Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Frog Farmer on incompetence...& other topics

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Robin wrote: One is left wondering if you have it in you to simply say, I apologize if my words have offended you , rather than coming across as though you
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 28, 2006

      Robin wrote:

       

      One is left wondering if you have it in you to simply say, "I apologize if my

      words have offended you", rather than coming across as though you are

      justified in whatever you might say to people no mater how demeaning,

      acerbic or condescending it might sound. As the saying goes, "it's not what

      you say, but how you say it." After all, there was a time when you were as

      "incompetent" as the rest of us, correct?

       

      ----- Original Message ----- From: "legalbear7" < bear@... >

      To: "Robin Campbell" <talk2mee@...> Sent: Wednesday, Robin:

       

      Please send this one direct to Frog Farmer. Thanks, Bear @ Tips & Tricks

       

      Frog Farmer (FF) told me, “Bear, if you want to post this message to the group it's okay with me.”

       

      From: Robin Campbell [mailto:talk2mee@...] One more thought

      if I may. There are probably any number of people on this newsgroup who

      have something to say that would be greatly beneficial to the rest of us, i.e.,

      knowledge about the law and experience in dealing with the Beast; but when

      they see people like FF attack and demean people for their

      comments the way he does they probably end up keeping their comments to

      themselves, or find another newsgroup to participate in, rather than suffer the

      condescending verbal abuse he seems to relish dishing out.

       

      Legalbear transmitted:

       

      I agree. That is why I plan on, and already have, reined him in. I will be

      watching for demeaning comments and not allowing them. I regret that I have

      allowed what I have. Looking back; the reason they were approved is because

      they were not directed at anyone in particular.

       

      FF responded: Here's how all of this applies to "law" as I see it, as in the

      courtroom:

       

      1. Legal Notice:  Bear, did you Notice that whenever I write something,

      it is exactly quoting what it refers to, directly above it?  Notice and

      Opportunity to Be Heard - that's a court tips concept if there ever was

      one!

       

      2. Did you Notice when I was being referred to with adjectives rather

      than verbs?  In other words, instead of QUOTING an "offending" set of

      ASCII characters, a subjective opinion was given upon any ASCII

      characters one might care to imagine.

       

      FF responded: This relates to COURT thusly: THIS is what your opponent will do in

      court, especially in front of jurors.  The way *I* deal with it is just

      as above, subjecting every UTTERED word to just as careful a commentary.

      Most people, in court, as defendants, let these things slip and pass by

      like water under the bridge...like they say "whatever" and let

      everything proceed.  However, the record MAY be being made, and their

      waiver to timely object is noted on the record, and WILL be used against

      them IF the other side pays any attention at all.  I see this list as a

      "moot court".  From what I hear lately, in this nice string of

      correspondence not fit for all list members, I may have inadvertently

      caused it to be a MUTE COURT !  Hahahahaha!  How many times have I seen

      "mute court" where "moot court" would have made more sense, like

      "statue" instead of "statute", etc.?   I have NEVER beat up ANYONE over

      that one!  But, just to let you know, I HAVE restrained myself quite a

      few times on that one alone!

       

      From: Robin Campbell [mailto:talk2mee@...] One more thought

      if I may. There are probably any number of people on this newsgroup who

      have something to say that would be greatly beneficial to the rest of us, i.e.,

      knowledge about the law and experience in dealing with the

      Beast; but when they see people like FF attack and demean people for their

      comments the way he does they probably end up keeping their comments to

      themselves, or find another newsgroup to participate in, rather than suffer the

      condescending verbal abuse he seems to relish dishing out.

       

      FF responded: Yes, they're probably saving those mental calories and their adrenaline

      for the court where their adversaries care more about their feelings.

      Yup.  It's so hard to confront Frog Farmer here in this wild and wooly

      electronic frontier where feelings can be hurt so easily.  How will

      these Silent Bob s act in the courtroom under pressure?  Guess.  Waiver.

      Waiver. Waiver.  Failure to Object. Waiver. Your Honor.

       

      FF responded: "...their comments the way he does..."  - you mean quoting, so no

      misunderstanding could happen by somebody "thinking" that I was

      referring to something else entirely?  My responses follow that to which

      they apply.  However, criticism of "my way" seldom is ready to offer a

      quotation that would not make their complaint look silly when observed

      in black and white next to the "offending" ASCII strings.

       

      ----- Original Message ----- From: "Legalbear" < legalbear@... >

      To: "'Robin Campbell'" <talk2mee@...>

       

      I want the focus of the group to be on law. I do not want it to be a

      forum full of fighting and strife. What is being said between you, Michael,

      and FF isn't about law it is about what you think about each other

       

      FF responded: Not on my part it isn't, and that's why in order to "feel offended" by

      whatever I've said, one must make their own conclusion that the shoe

      fits and like Cinderella, they choose to wear it.

       

      FF responded: Now, why would Frog Farmer not "feel bad" about raising a few hackles on

      the necks of people disposed to make the offered shoe fit?  Because,

      when one notices discomfort, one might act to change conditions leading

      to it!  That is why it has been said in this message I'm replying to,

      somewhere, in so many words, that my barbs seem to have no named target.

      I am NOT writing about "what I think" of ANYBODY!  My own addled cracked

      skull doesn't have enough RAM to waste on files like those!  I really

      LOVE everyone on this list and cannot right now think of any NAME of

      anyone for whom I harbor ill will or notable derision!  You all look

      like ASCII strings to me!

       

      Legalbear cont’d: how your feelings got hurt and who is going to get in the last word. I wanted

      people to be informed about Dave Miner and I appreciate your contributions

      on that issue. I will be choking them down as well. Enough said? Thanks for

      participating, Bear

       

      FF replied: Okay, and here's my point to get to the list somehow:

       

      Incompetent is not a word Frog Farmer chose in order to be nasty, but is

      a real legal term that applies in the courtroom and prior to and leading

      up to the courtroom.  It was only in that meaning that I used it, and I

      thought I had made that clear, but right now I'm still not sure that

      that concept was received by the group.  If it wasn't, I think Bear

      ought to tell it in his nice style that I admit is less acerbic than my

      natural state whenever I'm wasting my life's remaining time worrying

      about these issues instead of frogs!

       

      -----Original Message----- From: Robin Campbell 5:42 PM To: legalbear7

      Subject: Re: Message not approved: Marriage licenses-shocking truth!

       

      Just curious. You refused to allow my posting below asking that I send it

      direct instead, but then you allow Frog Farmer's response to my email to him

      to be posted to your newsgroup. May I ask why?

       

      FF replied: Here's "why" I *think* it's that way - to keep the message traffic

      shorter for the archive limits.  Because people DO have the ability to

      quote that to which they refer, there is no need to duplicate a long

      message in quoting for a two line comment.  So, replies to private posts

      may be posted if in Bear's opinion they may be applicable to more than

      the two in the original exchange.  This, and trimming all posts of

      unnecessary verbiage, is preferable I believe.  Maybe I'm wrong.

       

      Personally, I do not understand why so many people have trouble

      addressing an issue on this list without referring to me personally.  I

      know when this happens because I get a message from the person saying,

      "Bear wouldn't approve this message", and the reason is, a question was

      asked JUST TO ME, personally.  Bear rightly sees this as private e-mail

      (which I personally DO NOT have time for on these topics).  I think that

      because it is the right topic, the question should have been asked on

      the list, so EVERYONE (all those Silent Bob s) gets to see if they have

      an answer.  DON'T address it just to me!  If I see it, and I have an

      answer to give, I'll give it, expecting to read my answer along with

      everyone else's on the list.

       

      So, when I get a message asking a question on an acceptable

      court-related topic, that was rejected because it was to me, I do feel

      free to post the reply to the list if I do not have time for one-on-one

      correspondence on the issue, but CAN sacrifice the time in order to help

      a whole crowd on this, one of my most very favorite e-mail lists!

       

       

      [FF sez: I don't think I've seen this yet, so I'm replying to it first

      here...]

       

      Robin wrote:

       

      One is left wondering if you have it in you to simply say, "I apologize if my

      words have offended you", rather than coming across as though you are

      justified in whatever you might say to people no mater how demeaning,

      acerbic or condescending it might sound. As the saying goes, "it's not what

      you say, but how you say it." After all, there was a time when you were as

      "incompetent" as the rest of us, correct?

       

      FF replied: Okay, this is proof about the "incompetent" word.  The idea still has

      not hit the wall.

       

      a. I'm not sorry that my words using the court's words have offended

      you. I still really don't know what words they were, because you don't

      quote me directly for some reason, but you should be using the

      "feelings" I arouse in you when you read my words to experience just a

      little bit of the adrenaline you will certainly experience in the

      courtroom, no matter how demeaning, acerbic or condescending it "might

      sound".  Nothing personal!

       

      b. Incompetent has several meanings and uses.  The way you used it, yes,

      I was once incompetent as were most.  I've given out just about every

      secret I know how to remedy that, and it doesn't take much beyond

      willpower and the ability to read and write English which I think all on

      this list can do.

       

      FF cont’d: The way I recently used the word incompetent on this list was different.

      It was as a legal term, a status that would be inferred and recognized

      by the court.  According to THAT meaning which I was attempting to

      communicate, the ONLY time I was as incompetent as anyone else was when

      and if I was voluntarily represented by an attorney. And even in that

      moment, I think I salvaged the situation by firing her as an attorney so

      that everyone could hear, and then rehiring her as an English Language

      Interpreter.  EVERYONE in California apparently has a right to an

      interpreter.  She liked it, I liked it, and later, after I learned that

      she could bill the county for $100 an hour, we adjourned to her office

      for lunch where I presented my whole case to her over 2 hours, she

      declared me the winner and said she'd transmit the news of the

      prosecutor's failure to them, and that was the last I saw of her.  I

      went on to make a few more mistakes out of the kind of incompetence

      Robin was talking about.  I spoke with a psychiatrist after being

      ordered to submit to psychiatric evaluation.  I objected on the record,

      but not "competently", since I failed to take the statutory actions

      provided for doing so.  It came out of left field and I just wasn't

      ready for it, but I was ready for the next time after about an hour of

      study on it.

       

      ----- Original Message ----- From: Frog Farmer To:

      tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

      10:21 PM Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage licenses-shocking truth!

       

      Michael Noonan wrote:

       

      My issue with you here is not with the content of your factual knowledge, but

      what amounts to cheap shots at those less fortunate than you in their insights.

       

      Since the "cheap shot" was not quoted, I was left to guess what it might have

      been and to whom, but all that came to my mind was my repeated use of the

      word "incompetent". Was that the "cheap shot"?

       

      What it really is is a legal term that applies to almost everyone in the

      courtroom. I was drumming it in because most people have trouble conceiving

      that they could be legally incompetent while otherwise appearing "just like

      everyone else". It's because "everyone else" is just as incompetent.

       

      The incompetency comes from being represented by an attorney. This is a

      reason not to have a public defender even if it's "free".

       

      -------

       

      That's the end of my comments on this topic.

       

      Thanks Bear, and I haven't forgotten about "the right Name" topic - it

      has raised a lot of questions in my mind, too many to deal with just

      yet.  I'm almost afraid to raise them for fear of OFFENDING you!!

       

      Not really, it's a time issue right now.

       

      Regards,

       

      FF

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

    • Randy Conn
      Look at the big picture. Which is better? a. Having intellectual discussions on the internet about legal topics with an unknown old guy that seems to know
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 28, 2006
        Look at the big picture. Which is better?

        a. Having intellectual discussions on the internet about legal topics
        with an unknown old guy that seems to know what he is talking about.
        The discussions may produce learning, uncertainty, anger. Feelings
        may get hurt. Consider it preparation for the big and bad 'real
        world'. If you were to practice in a mock court, would you want the
        'judge' to be a nice guy that rolls over and lets you win, or one that
        can simulate a real-life arrogant commissioner? Expanding the comfort
        zone is not easy.

        b. Attempting to test legal theories with commissioners and policemen
        who are just waiting for a reason to incarcerate, fine, or steal from
        someone who gets out of line.

        Anyway, arguing about things on the internet is like winning the
        Special Olympics; it is a piss-poor way to pick up chicks:)
      • Michael Noonan
        Friday 29 September 2006 While I occasional may quibble about the manner in which FF posts, concerning the ignorance of people who are unaware that they are
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 29, 2006
          Friday 29 September 2006

          While I occasional may quibble about the manner in
          which FF posts, concerning the ignorance of people
          who are unaware that they are unaware of being
          unaware,
          the bottom line is we all bear responsibility for our
          actions. When you get past the "acerbic" [someone
          else's descriptive choice] delivery, the content has
          most always been spot on.

          I have yet to read one of FF's posts that did not have
          the intent of advising/admonishing anyone who cared
          to read his comment(s) to be prepared to deal with
          whomever they are dealing. That preparation included
          many steps which, as FF continues to aver, few people
          are wiling to take. However, none of those same
          people are unwilling to complain about results and/or
          conditions under which they find themselves.

          I prefer content over style. It sounds like they
          messenger is on the proverbial chopping block while
          the message goes ignored. The messenger becomes the
          issue instead of the issue itself.

          Reading as many of FF's messages as I can for the gems
          that they contain, I am left wondering why he
          continues to post and waste his energy. It would be
          a very sad day if FF decided to stop posting his
          wealth of not just knowledge, but hands on experience.

          For those who cannot get past the form of delivery to
          appreciate the contents of the delivery, move on,
          stop reading his posts and offending your senses.

          If anyone feels they cannot withstand the harmless
          "arrows" from FF, he's right. Wait until you confront
          the weaponry of your courtroom/IRS/governmental
          agency. I say harmless, for FF is merely using words,
          and you can ignore them. Your adversaries will also
          being using words, but if you have not prepared
          yourself, their words can more than sting.

          Rein Frog Farmer in?

          Hell no, let him loose!

          One vote for FF.


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Frog Farmer
          ... I m learning this more than ever before as I learn to play poker. ... Thanks. It was in that spirit that I sound acerbic and confrontational. Back when I
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 29, 2006
            Michael Noonan wrote:

            > the bottom line is we all bear responsibility for our
            > actions.

            I'm learning this more than ever before as I learn to play poker.

            > I have yet to read one of FF's posts that did not have
            > the intent of advising/admonishing anyone who cared
            > to read his comment(s) to be prepared to deal with
            > whomever they are dealing.

            Thanks. It was in that spirit that I sound acerbic and confrontational.
            Back when I was in court in the 1980's, I used the BBS networks to
            provide myself with sparring partners so I could ready myself for the
            public employees downtown. I offer myself as a sparring partner to this
            list. I used to get kicked off of lists just because I spoke
            disparagingly against FRNs.

            > That preparation included
            > many steps which, as FF continues to aver, few people
            > are wiling to take.

            The two most important steps are getting a grammar book and a
            dictionary. Next might be local court rules and local penal statutes.
            You use the dictionary and grammar to help you understand anything you
            don't understand now. Even if you think you understand a word, it
            doesn't hurt to learn more about it. I use my grammar book to show
            people the meaning of the word "statement". A lot of times people
            claiming special governmental powers are required to make a "statement".
            Would you believe that today, many cannot?!

            > However, none of those same
            > people are unwilling to complain about results and/or
            > conditions under which they find themselves.

            Many years ago when I started to talk about these topics on discussion
            lists and BBSes, I'd wait for some such complaint to surface, and then
            pick it apart to see just why and how this suffering one came to suffer
            so. Many or most times it could be shown that the suffering one somehow
            volunteered into the position of regulated subject, and the waivers
            which effected the transition from freedom to slavery could be
            identified and dated. Most claimed they "had to" submit to a reduction
            in their lawful status. It was usually seen that they asked for it over
            their signature on some kind of "application" for regulation by some
            entity. Again, may thought that they "had to".

            When I was young, most of my age group believed that one "had to" go
            into the military at some time. Because I could at least harbor a
            doubt, I was open to information that proved otherwise. I never had to
            use the information I got because I had a high draft lottery number.

            They also believed that one must have a drivers license. I was lucky in
            that before I ever heard of a drivers license, I had known people who
            drove their own cars without them - it was very common in the early
            1950s. By the time I was of age for a license, I still knew many people
            didn't have them, but for some reason I went and got it at age 16. I
            think my parents required it for insurance. I didn't know much then.

            > I prefer content over style. It sounds like they
            > messenger is on the proverbial chopping block while
            > the message goes ignored. The messenger becomes the
            > issue instead of the issue itself.

            I think it was an honest misunderstanding. I was using a word that
            could have been interpreted in two ways. (Incompetent) Speaking of, and
            I've mentioned this a few times recently too, when one wants to later
            complain that his attorney was incompetent, one must be ready to show
            copies of the written instructions that the attorney failed to follow.
            Let that sink in for a while.

            > Reading as many of FF's messages as I can for the gems
            > that they contain, I am left wondering why he
            > continues to post and waste his energy.

            Like that gem above? I need something to do when I have to sit down to
            relieve my sciatica. I sit in front of a TV and two computer screens
            with three computers and a switch for two to share a monitor. I get
            most of my news from the internet. I use mailing lists for
            entertainment mostly, and if I have something to say I might say it.

            There's a lot I will not waste time on because so many false conclusions
            would have to be overcome.

            I just had a vision...imagine a street, and you are on one side (we'll
            call that "perception", and across the street you see something we'll
            call "reality". Here's something to add: running down the middle of the
            street there's a clear plastic membrane, in places only 1 mil thick, but
            in other places up to 8 feet thick. You cannot tell where the membrane
            is thick or thin - it's transparent and reality looks how it looks no
            matter how thick the invisible membrane is. The membrane we can call
            "inconvenient hitherto unknown facts". Sometimes, where the membrane is
            thick, many facts would have to be penetrated to get to a true vision of
            reality. Where it is thin, one may burst through the film with ease,
            with maybe just one fact necessary to reach a real view. I prefer to
            puncture the membrane at the thin points, rather than waste energy at
            the thick points.

            So, where other issues may be under discussion, if a problem is really
            there to be dealt with, I may choose the money issue or the
            qualifications issue to eliminate the possibility of having to deal with
            a subsequent issue altogether. In other words, if I don't like a
            certain result, I try to eliminate the possibility of its occurrence by
            altering conditions precedent to it. It sounds simple and it is.

            > It would be
            > a very sad day if FF decided to stop posting his
            > wealth of not just knowledge, but hands on experience.

            My health is not the best.

            > For those who cannot get past the form of delivery to
            > appreciate the contents of the delivery, move on,
            > stop reading his posts and offending your senses.

            No! Don't move on! Get over it! OR Quote me, then destroy my blatant
            error!

            > If anyone feels they cannot withstand the harmless
            > "arrows" from FF, he's right. Wait until you confront
            > the weaponry of your courtroom/IRS/governmental
            > agency. I say harmless, for FF is merely using words,
            > and you can ignore them. Your adversaries will also
            > being using words, but if you have not prepared
            > yourself, their words can more than sting.

            This is the main idea! If you can identify my feisty attitude in my
            posts (which arises out of a resentment that any of us need to waste any
            time on these topics at all, instead of doing something else more
            productive than defending ourselves from predators) then you might be
            able to copy it in the courtroom. I don't know if you want to copy it,
            but I got it from George Gordon, this attitude. He taught me to think
            like this all the time. I feel glad that he did. It helps to let one
            find thin sections in the invisible membrane. Why expend extra effort
            when a well-placed jab at a thin spot can pop the balloon?

            > Rein Frog Farmer in?
            >
            > Hell no, let him loose!

            I have been guilty of violating some of Bear's rules lately. I deserved
            a "wake-up call".

            > One vote for FF.

            One for Bear. And for everyone else on this list for at least being
            here, being interested. How many people in the whole country care about
            any of this stuff? Darn few. We will never change things by our
            numbers, but we can each have a giant effect in our own neighborhoods.
            I think I was the first around my parts to stand up in court, and on
            that first day there, two older guys saw what I was doing and decided it
            was for them too, and they went on to become major researchers and they
            had more cases going than I ever had. They held seminars and teach-ins
            and created even more students who did the same, etc. etc. One of my
            group was the first EVER to appeal a traffic ticket decision in this
            county. The case was dismissed. It was a young girl who knew almost
            nothing, too!

            Never give up!

            Regards,

            FF
          • mn_chicago
            Monday 2 October 2006 First Monday in October. We should all bow our heads in a moment of silence for that august body, the Supremes, getting back to work
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 2, 2006
              Monday 2 October 2006

              First Monday in October. We should all bow our heads in a moment of
              silence for that august body, the Supremes, getting back to work
              safeguarding the country from us.

              Lately, I have been spending time reading archived FF posts. I am
              provoked with legal bear and Robin Campbell for this thread.

              I challenge any dissenter to point out a specific post that
              substantiates their stated position.

              For me, FF's posts are most educational. He does not miss a word for
              what it should convey. Example: [from a random post]

              > Among human societies, everything from metal tokens to seashells to
              > cigarettes have been used for money.

              Innocuous enough in expression, and who would disagree?

              Our man FF:

              > You mean "as money," or "as money substitutes."

              That was as opposed to "FOR" money. It demonstates the importance of
              word choice, and the difference it can make in being precise,
              specially when in a courtroom environment.

              I do not know who Robin Campbell is, nor do I recall any posts from
              said individual prior to the posted complaint. My question to Robin
              is , why are you complaining? When did you become the arbiter of
              unexpressed dissent?

              And legal bear, why give credence to someone with thin skin over that
              caliber of information which serves anyone who cares to learn from it?

              One of the stated "reasons" is that others may be inhibited. That
              begs the question of what is important on this site: style or content?

              I complained about "cheapshots" from FF to others in general, those
              who were unaware that they were unaware of being unaware. He showed
              no mercy for their ignorance, while I was advocating a more
              sympathetic view toward them.

              In reflecting about it, it is that very same apathy/ignorance that
              has allowed the current situation in this country to exist. Each of
              us is reponsible for the choices we make, or choose not to make, and
              the resulting consequences. That is really all FF is saying to
              those who choose not to take a stance, based on their rights and law,
              against those who will, and do, take advantage of the waiving of
              rights.

              Is he gentle about it?

              No.

              Should he be?

              I used to think yes. Not any more. Based on the importance of what
              he is endeavoring people to do, FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, I don't think
              so.

              None of what he says is directed at a personality, but at the lack of
              informed choice a subject personality has taken, when a better choice
              can be made.

              Inhibiting? FF's challenges prompt me to ask MORE questions, get
              MORE details, and for sure, my own research and efforts have taken
              on a more pointed and sharper focus, with much better results.

              Who here hasn't had some hard-nosed teacher, and upon reflection
              says, "She/he was difficult, but I sure learned."

              I don't get the whining.

              Get over it. Don't read his posts if they offend your senses!

              If what the government has done does not have you up in arms, FF is
              insignificant, by comparison.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.