000 and that is the money you are out because of the medical expenses you incurred when your wife was rear-ended while driving a Pinto that exploded because of a design defect that Ford knew about but refused to correct? (That is a real case, by the way, for those unfamiliar with American product liability jurisprudence.) If you say you should post as bond the money you are trying to recover before filing suit, you are saying that justice is something to which only the wealthy (or large corporations) are entitled.

I could go on, but those of you who think lawyers are all evil/crooked/slimy, etc will only read this for whatever entertainment value it may hold for you anyway.
And they are calling me off to court right now.

I come at it from a different direction. Having worked WITH mostly business lawyers over the last forty years.

It is the separation of powers doctrine or LACK THEREOF that gets me by the short ones. Who heads our executive branch, a lawyer, who the legislative, over 60% lawyers and who the judicial, well duh 100%. Is this true separation of powers? Unfortunately this is true from the grass roots to the Oval Office. Just my $0.02. Simple solution - no more than 25% of elected offices be held by anyone holding a license to practice law! Yeeeeeeeeha.

Muygrande,

Not necessarily a bad idea on its face, but as a State prosecutor, I live first-hand with the bolluxed-up crap that non-lawyers make into law. I think that just as a carpenter should do most of the building of a house, a lawyer should do most of the writing of laws. Seriously, should a dairy farmer in the state assembly be the guy who drafts a law on criminal procedure?

But, you make my point. Why are our "laws" so difficult to write? I call it full employment for way too many lawyers. Case 1 - after forty years I have yet to not "find a way" to do anything(within reason) I wanted to do once I hired an attorney to "walk me thru" the laws that said I could NOT do what I wound up doing anyway.

The problem isn't who drafts the laws. The problem is that we have people making the law and voting on the law that don't have the slightest idea what they are doing on certain subject matters.

Do you think these idiots in Washington have a clue what they voted on in the health care bill? I am will to bet not 1 in 100 had any idea. They voted the party line.

quote:

Originally posted by sharpsguy:
GMaxon--Then there is the little matter of a number of trophies (dead animals) in Zim with Pfifer's name on them. Dead animals on your safari mean that you pay the trophy fee.

I have not seen proof that Pfiefer shot what DaleW claims he has? Maybe it is in the bazillion pages on this, but I don't remember seeing that.

quote:

Originally posted by sharpsguy:
And yes, Pfifer had an agreement with Nixon. Do you honestly think that Pfifer would have traveled to Zim, have Nixon pick him up and take him to camp WITHOUT an agreement?
Get a life, man.

He had an agreement to go shoot an original set of animals and it appears that both sides agree he paid that debt.

Once there the claim is he shot more and didn't pay.

So, prove he shot more. If you can't how does he owe a debt?

If it is proven that the checks have his signature, then he owes at least the 9k he submitted in travelers checks.

"Get a life" Funny stuff. Everyone is getting their cart ahead of the horse and jumping to conclusions. Do you think any court will side iwth Nixon on his word that Phiefer owes him money? Hardly without any proof.

Sorry, just reality that some appear to not like to hear.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

Therefore, one of two things is true: Nixon is lying, or Phifer is. Let's settle that before anything. It should be easy enough to prove.

What I am baffled at is no explanation on the part of Phifer on why he never reported his checks missing, and why he would leave his trophies in Zim if he paid the TFs; esp the ele. And to not mention one word of it on AR...bizzare.

I totally agree, but it is still speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Have you ever hunted in Africa? If so, would you ever do this? Would anyone?

Yes. If I recall I had to sign at the end of the hunt stating what I had shot. Nixon should easily be able to provide proof of what was shot in addition to the original contract. If he can do that, then the burden goes to Phiefer to prove that he paid the additional expenses disprove Nixon that he shot more animals.[/quote]

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I have spoken with AMEX. If someone reports a check as stolen prior to the guy who has it presenting it for payment, it will most likely be rejected by AMEX as stolen. Think about that...Nixon would have had to have deposited those checks before Phifer reported them stolen. Not likely.

I don't remember every post, but are you saying that after depositing, AMEX then contacted Nixon rejecting? Phiefer already stated he didn't report them stolen till he got home I thought, so this doesn't really indicate if they were presented for payment or stolen.

I have to admit, if I was at the end of a trip and some checks were stolen, I would probably wait till I got home to report them and figure that without a valid signature from me, I was covered.

I'm not taking any side. It just seems that in lieu of facts everyone is speculating to keep this story going.

IMO, something is fishy here and both parties smell.

quote:

I have not seen proof that Pfiefer shot what DaleW claims he has? Maybe it is in the bazillion pages on this, but I don't remember seeing that.

Nor have I.

1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

Sorry dude but you are losing me.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

Sorry dude but you are losing me.

He is kind of scaring me.

Dale if you and several others are so concerned about the poor victimized Nixon why not you form a group with your fellow lynch mob and buy the debt from Nixon. Hell 26K is not that much in the scheme of things. Nixon would have his money and you could take all of the damning evidence, sue Bill, win, have his wages garnished with interest. Just like a collection agency. After all you eat lawyers for breakfast.

Everybody would be happy except for Bill, unless of course if he would win the suit.

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

You might want to stop digging. To the extent Nixon has viable claims, this kind of rhetoric does nothing for Nixon's credibility, or yours for that matter.

If your goal in posting this was to alienate any lawyer who might be interested in his case, job well done.

I suppose it is none of my business, but I am puzzled as to how Nixon ended up in Zimbabwe, if those from whom he directly descends resided in the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

?????

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.

Maybe pictures, maybe a license showing what he killed, maybe a written agreement/contract from the end of the hunt signed by Phifer agreeing to pay for an itemized list of animals? I don't know. My gut tells me that weather or not the animals that were shot on the safari were paid for isn't llamapackers dispute, I may have missed it but I don't remember him denying or confirming what he took on the safari. You should let the two of them solve their own problems with eachother, or if you want to help don't get so emotional about it.

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

You really want to paint with that wide of a brush? I know a lot of lawyers, two lifelong best friends are lawyers, I don't know any that are liberals/democrats/progressives....just conservitives and independants. I'm a member of a union. Most unions are pro-democrat, the members of those unions have political affiliations as diverse as any other sector. I understand (though I disagree with on a personal basis) why my union contributes to democrats as they fit the "Unions" agenda, I and probably well over half of the members vote conservative because it fits our personal agendas.

Anything else we could talk about off the subject?

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
1. What does the member of AR require to prove Phifer shot the animals during the Nixon---SSG safari? Tell me and I will see if I can get it.


2. Do you know that the (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) changed their name to the (American Association for Justice)?

wow, who does not want justice?

95% of all politcal contibutions from the "AAJ" goes to the democratic-liberal-progressive party. That is a fact. Therefore, 95% of lawyers are libs or they are deceptive libs pretending to republicans.

If I can prove that Phifer shot the animals that Nixon claims, are any of you "American Association for Justice" lawyers going to man up and do some pro-bono work for Nixon? Collect his 26K?

This screams Justice:

Nixon is a poor black African, malaria infected, whose great-great-great granddaddy and mommy were shackled and shipped to America as slaves.... victimized by a wealthy white man who has a director position at a major university.
. NIXON IS DOWN FOR THE STRUGGLE.

Where is the "justice" lawyers?


dale

I find that hard to believe as a large percentage of lawyers like doctors are business owners and have NO interest in the Democrat party. I'm a chiropractor and member of the American Chiropractic Association.......that said they officially supported Obama in 2008. You can be sure as hell that they didn't represent my or many other chiropractors oppinions on Obama. The AMA decided to support the healthcare legislation and many state medical organization pulled their charter/support from the AMA.

Brett

I have no idea how we got to this point in this thread, but not all lawyers are litigators, members of the ABA, ATLA, or whatever. Many bar associations require lawyers to donate time or money or both for those who cannot afford legal representation.

I have met more than a few liberal lawyers but also know quite a few conservative ones and have no freakin' idea what that has to do with illegal hunting in Zimbabwe or the price of tea in China...

quote:

and have no freakin' idea what that has to do with illegal hunting in Zimbabwe or the price of tea in China...

I believe Bill accepted the binding arbitration process, and since Nixon has done no wrong, it has to be somebody's fault, let's blame lawyers and the legal system.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers (Even though it was not an insult to lawyers, actually a compliment)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I hear you on the lawyers.

I once got sued for $80 million. It was totally BS. After 4 1/2 years, they settled it for nuisance value. My insurance company had spent $2.2 million defending me.

When the papers were signed, the opposing lawyer looked at me and said "Larry, we know you didn't do anything. You were just in the way and politically we had to sue you."

I am here to tell you that is the closest I have ever come to going to jail in my life. I went across the conference room table and I was going to extract my pound of flesh from this guy. I had to be restrained.

This can leave a bad taste in your mouth for lawyers.

I've never seen anyone say that. Most state bars have ethics committes and in egregious circumstances sanctions are available.

I am not suggesting that the conduct violates any ethics rules or is subject to sanction but on the facts you suggest it seems at least unprofessional.

Yes the ethics committee is supposed to deal with this:

Yet formerly particularly in MED MAL suits

almost every Dr. whose name appeared in the

patients chart was chart would be "named"

in the suit initially.

Later many phrases similar to "--we know you

didn't do anything. You were just in the way

and politically we had to sue you."

Were often heard.

I understand naming the individual as a procedural requirement and settling with or dismissing them, but how is that "political"?

Never mind, too much of a hijack.

In my case, it was a state agency involved. Various high level state politicians were involved. My former client made accusations in the press. It was all politics.

Well, since we are talking about lawyers, here is my pet peeve:

A lawyer decides that I have been "harmed" by Corp "X" and decides to file a class action suit.

I receive a notice in the mail that I can participate. If I don't want to participate, I HAVE to respond. What happened to my rights to sue?? Why do they have the right to force me to return anything in order to preserve my rights?

There was in interesting story in the WSJ about a guy who is suing to stop class action suits on that basis that potential plantiffs are being represented without their consent.

Most class action lawsuits are just a way for lawyers to get rich - they certainly do nothing for the "plaintiffs" - if there are any.

The very simple answer is for Dale W to post a copy of the Zim TR2. This is the document that authorises the hunt, Shows what animals were shot and where, has to be signed by the client and also shows who got paid for the animals (Parks or council)...and shows the bottom line on how much was paid all in all.

One form...all nasty details...but no signed copy of TR2...Then the hunt wasn't legal and all the baiting and bashing of the last three weeks has been BS. Signed, it is a fairly binding contract on what is owed (at least under Roman Duch law which is what is used in Zim as the basis for 'common law')

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
The very simple answer is for Dale W to post a copy of the Zim TR2. This is the document that authorises the hunt, Shows what animals were shot and where, has to be signed by the client and also shows who got paid for the animals (Parks or council)...and shows the bottom line on how much was paid all in all.

One form...all nasty details...but no signed copy of TR2...Then the hunt wasn't legal and all the baiting and bashing of the last three weeks has been BS. Signed, it is a fairly binding contract on what is owed (at least under Roman Duch law which is what is used in Zim as the basis for 'common law')

I think I said something similar a few weeks ago.

However, no matter what was shot, it does not answer the mystery of the traveler's checks. So even if we fail to see this document, the traveler's checks will always cast this in a negative light.

Speaking of the TCs, how many of you reading this post leave the TCs just laying around? I have either had the camp manager secure them, or I lock them in my gun case. What would the reasonable person do? Leave them sitting around? I doubt it.

Common sense just doesn't seem to have any part in this whole episode.

But there are two sides to this story...and so far apart it is hard to belive that they are connected.

TC's Stolen? Yup in Africa all things are possible. As I mentioned earlier in this thread we have had the case of (a different white PH) stealing a clients GPS so he couldn't determine which country he was hunting in, PH's stealing clients watches and wallets...

Steve said it weeks ago..this topic is begining to hurt innocent people.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Steve said it weeks ago..this topic is begining to hurt innocent people.

I've been doing some research into hypothetical offenses that could possibly have been unwittingly committed by hypothetical hunters in a hypothertical possible scenario for something I'm writing and (even assuming a correctly licenced PH was present) have come up with at least 14 possible breaches of international law.

If we're not careful it could do considerably more than just hurt them. It's not impossible that people who had absolutely no idea they had done anything wrong could find themselves facing possible jail time and immense fines.

Nor is it impossible it could impact the entire industry in some way.

As I see it, the only issue that needs attention is were the T/Cs stolen or not.

I can only imagine two possible scenarios. Either they were stolen and someone forged the signature and then tried to cash them or someone paid them and then reported them stolen.

Either scenario makes the culprit as dumb as a sack of spanners but nevertheless, the best possible thing that could happen is for the two parties to privately settle their differences, sort out who owes who money, get it paid and shut the hell up.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
The very simple answer is for Dale W to post a copy of the Zim TR2. This is the document that authorises the hunt, Shows what animals were shot and where, has to be signed by the client and also shows who got paid for the animals (Parks or council)...and shows the bottom line on how much was paid all in all.

One form...all nasty details...but no signed copy of TR2...Then the hunt wasn't legal and all the baiting and bashing of the last three weeks has been BS. Signed, it is a fairly binding contract on what is owed (at least under Roman Duch law which is what is used in Zim as the basis for 'common law')

Ganyana brings up a good point. I have left Africa still owing money, but I've never left without putting my John Hancock next to the animals I've shot. We've seen the letter from the bank stating the TC were stolen and we've seen alleged emails. Why not just go ahead and post up the TR2? It seems that would answer the question about what was shot (or it might not and thus open that other can or worms).

As for the stolen TCs there are certainly some bizarre circumstances surrounding them, but let's face it, the reason we carry them is because thefts do occur.

I just received the TR-2 game report from Nixon regarding the llamapacker/Phifer hunt. I am having a problem posting it on AR. Can someone help?

I will forward Nixon's email with the document to your and them you can post.



dale

Since this devolved into lawyer bashing, I thought I'd throw this out for the non lawyers in the crowd:

What happens when you give an attorney Viagra?

He grows taller.

JPK
(Licensed but non-practicing lawyer)

The way it was told to me was:

Know why lawyers wear neckties?

Keeps their foreskin held down

You guys need to stop, after all, there is only one lawyer joke, the rest are true.

Now, we can't let 99% of the lawyers give the other 1% a bad name can we??