Topic: Is this real?? (Nigeria Scam)

[dorin]

I am interested in this B curve thing.  I imagine it means that all the female students are trim and attractive and all the men have man boobs ?   

 

<-- BJB on the B curve?

[dr_spock]

I believe that B curve is for bell distribution curve.  Not curvy breasts. 

[safristi]

 B curve explained..........................

[Trainman]

Here is the "victim" of this scam:

http://www.kslnlaw.com/cnt/content/view/23/36/




RODGER P. DOYLE, JR. is an experienced trial lawyer, who has successfully litigated hundreds of cases, including appeals and trials. He concentrates his practice in the areas of personal injury, medical malpractice, professional liability defense litigation. Rodger also has considerable experience in employment-related litigation and has handled significant litigation for large electrical utilities.

Rodger earned his Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from Empire State College of the State University of New York in 1988. He received his law degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School in 1991. He was a member of the Law School’s Moot Court Board and was a founder of the Criminal Law Society.

He is admitted to practice in the State Courts of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and the United States Court of Federal Claims in the District of Columbia.

Rodger is the proud father of two daughters and lives in Amherst, New York.

[baumer00]

he went to State University of New York at Buffalo Law School - tier "crap"

Saffy, I still have no idea what you're talking about so I can't give you my opinion

[dr_spock]

That's explains it.  He wasn't a Harvard Law School graduate. 

[Brig]

"He was a member of the Law School’s Moot Court Board..."

Why do I find that extraordinarily funny?

[barrie1]

These scams occur virtually everyday and originate from many countries including Nigeria. The 1st clue that its a scam is the fact that they send you too much money to begin with and want you to send it as well as the Bike to them. It usually takes about 2 weeks for their cheque to bounce back and your bank wants the money back now. You will never be able to contact these folks again and they just love riding your bike as well if they haven't sold it already for even more money out of your pocket. 

[Mitlov]

I'm not sure why people are insinuating that real estate and personal injury attorneys are somehow worse than big-firm commercial litigation attorneys.  That's like saying that family practice doctors are inferior to plastic surgeons.  Just because the pay rate is lower doesn't mean that the average ability of attorneys is lower.

There are good and bad big firm lawyers, and good and bad small firm lawyers.  Good and bad litigators and good and bad transactional attorneys.  Good and bad business litigators and good and bad personal injury litigators.  In my experience, no one field of law has better overall attorneys than any other field of law.  I've met some really bad attorneys doing business litigation at really prestigious firms in big cities.

In the interests of full disclosure, I primarily do insurance defense (which includes a lot of personal injury defense) and I work for a mid-size firm in a smaller city, and our firm also does a lot of real estate work.

[tpl]

    The Lawyer we used to buy the house is a real estate lawyer by choice.  Thats all he does and all he wants to do. He appears to have encyclopedic knowledge of every street, every bylaw and every  native land claim in the whole area... which is what you want when you are buying a house in an area that you are not familiar with.

[baumer00]

I'm not sure why people are insinuating that real estate and personal injury attorneys are somehow worse than big-firm commercial litigation attorneys.  That's like saying that family practice doctors are inferior to plastic surgeons.  Just because the pay rate is lower doesn't mean that the average ability of attorneys is lower.

There are good and bad big firm lawyers, and good and bad small firm lawyers.  Good and bad litigators and good and bad transactional attorneys.  Good and bad business litigators and good and bad personal injury litigators.  In my experience, no one field of law has better overall attorneys than any other field of law.  I've met some really bad attorneys doing business litigation at really prestigious firms in big cities.

In the interests of full disclosure, I primarily do insurance defense (which includes a lot of personal injury defense) and I work for a mid-size firm in a smaller city, and our firm also does a lot of real estate work.

I was insinuating that most people in law school (note that I said most, and in my original post, I also qualified my response about bay street) do not dream of entering into residential real estate or personal injury work.  At least at my school, most (>80%) wanted to end up on bay street at a large firm (even though we would all later realize that large firm corporate work blow and most of us would cut off an arm to go in-house).  Those that had lower marks were not given that option and would settle for personal injury law or similar work.  Some people love insurance defence work (which is certainly different from plaintiff work) and want to do that (if you want to be a litigator, it's probably the best area to get in to) - my brother is an insurance defence lawyer and loves it - however, to say that a lot of people go to law school with the dream of working plaintiff side personal injury would false.

Residential real estate law is a different story, that work sucks and is commoditized.

For those that are interested, personal injury law is one of the most lucrative areas of law.  It would not shock me if the largest earnings in the legal field came from plaintiff side personal injury work (still no where near the earnings of similar lawyers in the US).

[tpl]

flame suit on.

Most real progress in the civilized world stopped dead when lawyers became as prominent is society as they are now.  The fear of being sued, especially in product liability killed private aircraft development for example. We get  50+ pages of safety homilies in car owners manuals.   The "rule of law" was a fine idea until lawyers started being allowed to make laws.

flame suit off.

[baumer00]

flame suit on.

Most real progress in the civilized world stopped dead when lawyers became as prominent is society as they are now.  The fear of being sued, especially in product liability killed private aircraft development for example. We get  50+ pages of safety homilies in car owners manuals.   The "rule of law" was a fine idea until lawyers started being allowed to make laws.

flame suit off.

You make an interesting point, however, lawyers don't make laws, they make arguements in court.  Judges are the ones who feel the need to create laws - judicial activism is a serious problem.

[Mitlov]

I was insinuating that most people in law school (note that I said most, and in my original post, I also qualified my response about bay street) do not dream of entering into residential real estate or personal injury work.  At least at my school, most (>80%) wanted to end up on bay street at a large firm (even though we would all later realize that large firm corporate work blow and most of us would cut off an arm to go in-house).  Those that had lower marks were not given that option and would settle for personal injury law or similar work. 

Law students dream of big-firm jobs and settle for transactional work in the way that little kids dream of being astronauts and princesses and settle for being restaurant owner and teachers.  Yes, they didn't end up doing what they thought they wanted in the very beginning, but that's not at all an aspersion against what they ended up doing.

I can't reconcile that, though, with what you wrote here:

Real estate transactions such as yours are the lowest form of legal work

Is transactional work unpopular with first-year law students?  Sure, I'll agree 100%.  Is it the "lowest form of legal work?"  No way in hell I'd agree with that.

[baumer00]

I was insinuating that most people in law school (note that I said most, and in my original post, I also qualified my response about bay street) do not dream of entering into residential real estate or personal injury work.  At least at my school, most (>80%) wanted to end up on bay street at a large firm (even though we would all later realize that large firm corporate work blow and most of us would cut off an arm to go in-house).  Those that had lower marks were not given that option and would settle for personal injury law or similar work. 

Law students dream of big-firm jobs and settle for transactional work in the way that little kids dream of being astronauts and princesses and settle for being restaurant owner and teachers.  Yes, they didn't end up doing what they thought they wanted in the very beginning, but that's not at all an aspersion against what they ended up doing.

I can't reconcile that, though, with what you wrote here:

Real estate transactions such as yours are the lowest form of legal work

Is transactional work unpopular with first-year law students?  Sure, I'll agree 100%.  Is it the "lowest form of legal work?"  No way in hell I'd agree with that.

Transactional work is fine.  Residential real estate is simple conveyancing law, go on a computer, register a few things, check a couple of things out and you're done - in Ontario this has essentially been commoditized (at least in the past, lawyers would go to registry offices and check through documents, now almost the entire province is on e-reg - an electronic registry system).  There's a reason that residential law firms have very few lawyers and many legal clerks - the work, for the most part - does not require any legal training and is very simple.

[dr_spock]

Which is better?  Common Law or Civil Law? 

[Mitlov]

Transactional work is fine.  Residential real estate is simple conveyancing law, go on a computer, register a few things, check a couple of things out and you're done - in Ontario this has essentially been commoditized (at least in the past, lawyers would go to registry offices and check through documents, now almost the entire province is on e-reg - an electronic registry system).  There's a reason that residential law firms have very few lawyers and many legal clerks - the work, for the most part - does not require any legal training and is very simple.

By that reasoning, dentists must have unimpressive skills, because (1) many tooth-cleaning devices are available for sale to the general public, and (2) dentist's offices typically have far more dental assistants than dentists.

Real estate attorneys, like dentists, oversee their assistants for the routine situations, and directly step in in the atypical, difficult situations.  Nothing you have said suggests to me that real estate attorneys are less accomplished than any other attorneys, or that they do the "lowest form of legal work."

Regardless, it's a moot point in this thread, because this attorney wasn't a real estate attorney, but a litigator at a mid-size firm.

[tpl]

Which is better?  Common Law or Civil Law? 

Common law has a longer history.   (French) civil Law is often more sensible in its approach.

Just two different traditions of how the state acts as an umpire in disputes between people.

[tpl]

flame suit on.

Most real progress in the civilized world stopped dead when lawyers became as prominent is society as they are now.  The fear of being sued, especially in product liability killed private aircraft development for example. We get  50+ pages of safety homilies in car owners manuals.   The "rule of law" was a fine idea until lawyers started being allowed to make laws.

flame suit off.

You make an interesting point, however, lawyers don't make laws, they make arguements in court.  Judges are the ones who feel the need to create laws - judicial activism is a serious problem.

I agree about judicial activism in general but as long as legislators persist in not actually reading and understanding that which the legal draftsmen write and then, to make things worse, allow governments to pass skeleton laws and fill in the details by regulations with even less scrutiny the judges must have some discretion.

My point was that so many things are not done or severly restricted, things that have been allowed for years, because a lawyer suggests that there is a possibility of being sued.  The recent one that comes to mind is the removal of equipment from playgrounds in TO schools in case the school board got sued when a kid got hurt.

Perhaps there are  answers to my "complaint"
One would be to make access to law so expensive that people could not sue. This of course would mean no class actions and no contingency fees.  AFAIK similar to the way the  UK used to be.
Second would be to (re) introduce a concept of personal responsibility into everyday affairs that would override the "right to sue".   Simple Example: The woman who scalded herself on McDonald's coffee.   Coffee is hot... you spill it you get burnt   too bad.   

Other examples are in fact driven by the 'Precautionary Principle"    which must have been invented by lawyers and thats what really stops progress.   I am surprised that Burt Rutin's "Spaceship one" was ever allowed to fly without someone getting an injunction against it.

Maybe these injunctions against things in advance are part of the problem...

[safristi]

"the "LAW" is a FARCE".........Saf chanelling Wm Shake-a -spear @ me and yer gonna getta SUPREME wallet deflation...............