Hypothetical question about CA State approved DBA.

Let us be clear. I am doing YOU the favor by presenting data that you were absolutely unaware of and may possibily save you alot of grief in the future. So it is not a matter of claiming to be an"authority" but of my openness in sharing this information with others such as YOU. So please less defensiveness and more initiatve on your part because the decision you make is one that you will have to live with, not me, Dave or any one else in cyberspace. Comprehende!

 

Simon:

Given the nasty nature of your response, I must regretfully state that no respect is due here, at least regarding your opinion on this matter. You may otherwise be a decent--albeit extraordinarily defensive--fellow. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Let me make this clear. I was not the one making absolutist statements.

But you were. And the one making absolutist statements bears the burden of proving that their interpretation of the law is so.

But as you are a layman, you simply cannot make such an statement and admonish people here in such a strong manner. Even an attorney could not make such a cocksure statement in this context. For that matter, Simon, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court would be reticent to make such conclusory statements about unsettled law as you--a layman who has posted a handful of discussions on this forum and done perhaps one uneducated hour of diligent Google search.

All I was saying is that we cannot be certain that listing a California-approved DBA for a job in which it is not a requirement for licensure is illegal and/or subjects someone to criminal sanctions in the State of Florida.

This seems to be your thesis.

But to date the only things you've referred us to to prove this thesis to which you so stridently hold is:

1). The plain language of the statute

As I told you and as an attorney, Nosborne, plainly reinforced, the plain language cannot always be relied upon, least of all by a layman. The manner in which the courts interpret the law is everything in this context; (and as a side note, Nosborne 48 gave you a gut shot, there, a nice one, but a gut shot. You tried to play it off and say good point, but Simon, it was a slap at your thesis) and

2). The fact that the Florida Legislature did not revise the statute in response to the Supreme Court's admonitions that it was unconstitutional as applied to licensure for psychologists a decade ago.

Simon, are you aware that the Supreme Court decision referenced actually tends to disprove your point? You did not give me a citation for the case, but if you do, I'll be glad to look it up and see what it says for myself. But if is says what you claim, then your thesis may well be disproven utterly. You are apparently not aware of this, but even as a rank layman, I would expect you to know about the concept of "judicial review" from high school or undergrad. It means, to put it simply, that the courts are the institutions that decide whether or not a statute passed by a legislature and signed by a president or governor is constitutional, and thus valid. It also means that your vague statement that the legislature had thye right to do what they diod irregarless of the Supreme Court opinion is sophistry. When the Florida Supreme Court made its decision in 1995, it said a great deal about what it thinks of Florida Statute 1005 and how it would very likely rule were a case ever to come before it similar to the hypothetical that dlady proposed. In fact, the Court said that it was unconstitutional as applied to even the stronger situation, that of claiming an unaccredited degree for a position which requires licensure!

What we may have here is a standoff between the legislature and the courts. This would not be unique. But I'm not certain your facts recounted are entirely accurate, either. I would have to read the case. If you provide a citation, I'll check it out and report back. If you don't know what a "citation" is, ask an attorney.

You called my "maybe so, maybe not" comment rediculous [sic]. But it was just a comment coming from one familiar with the legal system. I was merely saying that for a laymen to look at a statute and then try to apply that statute to myriad situations without understanding how the law works, the process by which it is interpreted (it's called "common law", Simon), and the bearing that legislative intent plays upon it (often researched in detail by courts before whom an apellate case lies) is itself ridiculous.

Simon, you have presumed a great deal here. Namely, that a cursory reading of the law on the part of a laymen settles matters and that anyone who challenges their conclusory statements is "rediculous" [sic]. You have also presumed that I am a layman, that my work in a law office consisted on non-legal work. My bad for misleading you, I simply didn't want to tip my hand, I was being coy.

But the fact is...

I am an attorney, and have been one for almost 12 years. I also teach law and government at the college level, and lecture on these very matters of judicial review. I have been a member of two state bars and currently practice law. No, I am not a member of the Florida bar, but neither are you. But I am not the one making absolute statements, you are. And you are not the one--of all posters on this forum--who have a right to.

Bottom line? Given nothing more than you've stated here, I would counsel a client in dlady's position that they would very likely win a case brought by the State of Florida against them under 1005 and given the Supreme Court decision you mentioned (presuming it's accurate). I would counsel them that they would be very unlikely to even be bothered by a county attorney or the AG's office, so the whole illegality issue is likely a paper dragon. But I would also counsel them to consuult Florida counsel on this, particularly one who specializes in employment law.

Simon, both I and Nosborne--two attorneys--have seemed to come out squarely on the other side of this (me stronger than Nosborne, but I was provoked a bit more).

Will you just raise the white flag and admit that, no, I really don't understand this stuff much, and yes, all I've really done is take a look at a statute without really understanding the system that gives it meaning?

 

Here's my view. There are two relevant contexts in this situation which have very different answers.

Context one, the person is considering the possibility of going after an unaccredited degree. I suggest that it is not worth the risk, especially for Bachelors and Masters degrees. There are too many very reasonable choices that are accredited. The explosion of diploma mills on the Internet has cut the legs out from under legitimate unaccredited institutions. There are very few unaccredited but legitimate institutions left. The utility of unaccredited degrees now and in the future is just not worth the risk. We've even seen unaccredited degrees from legitimate institutions like CCU blow up as if they were diploma mill degrees. I anticipate that this will get even worse in the future.

Context two, the person already has an unaccredited degree. I suggest following Dave Wagner's advice. Go ahead and try to use the degree but make sure that you don't let anyone believe that it is an accredited degree.

 

SAM: Given the nasty nature of your response, I must regretfully state that no respect is due here, at least regarding your opinion on this matter. You may otherwise be a decent--albeit extraordinarily defensive--fellow. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

SIMON: MY response was not nasty but direct! In fact, you initially disagreed with the information I presented with little substantive basis for doing so! It is not a matter of who is right or wrong but if one disagrees let us hear the rationale based on verifiable and substantive data.

SAM: But as you are a layman, you simply cannot make such an statement and admonish people here in such a strong manner. Even an attorney could not make such a cocksure statement in this context. For that matter, Simon, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court would be reticent to make such conclusory statements about unsettled law as you--a layman who has posted a handful of discussions on this forum and done perhaps one uneducated hour of diligent Google search.

SIMON: You mean as you are admonishing me in such a strong manner? Please refrain from your ad hominum attacks because they do not substitute for facts, data and information that can in any way further elucidate this state statute. We are waiting.

SAM: All I was saying is that we cannot be certain that listing a California-approved DBA for a job in which it is not a requirement for licensure is illegal and/or subjects someone to criminal sanctions in the State of Florida.

SIMOn: It is not a matter of absolute certainty but a statute that has remained in force and unchallenged (as far as I know) for eleven years!

SAM: But to date the only things you've referred us to to prove this thesis to which you so stridently hold is:

1). The plain language of the statute

SIMON: And what have you presented but a defensive and self-righteous retort? In fact, as clearly indicated in previous posts I have also spoken to a number of representatives in the state florida boards of licensure who in fact directed me to this statute that I was unaware of prior to speaking with them!

SAM: As I told you and as an attorney, Nosborne, plainly reinforced, the plain language cannot always be relied upon, least of all by a layman. The manner in which the courts interpret the law is everything in this context; (and as a side note, Nosborne 48 gave you a gut shot, there, a nice one, but a gut shot. You tried to play it off and say good point, but Simon, it was a slap at your thesis) and

SIMON: It is my impression that you making this into a personal issue. In fact, it is not personal. Yes, Nosborne's point was excellent and I unequivocably stated it as such. There is no "gunshot" (boy is this inappropriate and out of context verbiage!) wounds and this is not a matter of getting even BUT of providing a perspective as Nosborne did that is based on a reasoned, factual and relevant response.

SAM: Simon, are you aware that the Supreme Court decision referenced actually tends to disprove your point? You did not give me a citation for the case, but if you do, I'll be glad to look it up and see what it says for myself.

SIMON: The supreme Court decision does not "disprove" ANYTHING I stated because this ruling took place in 1995 and as of today, 2/24/06 the statute remains in full effect and force. In fact, I am not aware of any subsequent case that came before the Florida State supreme Court after 1995 (of course this does not imply that such a case does not exist) to contest this statute. Therefore, at this point, unless an attorney in Florida can state otherwise, posters should be guided in their decisions relating to unaccredited degrees by the state statutes until or IF additional information proves otherwise.

SAM: But if is says what you claim, then your thesis may well be disproven utterly. You are apparently not aware of this, but even as a rank layman, I would expect you to know about the concept of "judicial review" from high school or undergrad. It means, to put it simply, that the courts are the institutions that decide whether or not a statute passed by a legislature and signed by a president or governor is constitutional, and thus valid. It also means that your vague statement that the legislature had thye right to do what they diod irregarless of the Supreme Court opinion is sophistry. When the Florida Supreme Court made its decision in 1995, it said a great deal about what it thinks of Florida Statute 1005 and how it would very likely rule were a case ever to come before it similar to the hypothetical that dlady proposed. In fact, the Court said that it was unconstitutional as applied to even the stronger situation, that of claiming an unaccredited degree for a position which requires licensure!

SIMON: My friend, what you have stated is a known fact and readily available to any person who wished to find this data. However, there is a reality here that transcends endless armchair speculation about the possible interpretation of this statute that HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED in the Florida Supreme Court since 1995!

SAM: Simon, you have presumed a great deal here. Namely, that a cursory reading of the law on the part of a laymen settles matters and that anyone who challenges their conclusory statements is "rediculous" [sic]. You have also presumed that I am a layman, that my work in a law office consisted on non-legal work.

SIMON: You are misrepresenting my position and are over determined to validate yourself. I have presumed nothing but merely shared information with other posters that potentially may save them alot of problems in relation to using unaccredited degrees in the state of Florida. Conveniently, you once again omit the fact that I posted repeatedly that I am open to ANY information that can shed more light on this subject.

Furthermore, I have presumed nothing about your professional credentials and am not a mind reader. You stated that you "rubbed shoulders" with attorneys which can mean anything from being a clerk, a janitor or a supreme court judge. It is your responsibility, not my being presumptive if you are not clear about your professional title.

SAM: I am an attorney, and have been one for almost 12 years. I also teach law and government at the college level, and lecture on these very matters of judicial review. I have been a member of two state bars and currently practice law. No, I am not a member of the Florida bar, but neither are you. But I am not the one making absolute statements, you are. And you are not the one--of all posters on this forum--who have a right to.

SIMON: In fact, a review of your assertions reveals that they are in fact "absolute" and definitive as well as attempting to prove points by "appealing to your professional title and experience" a fallacious argument that does not prove your position is more accurate than another in regard to this case.

SAM: Bottom line? Given nothing more than you've stated here, I would counsel a client in dlady's position that they would very likely win a case brought by the State of Florida against them under 1005 and given the Supreme Court decision you mentioned (presuming it's accurate). I would counsel them that they would be very unlikely to even be bothered by a county attorney or the AG's office, so the whole illegality issue is likely a paper dragon. But I would also counsel them to consuult Florida counsel on this, particularly one who specializes in employment law.

SIMON: This is not a forum to intellectualize endlessly about far fetched legal options and speculative positive outcomes from such a case but of dealing with realistic options for posters' dilemmas. In other words, based on all the potential pitfalls involved in utilizing an unaccredited degree in Florida AT THIS TIME one is placing themselves in possible jeopardy by engaging in legal conflict over a peventable situation and at what cost(emotionally, financially, reputation wise, future employment possiblities, etc). The question a poster needs to ask is it worth this risk and personal/psychological cost when there are more viable alternatives available to meet their slated goals that are risk free, self promoting and enhancing?

In relation to SAM"S counsel to DLAdy, the hypothetical question arises as follows: Will SAM represent DLADY pro bono in his contest of this case if he takes this matter before a Florida state court? Will SAM be in court with him every day and subsequently have to live with any court rendered decisions that may not be in his favor or deal with any adverse effects or consequences that may occur if it does not go well for this poster! We know the answer to these hypothetical questions don't we Sam?

SAM: Will you just raise the white flag and admit that, no, I really don't understand this stuff much, and yes, all I've really done is take a look at a statute without really understanding the system that gives it meaning?

SIMON: White flag! This is not a macho battle but a forum to provide helpful information to other posters. In fact, You have not proved or stated anything that I did not know. Your assertion that DLADY will most probably win in court is premature and speculative and not very realistic in terms of the myriad unknown variables involved in such a scenario. In terms of recommending that the poster seek counsel in Florida, this was previously stated by me and Nosborne.

However what is most significant is that you see this as a "war"; you felt insulted and sought redress. Well my friend, that is not the raison d'etre for my sharing this data which is to advise discretion and use of good judgement in pursuing unaccredited degrees in states that consider them illegal and that can potentially be deleterious to one's career and may derail one's future life plans. No more, no less.

 

Very good advise Bill.

In the case of the poster in question he does not have an unaccredited doctoral degree but is contemplating seeking one. Obviously, if one has their heart set on such a credential by all means they need to make that decision. At least they are aware of the potential pitfalls that exist in doing within Florida. Simon

 

Good gosh, Sam.

Do you know anything about law or government whatsoever?

Sam, it means nothing that the Supreme Court has not "contested" the statute since 1995, the Supreme Court does not "contest" statutes. They merely decide cases that are brought before them, they do not set out to proactively challenge anything, because they cannot. They are courts of review. You likely don't understand that concept, because you have not been educated in such matters.

That's OK, fair enough, there's no crime in not having been educated in the law or government. But there is a particluar pathology to stubbornly claiming to know about these matters when you are perfectly ignorant of them!

I did not say that Nosborne fired a "gunshot", I said it was a gutshot to your argument. And it was. He prefaced the whole thing with "sigh".

That was directed straight at you. Didn't you get it?

Then he said I was correct, that a layman can't presume to know the law based on a superficial reading without understanding how the law has been interpreted by the courts. This was devastating to your argument. Yet, this passed right by you and you didn't appreciate the meaning and/or you tried to recover with "excellent point, Nosborne". Simon, if it was an excellent point, then you have no point, and you're just trying to save face through filibustering this one.

You then said--hilariously--that "from what I learned the Florida state legislature appears to have been within its "rights/powers"...in this context. What rights/powers? Where did you learn this? Assuming you have your facts correct--which I doubt--by what legal mechanism does the legislature defy the Supreme Court of a state? Look, the state can modify their constitution, the legislature can modify the statute, the Supreme Court can subsequently overrule themselves and make the matter moot, but there is no way that what you threw out there in your response to Nosborne can be plausible unless the Florida constitution is utterly unique in allowing the legislature to defy judicial review. My person suspicion is that you just said it to try and save face, but had no real conception of what you were saying.

As for my demeanor...

As for my first post, it was at most a gentle chiding, please go back and read it. You'll see it wasn't hostile in any way, just a call for caution. Didn't even mention you by name. Then go back and read your hostile response. You can't twist the facts here, they're in black-and-white for all to see. You were the one who got hostile and has been so throughout in this thread.

I have as yet made no absolute statements, and I have still made none here, other than this:

One who actually has an understanding of the law would not see this law as supporting the preposterous claim that a Cal-approved but non-RA DBA would be irrefutably illegal in Florida. Quite frankly, it almost certainly would not.

So this brings us back to a basic issue: what's your point, other than to attempt to prove you know more about the law that not one but two attorneys here and that, you are the type of individual who, when you're in over your head, thinks that impassioned rhetoric substitutes for having real knowledge?

Just curious.

And by the way, there is no such thing as an "ad hominum" attack.

 

Funny thing is...

--- I don't even disagree with Simon's central premise, that unaccredited degrees are to be avoided. I only attend RA and professionally-accredited institutions, and I typically advise others to do so as well, so long as RA is available and affordable in their chosen discipline.

--- I don't disagree that a whole host of degrees might be invalid under Florida statutes, perhaps even the Cal-only ones referenced. Who knows how the courts might interpret future cases?

The only thing I called for at the first was caution regarding absolute pronouncements on the state of the law based on a superficial reading of the statutes--particularly when dealing with the issue of a degree which is not necessary for any state licensure whatever. And that is something I do know something about, and Simon does not. And yet, he stubbornly maintains his point, even though two lawyers have told him the same thing.

Why, Simon?

You will learn much more in life if you just acknowledge what you don't know.

 

SAM: Good gosh, Sam.

SAMo you know anything about law or government whatsoever?

SIMON: Uh, Sam, you are Sam, me is Simon (Tarzan talk).

once again, stick to the facts because you are are wasting time editorializing and attempting to engage in ad hominum attacks again.

SAM:Sam, it means nothing that the Supreme Court has not challenged the statute since 1995, the Supreme Court does not "challenge" statutes. They merely decide cases that are brought before them, they do not set out to proactively challenge anything, because they cannot. They are courts of review. You likely don't understand that concept, because you have not been educated in such matters.

SIMON: Uh Sam, you Sam, me Simon.

Obviously! In fact the point I was making is that in eleven years there is no indication that anyone challenged the state statute resulting in the state supreme court reviewing this matter. Of course you are very educated in such matters as evidenced by your incredulous assertations to a poster that they will most probably win in a Florida state court without your knowing all the variables involved in such a contest. Great advise.

SAM: That's OK, fair enough, there's no crime in not having been educated in the law or government. But there is a particluar pathology to stubbornly claiming to know about these matters when you are perfectly ignorant of them!

SIMON: You are editoralizing again Simon, I mean Sam and once again engaging in ad hominum ploys. In fact the only thing you are revealing is that you are losing the argument by doing so!

SAM:I did not say that Nosborne fired a "gunshot", I said it was a gutshot to your argument. And it was. He prefaced the whole thing with "sigh".

That was directed straight at you. Didn't you get it?


SIMON: NO my defensive friend, you didn't get it! I understood the message perfectly. What I was addressing was your attempt to SPLIT me and Nosborne by reiterating his remarks as if you are buddies in a concerted front against me. Such was not the case. Nosborne provided his feedack impartially and with good intentions. So why don't you consider fending for yourself my "intrepid" friend and stick to the issues involved. Is it that you realize the relevance of the points I raised and cannot respond without negating another by attempting underminE their credibility rather than the substance of their position? In fact you are merely discrediting your arguments by doing so.

SAM:Then he said I was correct, that a layman can't presume to know the law based on a superficial reading without understanding how the law has been interpreted by the courts. This was devastating to your argument. Yet, this passed right by you and you didn't appreciate the meaning and/or you tried to recover with "excellent point, Nosborne". Simon, if it was an excellent point, then you have no point, and you're just trying to save face through filibustering this one.

SIMON: The bottomline is that with all your attempts to undermine a "poor" layman such as myself you failed to present a cogent argument proving that one can utilize an unaccredited degree in Florida at this time without the possiblity of facing legal actions. Be a big boy and admit it!

SAM: You then said--hilariously--that it was your understanding the legislature had the authority to do what they did in this context. Assuming you have you facts correct--which I doubt--by what legal mechanism does the legislature defy the Supreme Court of a state? Look, the state can modify their constitution, the legislature can modify the statute, the Supreme Court can subsequently overrule themselves and make the matter moot, but there is no way that what you threw out there in your response to Nosborne can be plausible unless the Florida constitution is utterly unique in allowing the legislature to defy judicial review. My person suspicion is that you just said it to try and save face, but had no real conception of what you were saying.

SIMON: Is this the best you can do to disprove the bottomline that an unaccredited degree will not "fly" in Florida and potentially places a person at risk for prosecution? Are you willing to have a three way call to relevant parties in Florida to put this matter to rest? I am. I will gladly collaborate with you in order to do so. Let me know when you are ready to do so.


SAM:As for my demeanor...

As for my first post, it was at most a gentle chiding, please go back and read it. You'll see it wasn't hostile in any way, just a call for caution. Didn't even mention you by name. Then go back and read your hostile response. You can't twist the facts here, they're in black-and-white for all to see. You were the one who got hostile and has been so throughout in this thread.


SIMON: Are you kidding yourself? Yes, you did'nt mention my name ONLY by implication because I was the one who wrote the post that you responded to. BTW, say you didn't like the message I posted to you. Does that give you an excuse to come back with a vengence? One thing I can say for certain about your style' you really know how to rationalize darn well!

SAM: I have as yet made no absolute statements, and I have still made none here, other than this:

One who actually has an understanding of the law would not see this law as supporting the preposterous claim that a Cal-approved but non-RA DBA would be irrefutably illegal in Florida. Quite frankly, it almost certainly would not.

So this brings us back to a basic issue: what's your point, other than to attempt to prove you know more about the law that not one but two attorneys here and that, you are the type of individual who, when you're in over your head, thinks that impassioned rhetoric substitutes for having real knowledge?

SIMON: Are you kidding! You have made absolute statements throughout your posts and denial does not substitute for the facts. You even made assertions to DLADY about the probability of his case being thrown out by the court even though you are not familar with all the variables involved in this case.

The bottomline remains that with all of your editoralizing, rationalizing, manuvering,clamoring and attempts to prove points by appeals to your alleged authority as a lawyer you have not disproved my point that using unaccredited degrees in Florida is potentially risky and can result in potential legal problems for the person who does so. END OF STORY.

Once again I am willing to put all this behind us and move proactively ahead to put this matter to rest. Let me know when you are ready to to do some fact finding with me and lets see when we can speak to each other by phone and arrange several calls to individuals in Florida state government about this very issue. I am waiting!

 

SAM:--- I don't even disagree with Simon's central premise, that unaccredited degrees are to be avoided. I only attend RA and professionally-accredited institutions, and I typically advise others to do so as well, so long as RA is available and affordable in their chosen discipline.

SIMON: Setting the scene for a possible exist my pontificating friend?

SAM:--- I don't disagree that a whole host of degrees might be invalid under Florida statutes, perhaps even the Cal-only ones referenced. Who knows how the courts might interpret future cases?

SIMON: Another exist ploy my friend? Also attempting to negate the advise you offered Delady that he would most likely be successful if he went to court regarding this matter? TOO LATE. You made premature and ABSOLUTE statements that he would most probably succeed in a court of law and that I did not know what I was talking about. In fact, although appearing conciliatory you are admitting that I was correct in calling for posters to be very cautious regarding the use of such degrees in the state of Florida at this time. This is not rocket science but primarily good judgement and prudent reasoning.

SAM: The only thing I called for at the first was caution regarding absolute pronouncements on the state of the law based on a superficial reading of the statutes--particularly when dealing with the issue of a degree which is not necessary for any state licensure whatever. And that is something I do know something about, and Simon does not. And yet, he stubbornly maintains his point, even though two lawyers have told him the same thing.

SIMON: In fact you were not calling for "caution regarding absolute pronouncements on the state of the law" because I was clearly not making ABSOLUTE pronouncements but STRONGLY urging caution in doing so. There is a difference between ABSOLUTE AND STRONGLY and as the only educated one on this board you should be expected to know the difference. However, this did not stop you from making ABSOLUTE predictions about the postive outcome of pursuing a a court action! In sum, you have misinterpreted my intentions and actions, my words and the extent of what I do and don't know. In fact, as a lawyer isn't it in your code of ethics to assist laypersons in understanding points of law rather than to attempt to publicly undermine them! Is your excuse that I was DIRECT in my initial post a sufficent rationale for your blitzkrieg overkill hostile response?

This is not a court of law my friend and within the context of this forum we are equals regardless of your endless attempts to prove to others that because of your title or because another poster agreed with ONE point you made that you proved your point beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact you have'nt and whenever you are ready I am open and accessible to followup with you and examine this matter together. We can then present the results of our fact finding together to enrich this online community rather than to split it. I am waiting!

SAM: Why, Simon?

You will learn much more in life if you just acknowledge what you don't know.

SIMON: I am waiting to hear from you when you wish to discuss this matter as two gentlemen and to put our disagreement behind us and explore the bottomline in an objective and collaborative manner. Thank you, Simon

 

Please print here the names of the legislators you contacted in Florida. I will contact them myself, represent myself as an attorney interested in the matter, and see where we get in this debate.

BTW: I've read and re-read my original post. It was not hostile. Your response to me was, however. I am not kidding myself.

I invite all readers of this debate to read both original posts and state here who is right and who is wrong.

Simon, you're way out of your element.

 

SIMON: Once again, regrdless of all your manuvering and evading you have failed to prove your point or position or even to make a dent in my initial statements pertaining to this issue. No matter how many unethical personal comments you make abou me, as noted above, in a further attempt to negate my position you have not revealed any failings on my part but your own frustration in not proving yours!

Based on your inordinate level of defensiveness and hostility as evidenced in your overkill and hostile responses to my initial post and the fact of your continuation of nonconcilatory hostile remarks at the conclusion of your post above, your "offer" to followup on this matter independent of me is perceived as being disingenuous.

However, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or distortions of any information obtained from Florida my offer of collaborating with you to obtain this information and impartially presenting the results to the posters of this thread still stands. I am available and will safeguard your anonymity if you do the same for me. Let us put this matter to rest and lets see if this poor little guy who is "out of his element" is right or totally wrong or if you the brilliant attorney was right all along! I'm waiting!

 

No, print them here first. I want to see your authorities upon which you rely that say a situation in which Dlady discusses will result in "potential criminal charges".

Print them, right here. I'm calling your bluff.

Nosborne, will you come and set this guy straight? What an absoulute... No, I won't say it. You are one piece of work, Simon.

Again, I want to see the names with your next post.

P.S.: What is an "exist"? Did you mean "exit strategy"?

 

Here is my opinion on the matter and what I've said repeatedly:

1). One cannot be certain about the application of a statute based on a plain language reading. You piece it together over time, based on judicial review.

2). That said, however, I am highly dubious of any statement by you or anyone else that "criminal charges" would likely be brought against anyone based on 1005 given the situation that is the subject of our debate, that of someone claiming to hold a DBA from a Cal-state approved institution, while making no misrepresentations regarding the accreditation of said degree, when the degree is not required for licensure by the State of Florida for anything.

3). However, as I've said on more than one occasion in this thread, lawyers do not operate in a climate of certitude, so one must always leave open the possibility that a court might do something unexpected.

4). But in any event, such a court would probably be overturned on review if they did uphold criminal charges against Dlady, on First Amendment grounds. But again, this is not a matter of certitude.

5). So to repeat my advice to Dlady from an earlier post: it would be unlikely that she would experience any legal trouble or criminal sanctions in her hypothetical scenerio, but that she needs to seek competent Florida counsel on this matter (and even then, it wouldn't be certain, because as I've told you repeatedly, lawyers do not have certitude. I believe a very famous jurist--perhaps Oliver Wendell Holmes, but (ha) not certain--said "certitude is an illusion."

And the above five statements summarize my position perfectly on this matter. These are not a distortion of anything I've said before. And if they are, give me a quote. What can you find "absolute" in that?

And by the way, I'm not a "brilliant lawyer", but you're still "out of your element".

 

...as a lawyer isn't it in your code of ethics to assist laypersons in understanding points of law rather than to attempt to publicly undermine them!

No matter how many unethical personal comments you make abou me...

Simon, will you kindly refer me to the provision in an ethics code that supports your contention above?

Pick a state, any state.

 

SIMON: I made an offer and it stands in good faith. I am willing to present our findings together on this board regardless of our findings and apparently you are not (for good reason).You are not calling my bluff because I made the offer to you not the reverse. So lets stop with the manipulations. Put up or move on already.

In fact you failed to prove your case and I think it shows how weak your postion is when you need to call for another poster, Norborne to come to your aid. Enough splitting behavior. Wave that white flag and I will give you a pass. Yoou need it. Your antics are boring and going nowhere at this point.

 

The reason I do not wish to engage in a conference call with you is because the statements made cannot thereafter be verified here. Further, I deal with enough trouble on the phone in the legal profession, I've had enough distasteful phone conversations in my career dealing with other members of the profession.

But I am more than willing to engage in an email posting debate, drawing in authorities and posting results here, so long as they can be independently verified.

And the only point I've tried to prove is that you cannot make such absolute statements yourself.

And will you please tell us what led you to state that the legislature was within their authority to ignore the Supreme Court? Please.

And will you please stop saying "ad hominum"? It makes you sound like an idiot.

One final thing: before you ever accuse a lawyer of an ethics violation, you better be able to back it up with something substantial. Just remember that, sir. File it away.

 

SIMON: You continue to modify your position and are becoming redundent. However with all your manuvering and machinations you failed to provide a cogent argument that negates my original contention regarding the use of unaccredited degrees in FLorida. Yes, you can continue to attempt to undermine my credibility with superfluous appeals to your authority as an attorney and insinuatating that due to my lack of legal training I am out of my element. However, no matter how many times you repeat your "revelatory" points it in no way adds to or supports your unsubstantiated positions regading this subject.

If I am "out of my element", you are a "legend in your own mind".
Wave that white flag my friend because it is time for you to call it quits.

 

How? Quote it.