The Dangers of eLawyers; Do Not Take Complex THing Legal Advice From Forums

LM

Hero Member
Dec 11, 2007
665
181
South
Detector(s) used
Charts and Maps.
Primary Interest:
Shipwrecks
The Dangers of eLawyers; Do Not Take Complex TH'ing Legal Advice From Forums

Last year, famous movie actor Wesley Snipes was released from a Federal Prison Camp having served time for income tax evasion. Mr. Snipes, like many others, fell prey to the incredible dangers of specious legal narratives about 'no legal obligation to pay taxes' put out by imbecilic legal theorists that might sound plausible enough to someone who has no real idea about the law, but in fact offers you no actual legal protection and can get you in hot water; in his case, actual prison.

A amusing shorthand for the the "Janitor By Day, Interpreter Of Complex Statutes On The Internet By Night" phenomenon we see so commonly n internet forums is "eLawyer". This is someone who has zero understanding of how laws work, zero understanding of how the legal system works but thinks that if he can dream up some left-field narrative in his mind that relates to some random statute he vaguely understands and express it on the internet, that will insulate him from the consequences of his actions.

I bring this up because in a recent thread, we saw eLawyers were giving advice on 'trespassing' that was just abysmal and could get someone in trouble.

Whenever you are on the internet and encounter someone presenting a theory or interpretation of a statute, ask them these two things.

1) Are you an attorney or do you have any legal background?
2) Can you cite me a real world case where your interpretation of the statute was proffered in a courtroom setting and succeeded?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no", you can safely discard any advice they presume to give as being the worthless machinations of an eLawyer and NOT actionable in your own life.

But can eLawyers really get me in trouble even if actual court cases are vague or non-existent?

Sadly, yes. An example we saw in the past decade was with the common narrative that it is OK for persons convicted of a felony to posses black powder firearms in most states, simply because they were exempted at the Federal level. This belief was so standard among eLawyers that it became a totally reliable part of any internet gun forum narrative, when someone asked if it was legal for their brother with some Felony conviction to posses a black powder rifle to go hunting. A few people with legal backgrounds warned that this was a gray area and to tread very, very lightly but were shouted down by hordes of eLawyers with the logic that if the ATF didn't require background checks on them, then they were not firearms thus not eligible for those controls.

Sure enough, eventually, a few 'Felon in Possession of a Firearm' cases were made at the state level on the basis of black powder firearms. One in Wyoming, another in Florida. Both were upheld (one since struck down). Two men got in very real world trouble in spite of the fact that to this day, every single eLawyer on every gun forum will tell you that its perfectly legal.

The point I am making here is this.
When you want to know whether or not its legally OK to go MD that old 'abandoned' home, understand that your question is very distinct from 'is it likely that I will get in trouble if I go MD that old abandoned home since nobody seems to care about it'. Its entirely possible for me to grow marijuana in my back yard for 30 years and nobody will ever notice... You are asking if its *legal* and generally speaking, the answer is, if you don't have permission, no. It is not legal.

All property is owned by someone. If it is not held for common use by the government for the use of the citizens, that means it is owned by another citizen and you have NO RIGHT to bring your metal detector on it and start digging.

The reason I make this post is as a land owner who has to constantly fend off imbeciles in various guises who think that its OK to ignore my No Trespassing signs and use my property for their own intents. That 'field' belongs to someone. That 'old house' belongs to someone. Even if its a bank or an institution, the point is, IT IS NOT YOURS TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE.
 

Upvote 0

Nugs Bunny

Hero Member
Mar 13, 2013
515
491
Ohio
Detector(s) used
White's MXT Pro
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Maybe. Not that I drink much but a seven and seven ain't bad.


Learn to speak cursive... have a Seagram's V/O tonight! 8-) <---- One hellava slogan there... I should be in advertising! :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:


Seagrams-VO-1_75.jpg
 

Nugs Bunny

Hero Member
Mar 13, 2013
515
491
Ohio
Detector(s) used
White's MXT Pro
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
That's a little step up. If I get drunk my jokes might be a little classier though. Did you hear the one about the guys at the country bar that would number their jokes ?


I have a discerning palate, low dollar swill is for Cretans! :laughing7:

Back in my drinking days (or should I say daze because that's more what it was like) I put back enough Seagram's to influence the stock prices, lol I preferred VO or Crown but had plenty of 7&7's.

I also liked a good Rum or Vodka, but nothing beat a 7&7 with VO except maybe a good Long Island Ice Tea. I tried Hennessy a few years ago and kinda like it, reminds me Crown but a little smoother.

When I lived in Missouri the girl and I drank her favorite... Kessler... bless her heart, she was a cheap drunk!

(Edited by mod for politics)
 

Last edited by a moderator:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Top