Several sites have reposted this Craigslist ad, gasping in shock at it as evidence of massive foreclosure fraud
We are a collection agency/debt buyer. What we are looking for is a part time attorney to work for us as our corporate counsel, on our payroll, about 5 to 6 hours a week. This is a short term employment arrangement, no longer than 90 to 120 days.
Your job will be to sign pleadings, praecipe for entry of appearances, praecipe for writ of execution, and garnishment orders. Our paralegal will prepare all paperwork for your signature. This is very standard stuff for us.
If you are an attorney looking for challenging legal work, this is not for you. WE DO NOT NEED F LEE BAILEY- we are fee shopping. If you passed your boards with a D+, and you can sign your name, you possess all the credentials required for this job. If this opportunity interests you, please feel free to reply to this email with a brief description of who you are, when you got your law license, and what you will be needing from us in the way of compensation.
I would instead offer it as a lesson in the stupidity of state-enforced professional licensing arrangements. Let me rewrite it:
We have all the legal knowlege we need. We know exactly what the forms look like and mean. We have written all the documents and tested them over time during our long presence in this business and we know them to meet our legal needs. We have no need, in other words, for legal help.
However, attorneys have gotten together and created an attorneys guild, and, what's more, have convinced the government to pass laws that require membership in the guild to perform certain gate-keeping functions. In our case, we need a member of the guild to sign some forms to make them legal, both because the guild has strong influence and because certain folks have convinced everyone that all mortgage pain in this country came from having a machine perform this signature function rather than a flesh and blood hand. So we need a flesh and blood hand rather than a machine to sign foreclosure documents. Unfortunately, that hand has to be attached to a brain that has passed the bar exam, and because the guild is pretty good at limiting its membership, we expect to have to pay an absurd amount of money for this trivial function that could be duplicated by a six-year-old (and used to be performed by a simple $100 machine).
Don't get us wrong -- if we were on trial for our lives or facing a nasty, complicated lawsuit or wanted to draft a custom contract to protect our interests, we would be very happy to consider the opinion of third party licensing groups as to the merit of a particular attorney. Ironically, though, even then current licensing would be absurd, for in this case it would not greatly exceed our quality requirements (as it does for signing our foreclosure paperwork) but it would vastly undershoot our need due diligence needs. Perhaps there is some legal function for which attending an ABA-accredited school and passing the bar exam is the perfect level of quality assurance, but we have not found it yet.
This has to be the bottom headline of the day: Joe Arpaio: Craigslist Used To Find A Dog To "Fornicate" With Woman While Husband And Friend Watched. Sheriff Joe certainly does seem to be the last bastion against a total breakdown of civilization. I am so relieved he is on top of this. Gives me the willies to think he might have been chasing murderers or something and let these guys escape.
Local Conservative Greg Patterson blames the death of several sex workers in Detroit on the Backpage, because the killer may have targeted them based on their ads in that periodical.
The killers are the ones who should be held responsible, but what about parties whose negligent actions facilitate the killing? How about the example of a school with poor lighting, or the business with lots of bushes in which bad guys can hide? There are plenty of cases that show the property owner would be liable for the intentional torts of others.
So New Times knows that Adult ads are used by bad guys...even to the point of murder. Craigslist stopped accepting these ads after a similar incident and New Times picked up the business...at a considrable profit. So can they be held accountable for the deaths in Detroit? I would argue that they can be. What about future deaths? What happens if New Times continues to accept adult advertising and someone else gets killed? Actionable? I would say yes.
This is exactly the sort of spurious liability logic Conservatives tend to mock, except of course when it involves a target it does not like. In this case free market Conservatives really hate Backpage for accepting freely placed ads for free exchange involving consensual sex. I responded in the comments:
Why do you cast so far afield for an analogy in your third to last paragraph [the one above about schools with poor lighting]? Why not take a directly parallel example - what if some killer were stalking Starbucks barristas whose work places he identified through ads in the Republic or via Google Maps? Would you really run around in circles blaming Google? This is like saying that a serial killer is facilitated by the phone companies because they publish the phone book the killer used.
We are talking about ads placed via free exchange for consensual sex. Yes, in our bizarre society, Conservatives who nominally support all other types of free exchange have had this one sort banned. But it is ironically the very fact that this sort of consensual commerce is illegal that makes this work so dangerous. Escorts/hookers are vulnerable to abuse, crime, fraud etc. precisely because they have less ability to access the legal system for redress.
If you want to discuss who facilitated the death of these women, let's talk about those who drove their profession underground.
This soooo reminds me of Dave Barry's Interview years ago with reason.
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office busted two guys -- one of whom was an elementary school music teacher -- last month who allegedly used Craigslist to try and have sex with a dog, and the sheriff seems to think it's becoming a trend -- despite it only happening once.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio earlier this week wrote a letter to Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster alerting him of his office's findings and advising him to re-examine security policies on the website to make sure people don't use it to coordinate sex with animals -- again, despite it only happening one time that the sheriff knows about.
Here is the quote from Barry's interview: And here is my post on it
John wrote about it and he got into the usual thing where he immediately got to the question of whether or not you can have sex with dogs. The argument was that if it wasn't illegal to have sex with dogs, naturally people would have sex with dogs. That argument always sets my teeth right on edge....
I got a few letters, mostly pretty nice. One or two letters saying, "Here’s why it wouldn’t work to be a libertarian, because people will have sex with dogs." Arguments like, "Nobody would educate the kids." People say, "Of course you have to have public education because otherwise nobody would send their kids to school." And you’d have to say, "Would you not send your kids to school? Would you not educate them?" "Well, no. I would. But all those other people would be having sex with dogs."
I tried listing a grill and a bunch of old patio furniture on the Craiglist "free" section the other day. I had no experience with the site, but the amount of hassle to try to sell these items, which are incredibly bulky, was really high compared to their value. Anyway, I simply listed them as sitting beside my driveway and that anyone who wanted was welcome to take anything they wanted. I chose a good weather period with the anticipation that they might sit outside for several days.
My son and I left for lunch and 45 minutes later it was all gone -- every one of 20 or so pieces. Piranhas probably take longer to fully strip a cow carcas.
Freedom of Association is not explicitly listed in the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has never-the-less upheld association rights in expressive organizations and for intimate associations, such as the family and more broadly in private social clubs.
The State of California continues its attack on Craigslist and Roommates.com trying to make these organizations liable for California Fair Housing Law violations when they publish a classified ad that breaks the law. In short, it is illegal in California (and some other states) to advertise for a roommate who is a specific gender or race or religion, even if there are strong compatibility reasons for doing so (As in most states, it is A-OK to discriminate against smokers).
I won't get into the whole legal argument about these listing services, except to say that it is absurd to hold third parties accountable for other people's speech. I want to ask a more general question. How do laws that prevent me from choosing a roommate (however I want to) pass constitutional muster? Taking on a stranger for a roommate is a scary proposition, especially in states like California that make it well nigh impossible to evict someone once they have moved in. Short of marriage, it is hard to imagine a more intimate relationship -- in fact, many roommates probably see more of each other than some spouses. On average, most people are probably not a compatible roommate for me.
Beyond this, most of the people who run afoul of the housing law do so with their speech, not the actual selection of a roommate. Most fair housing complaints are against people's advertisements or public statements. This strikes me as a double violation - the banning of speech about my association preferences.