Hypothetical question about CA State approved DBA.

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by dlady, Feb 16, 2006.

Loading...
  1. simon

    simon New Member

    SAM: 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.

    SIMON: Unacceptable excuses.

    SAM: 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.

    SIMON: However, as I orginally offered I am willing to speak with you by phone assuring that both our anonymity will be concealed and then to proceed to explore this matter further collaboratively.

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

    SIMON: SIR, cease distorting the basis of my position that you claim was "absolute" in nature. This is contrary to the openness I have expressed to other posters to present any information that adds light to this discussion even if it contradicts my own. As mentioned in my previous posts my position may be a strong one but not absolute. This is the second time I have brought this to your attention.

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

    SIMON" Enoguh of your sidetracking already. It is boring. Let us be proactive and for the benefit of the forum let us work together to bring this issue to a conclusion as i previously suggested.

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

    SIMON: The more you engage in these personal attack the more you are undermining your position. BTW, refering to me by your name "Sam", makes you sound like a genius?

    SAM: 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. [/B][/QUOTE]
     
  2. simon

    simon New Member

    UPDATED:

    SAM: 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.

    SIMON: Unacceptable excuses.

    SAM: 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.

    SIMON: However, as I orginally offered I am willing to speak with you by phone assuring that both our anonymity will be concealed and then to proceed to explore this matter further collaboratively.

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

    SIMON: SIR, cease distorting the basis of my position that you claim was "absolute" in nature. This is contrary to the openness I have expressed to other posters to present any information that adds light to this discussion even if it contradicts my own. As mentioned in my previous posts my position may be a strong one but not absolute. This is the second time I have brought this to your attention.

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

    SIMON" Enoguh of your sidetracking already. It is boring. Let us be proactive and for the benefit of the forum let us work together to bring this issue to a conclusion as i previously suggested.

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

    SIMON: The more you engage in these personal attack the more you are undermining your position. BTW, refering to me by your name "Sam", makes you sound like a genius?

    SAM: 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: I think that at this point this discussion cannot continue. In fact, there was absolutely no ethical violation accusation made against you or any lawyer just the use of the term ethical code in relation to expectations regarding being educated concerning points of law rather than being referred to, for example, as "idiot" and "out of your element".

    However, SIR based on the threatening tone above I advise you to cease and desist from any further contact with me starting now. Do not think that by being anonymous that you can freely engage in addressing others with denigrating and hostile names and engage in threatening tones. It does not bolster your position or image and has resulted in a cessation of this discussion. Simon.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2006
  3. Sam-I-Am

    Sam-I-Am New Member

    Simon, if only you knew the law, you would understand how this is not a sidetrack. Nor is it boring; it's quite interesting. I want to know from a legal standpoint what's going on. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

    I honestly want to know if there's something strange going on here. Is there some way of which I'm not aware that's peculiar to Florida that enables the legislature to defy the Supreme Court and continue enforcing a statute that's been held unconstitutional? Oh, and by the way, the case is Strang v. Satz, 884 F. Supp. 504, 508 (SD Fla. 1995).

    The very provision in the statutes that would address this issue, 817.567, paragraph 3, was ruled unconstitutional, as you earlier mentioned. At that point, it's really irrelevant whether the legislature updates the statutes or not thereafter, it's still an unconstitutional provision. That is, unless something very strange is going on in Florida, something that defies the normal balance of powers. You see, the FL SupCt is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of statutes. The legislature has no authority to overrule the Supreme Court, they just don't. They have no authority to ignore the court either. This is our system, I told you it's called judicial review.

    But what I'm wondering is why the statute hasn't been updated in 11 years--that's strange. But still, it has no bearing on the statute's unconstitutionality. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court reversed itself. I'm honestly trying to find this out.

    And thanks a lot, buddy, here I am after midnight still googling and researching this nonsense out of pure academic curiosity. And I might have scored tonight, but the spouse is in bed, probably upset at me for clattering away here, researching statutes and case law. Sheesh!
     
  4. Sam-I-Am

    Sam-I-Am New Member

    Now that's a convenient way out. Whatever.

    If you want no additional contact, you can attempt to get such an order. Depending on your jurisdiction, it might be called a No Contact Order or a Harassment Restraining Order. Why don't you contact your county attorney and see what they think?

    As for "idiot", I'm sorry, when you misspell fancy Latin phrases when you're debating a lawyer, you look like an idiot.

    You just do, Simon.

    Threatening tone? Come on, thicken that skin up, I've had people threaten my life. Occupational hazard. If you're going to try and play unfrozen caveman lawyer, you gotta be able to take it when opposing counsel gives you a little tap to the solar plexus. And I'm not going to sue you, if you knew the law, you'd know that I'd have a very poor case for libel against you.

    Man oh man. I stayed up past midnight and blew my chances with the little lady for this?

    I'm outta here, have a nice life.
     
  5. Roman

    Roman New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2006
  6. Roman

    Roman New Member

    Sam-I-AM,
    Don't you think maybe we were a bit too hard on Simon? Its the first time I see him leave a thread completely without having the last word, which is unusual. Usually he'll fight to the death for that. Too bad. He will be greatly missed. LOL :D
    Cheers
     
  7. RFValve

    RFValve Well-Known Member


    It depends, was a doctorate required for the job? If not, are there other qualifications that you have as certifications, professional memberships, etc that can be also be taken into consideration?

    I think that a DBA from a state approved school has some value but the same value that a certification or extra training can give to an employee. I would think that a CFA, CPA ,CMC or any other management certification would carry the same or even more value than a DBA from a low tier correspondance school.
     
  8. Dave Wagner

    Dave Wagner Active Member

    Re: Re: Hypothetical question about CA State approved DBA.

    Three points to clarify in your response:

    The example provided by the thread starter stated that no advanced degree was required.

    Another thing to consider is that the CPA is a license, which gives it considerably more value that the CFA and CMC.

    California Pacific University is approved by the State of California and has been so for decades.

    Dave
     

Share This Page