esmithers1 at losthorizons

[Famspear]

From esmithers1 at losthorizons, in the thread entitled Where are all the CtC savvy tax attorneys?, who writes:

Taxdoc,

I am an attorney in New York and know and follow CtC. The issue you have with attorneys is that 1. they have to be licensed in your state to officially help you 2. they have to be open minded enough to read and understand CtC and 3. they have to know at least two general areas of law (Tax and litigation) which in general do not converge daily EXCEPT with tax attorneys who are least likely to want to help because CtC is an affront to their daily bread.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1149

No, one does not need to know litigation in order to understand CtC. Absolutely not. A knowledge of federal tax law, however, is definitely helpful in understanding CtC.

I am open minded enough to read and understand CtC. I have not read the book itself, but I have read large portions of the losthorizons web site. If losthorizons is representative of CtC, then I understand CtC. I do not need to read the book. Any tax lawyer who is psychologically normal will conclude that CtC (at least, as presented on the losthorizons web site) is a scam, and is legally frivolous.

I have a friend from law school who practices tax law but also who refuses to read the book. His "research" consists of going to the IRS website and reading up on what they say about CtC.

Reading the IRS web site alone does not generally constitute any meaningful sort of tax research. That does not change the fact that you are wrong about the merit of CtC (and, apparently, your friend sees the CtC scam for what it is).

Personally I find it disgusting that attorneys (and many other professions) fail to do what is RIGHT. Integrity and courage seems to have gone out the window.

Personally, I find it disgusting that any attorney would be delusional enough to spout the nonsense you are spouting here. Unfortunately, there are people like you out there. "Integrity" and "courage" are not two words properly applicable to people who follow the CtC scam.

That little diatribe aside, I don't know anything about litigation or fighting the IRS.

No comment.

However, if you send me your email address, I will reach out to you and offer my "opinion" and see if I can help you where I can. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I will tell you if I do not know something.

No comment.

[Imalawman]

Uh...do you think he's a lying about being an attorney? Haha, they're so desperate they're making up attorneys over there.

[Famspear]

Uh...do you think he's a lying about being an attorney? Haha, they're so desperate they're making up attorneys over there.

You gotta wonder.......

[Gregg]

He is a legit attorney, Demo posted somewhere what she could find, he apparently works in commercial real estate.

[Doktor Avalanche]

However, if you send me your email address, I will reach out to you and offer my "opinion" and see if I can help you where I can. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I will tell you if I do not know something.

Why waste his time? He can email me and get exactly the same results.

[iplawyer]

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I will tell you if I do not know something.

That went without saying.

[Imalawman]

He is a legit attorney, Demo posted somewhere what she could find, he apparently works in commercial real estate.

That's even worse - wow, scary the low standards we have in this profession sometimes.

[off topic rant] I've been saying for years that as a profession, lawyers need to be doing something to prevent the devaluation of a law degree and the over saturation of the profession by unqualified individuals. I thinks its ridiculous that state bar exams are considered "tough" if only 70% pass. Where in some states the bar exam is upwards of 90% pass rate! That's absurd. It allows the growing possibility for crackpots to creep into the profession. I would also require that all 4th tier and non-accredited law schools be put out of commission and tougher requirements for a new law school to start up.

I really think that something will have to give in the profession soon. There are too many grads and not enough jobs and the law schools don't seem to care about that as they continue the modern era policy of passing anyone who makes it into law school. At Northwestern, they don't fail anyone anymore that at least tries to write something on the exam. If they "fail", they can take summer classes and get right back in the mix. Being a lawyer needs to be harder and require more rigorous training. With the dumbing down of the legal education system, you get crackpots like this clown. [/off topic rant]

[webhick]

Most lawyers are totally lazy

Studying for long hours in a highly competitive, intense educational environment for at least seven years, taking a 3.5 hour test in-between (which is sometimes not passed on the first try), and then getting hired in a saturated industry so you can pull twice as many hours than you did in law school just to payoff those student loans is lazy, but constantly reading and re-reading Hendrickson's book and sending to the IRS form letters that other people wrote, is diligent.

Pretty soon, we're going to need to write a TP Dictionary so we can keep track of those distortions of reality. I'll start a new thread for it, so we don't muddy this one.

[SteveSy]

I've been saying for years that as a profession, lawyers need to be doing something to prevent the devaluation of a law degree and the over saturation of the profession by unqualified individuals. I thinks its ridiculous that state bar exams are considered "tough" if only 70% pass. Where in some states the bar exam is upwards of 90% pass rate! That's absurd. It allows the growing possibility for crackpots to creep into the profession. I would also require that all 4th tier and non-accredited law schools be put out of commission and tougher requirements for a new law school to start up.

YES! We need more really smart lawyers who graduate from Yale and Berkeley who can find that hidden meaning in the law. Maybe something on the lines of Substantive Due Process which is wholly fabricated from the mind of a intellectual genius , or more of the commerce clause where wrapping your product with a rubber band that's made in China makes everything you make and those who work for you fall under interstate commerce regulation!

Ummm....All you have to do is go to one of those fancy law schools you rate so highly to find every crackpot imaginable. You think TP's make crap up...they don't have squat on the nonsense those fellows dream up. More importantly the crap they fabricate ends up drastically changing fundamental constitutional principles that affect everyone's life. At worst that 4th tier law school graduate is a pain in the IRS's arse....I'll take 4th tier graduate for $1000 Alex At least they get me out of those stupid traffic tickets.

[Imalawman]

I've been saying for years that as a profession, lawyers need to be doing something to prevent the devaluation of a law degree and the over saturation of the profession by unqualified individuals. I thinks its ridiculous that state bar exams are considered "tough" if only 70% pass. Where in some states the bar exam is upwards of 90% pass rate! That's absurd. It allows the growing possibility for crackpots to creep into the profession. I would also require that all 4th tier and non-accredited law schools be put out of commission and tougher requirements for a new law school to start up.

...

Ummm....All you have to do is go to one of those fancy law schools you rate so highly to find every crackpot imaginable. You think TP's make crap up...they don't have squat on the nonsense those fellows dream up. More importantly the crap they fabricate ends up drastically changing fundamental constitutional principles that affect everyone's life. At worst that 4th tier law school graduate is a pain in the IRS's arse....I'll take 4th tier graduate for $1000 Alex.

Is there anything mainstream that you're not bitter about and about which you hold fringe lunatic ideas? Seriously, its like everything we say, you've just got to add some conspiracy theory. Who said anything about Yale or Berkley? Without 4th tier and non-accredited law schools, there are still around 200 law schools. I think I left the door open to plenty. Seesh, Steve, relax and breathe, not everything we say has to be an affront to the founding fathers and the constitution.

[SteveSy]

Is there anything mainstream that you're not bitter about and about which you hold fringe lunatic ideas?

What I said isn't fringe lunatic ideas....there's plenty of constitutional lawyers who agree that other lawyers are fabricating nonsense. Substantive due process is challenged by many as a fabrication. It was conceived by those upper tier graduates you think are so great.

Seriously, its like everything we say, you've just got to add some conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy would that be?

Who said anything about Yale or Berkley? Without 4th tier and non-accredited law schools, there are still around 200 law schools. I think I left the door open to plenty. Seesh, Steve, relax and breathe, not everything we say has to be an affront to the founding fathers and the constitution.

Law schools aren't the problem, its who is teaching them and what their being taught. I think its amusing you make fun of lawyers who are sympathetic to TP's. You make fun of them because no one could possibly read what they are reading in the law. Here's a clue, more fabricated nonsense is spewed by those top tier lawyers who find hidden meaning where non exists. Look at the 9th circuit for instance, how much total garbage has been fabricated, and then thankfully overturned, by that court alone. I would be willing to bet all of the judges graduated under the category you believe is acceptable.

[Imalawman]

Is there anything mainstream that you're not bitter about and about which you hold fringe lunatic ideas?

What I said isn't fringe lunatic ideas....there's plenty of constitutional lawyers who agree that other lawyers are fabricating nonsense. Substantive due process is challenged by many as a fabrication. It was conceived by those upper tier graduates you think are so great.

Seriously, its like everything we say, you've just got to add some conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy would that be?

Who said anything about Yale or Berkley? Without 4th tier and non-accredited law schools, there are still around 200 law schools. I think I left the door open to plenty. Seesh, Steve, relax and breathe, not everything we say has to be an affront to the founding fathers and the constitution.

Law schools aren't the problem, its who is teaching them and what their being taught. I think its amusing you make fun of lawyers who are sympathetic to TP's. You make fun of them because no one could possibly read what they are reading in the law. Here's a clue, more fabricated nonsense is spewed by those top tier lawyers who find hidden meaning where non exists. Look at the 9th circuit for instance, how much total garbage has been fabricated, and then thankfully overturned, by that court alone. I would be willing to bet all of the judges graduated under the category you believe is acceptable.

Steve you are absolutely missing my point because you're so convinced that the world is out to get you and everything you believe in. I never said you have to graduate from a top tier law school, I never said I'd like to see only top 10% graduates from those schools. I never said that holding to a living constitutional theory should be required. You made all of that up. Every bit of it. Who were my constitutional law professors? Well, one was an upper level seminar taught by Clarence Thomas. So its not as if everyone is being brainwashed at good law schools - another was a leading conservative law scholar. (at a very liberal school, so once again, you don't know what you're talking about) I think though you wouldn't find a lot of lawyers who really argue against substantive due process - maybe its application, but not the theory in and of itself. But that's totally beside the point.

But arguing over penumbral rights and arguing over what the word "includes" means in IRC 3401 are two totally different animals. Only a lunatic or someone totally devoid of rational thought could possibly misinterpret that code section and somehow apply it as an exclusion to section 61. I never said that debate over a literal or living constitution is a product of too many lawyers and too many schools - you made that up. I never said that we should only have Yale and Berkley - you made that up. I never said there shouldn't be competing views of the laws of our society - you made that up. My point - there should be more rigorous standards for getting into law school and for practicing law. Nothing therein precludes conservative constitutional thought. Quit making stuff up.

[Prof]

Is there anything mainstream that you're not bitter about and about which you hold fringe lunatic ideas?

What I said isn't fringe lunatic ideas....there's plenty of constitutional lawyers who agree that other lawyers are fabricating nonsense. Substantive due process is challenged by many as a fabrication. It was conceived by those upper tier graduates you think are so great.

Seriously, its like everything we say, you've just got to add some conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy would that be?

Who said anything about Yale or Berkley? Without 4th tier and non-accredited law schools, there are still around 200 law schools. I think I left the door open to plenty. Seesh, Steve, relax and breathe, not everything we say has to be an affront to the founding fathers and the constitution.

Law schools aren't the problem, its who is teaching them and what their being taught. I think its amusing you make fun of lawyers who are sympathetic to TP's. You make fun of them because no one could possibly read what they are reading in the law. Here's a clue, more fabricated nonsense is spewed by those top tier lawyers who find hidden meaning where non exists. Look at the 9th circuit for instance, how much total garbage has been fabricated, and then thankfully overturned, by that court alone. I would be willing to bet all of the judges graduated under the category you believe is acceptable.

As usual, you take a small amount of truth and fertilze same with more BS.

First, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate is about the same as the 5th Circuit's reversal rate. While conservatives love to rant about the "ultra liberal" 9th, that just does not appear to be true.

Most of the great conservative jurists and most of the great ultra liberals went to the same group of elite law schools and studied under the same group of liberal (outside of U.of Chicago) faculty members. They were very smart. Some decided to adopt a conservative philosophy -- others a liberal philosopy. Note that Roberts, Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter are all Harvard graduates, while Thomas and Alito are Yale graduates. Kennedy went to Stanford; Stevens went to Northwestern. Yale, perhaps the most liberal of the elite law school in the East, has produced two of the most conservative justices. Northwestern produced the most liberal justice.

George W. Bush, by the way, went to Yale and Harvard (MBA) while Obama went to Occidental, then Columbia (BA) and Harvard (Law). Yale undergraduate is supposed to be very liberal and so is Harvard. You figure it out.

My undergrad and law schools are, by the way, considered quite conservative, yet look how I turned out.

While the majority of faculty at most elite schools is quite liberal, both on the undergraduate and graduate (A &S) and Law levels, a vast number of very conservative folks hold degrees from those same elite schools. The simple fact is that the best and brightest generally try to get into the best schools, irrespective of their political orientation. So, if I had a choice between a competent Harvard graduate and a competent graduate of South Texas, I would usually go with the proven product, all other factors being equal.

[Imalawman]

And Imalawman needs to remember that any law school can produce a bad attorney, or a corrupt attorney. Also not everyone can afford a Harvard, or Yale, or Stanford. A lot of those folks who go to lower teir law schools often end up working in the DA's office, or as public defenders and becoming judges, or carving out nice private practices for themselves. Like any field for every star that comes out of a big school, there is an equivalent that comes out of a small school.

Absolutely, there are vast reasons for lower tier and affordable law schools. But that doesn't mean we have to have 4th tier and unaccredited law schools that turn out lawyers by the hundreds because its a great profit making business at the moment. My point is that yes, some people should miss out on the opportunity to go to law school because their grades and LSAT scores are not high enough. Sorry, but that makes for a better profession and better overall product. Keep in mind that I would not suggest getting rid of the 3rd tier law schools (many of which are excellent institutions) and that is still close to 160-170 law schools. Plenty of choice for any student that wants to practice law. But do I think someone with a 2.7 GPA and 149 LSAT should be admitted to a law school? No. Not at all under any circumstances. But yet, we are pumping people like that out right now and I think it will prove to be ruinous to the profession.

I just think we've grown too accommodating to students in general. I love the fact that my undergraduate accounting program failed close to 50% of the student during the first year of the program. It made the fact that you moved on significant and created a better product. I was disappointed at how the grading curve in law school only went to a C. Which means that professors are not required to give anyone less than a C. The result is that some first year classes there are only a couple Cs out of a class of hundred or more students. Law School is still tough and challenging, but it needs to be more so in order to create a better profession. I advocated this during law school and continue to do so now.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I seriously doubt the problems being discussed are actually related to the law schools and the people who get through them. The system will sort them out, over time. There are niches to be filled in any profession where specialization seems to be the order of the day.

If worse comes to worse, the growing number of unemployed attorneys can fire up a bankruptcy practice in no time - some software and a few paralegals and bang, you are one. My guess is there will be over a million personal cases next year.

If that doesn't work, you can always get into debt collection. Well, actually, you'd probably have to change your name. Over and over again.

[webhick]

Anyway, two days seems pretty standard for most states. If there's a state where the bar exam is 3.5 hours, those folks are getting off light.

I grabbed it off wiki. They said 6 sections at 35 minutes each.

But two days cements my point better. Thank you.

ETA: Looking at my history, I think my 3.5 was the LSAT time, not the bar exam. I'm such a ninny today.

[Imalawman]

Studying for long hours in a highly competitive, intense educational environment for at least seven years, taking a 3.5 hour test in-between (which is sometimes not passed on the first try), and then getting hired in a saturated industry so you can pull twice as many hours than you did in law school just to payoff those student loans is lazy, but constantly reading and re-reading Hendrickson's book and sending to the IRS form letters that other people wrote, is diligent.

3.5 hours? I wish. When I took the bar, it was a total of 12 hours long...6 hours per day spread over two consecutive days. Three hours in the morning, one hour for lunch, and then three hours in the afternoon. The MPRE, which is also required in my state, is given separately. I think we had an hour for that. I understand that Texas has a two and a half day bar exam (I guess Prof would know), and Louisiana's is given over three non-consecutive days (M, W, F).

Anyway, two days seems pretty standard for most states. If there's a state where the bar exam is 3.5 hours, those folks are getting off light.

Mine was 2.5 consecutive days. Of course, now that same bar has eliminated the state specific essays and gone to standard generic law essays for the same topics. The theory was that it was too much for the poor law grads who had to study two bodies of law - general (MBE and MPE) and state specific (essays). So, now lawyers are admitted to states without even being required to know anything about that state's laws. Good lord.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

So, now lawyers are admitted to states without even being required to know anything about that state's laws. Good lord.

Ah, what they don't know they can just look up on Sooey.

[Imalawman]

So, now lawyers are admitted to states without even being required to know anything about that state's laws. Good lord.

Ah, what they don't know they can just look up on Sooey.

You're so comforting thank you.

[Prof]

The bar is now often a three day affair. The Multistate Professional Responsibility exam is approximately a 1/2 day taken in the third year. The actual bar exam, taken after graduation, now usually consists consists of the Multistate Bar Exam taken on day one, followed by state specific essays on day 2 (e.g., Texas Oil and Gas Law; Florida Community Property Law,and so forth), and, in many states, state specific essays on State procedure on the third 1/2 day (e.g., Texas Civil Procedure).