Suicide Letter Of Man who Crashed Into IRS Building In Austin Texas

[Carl]

You and me both WTF. Louisiana was the last holdout on age 18 drinking as I recall. I guess their oil and gas revenues helped them hold out on the highway funds cut-off.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Thats what I remember............shit I am old enough to remember buying beer at 18! damn times flies.

Me too...even though they'd changed law to 21 by that time...

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

No. Like any other profession, there are really good ones and really bad ones.

Agreed! I ain't a lawyer...and have no real love for the profession. But they do serve a purpose. There is a reason that conveyances don't just say..."I hereby sell all my ownership in X". Instead, it would say something like "Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to Grantee, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to property X." All of which would be followed by a litiney of recitations of what those rights were, which would have been preceeded by a statement making sure that such recitation of rights was not limiting the rights conveyed.

The reason that things have gotten so complicated, is because the clients don't live up to the deal...and they hire a lawyer to try and circumvent the deal. At the end of the day, the lawyer works for the client. And if the client thinks the lawyer is overstepping...it is the client who can shut him down in a heartbeat.

So, while I agree that there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers, who will do most anything to win a case...it is the client that should really draw the ire...cause he/she is the one letting them do it.

[charlestudor2005]

I heard this description of lawyers once:

There are lawyers you can call, make a deal over the phone, and rely on their word to keep the deal.

There are lawyers you can call, make a deal over the phone, and reduce it to writing and send it to them to memorialize the deal.

Then...there are those lawyers you can call, make a deal, reduce it to writing, send it to them, and ask them to sign it and send it back.

Which atty do you think is the most untrustworthy?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

My understanding is in the late 80's the Fed Govt threatened to withhold Highway funds for any state that didn't raise it to 21 - but they are State laws

Exactly. So the Federal Government has a vast array of ways to convince the states to do something, namely control of the purse strings.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Exactly. So the Federal Government has a vast array of ways to convince the states to do something, namely control of the purse strings.

That sounds so fatherly. Until, of course, you realize that it is the father, taking money out of his children's hands (in taxes) and then telling them if they want him to provide the services for which he is taxing them, they must adhear to his wishes.

I'm not saying it ain't legal, mind you. But legality doesn't remove the stench.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm not saying it ain't legal, mind you. But legality doesn't remove the stench.

Might makes right RK!

Stench always depends on which side if the fence one sits on any one issue. One day your downwind, the next up.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That sounds so fatherly. Until, of course, you realize that it is the father, taking money out of his children's hands (in taxes) and then telling them if they want him to provide the services for which he is taxing them, they must adhear to his wishes.

I'm not saying it ain't legal, mind you. But legality doesn't remove the stench.

My point, which I think you are agreeing with, is that simply going on and on how the federal government is doing one unconstitutional thing after another is a gross simplification of what usually happens ... that is to say the action is constitutional albeit leaves quite a stink.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hmm, at least I think these are the answers based on laws that have been passed.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I know the Feds pulled this off with chain stores; hotel: hmm, perhaps if the claim was they advertised nationally (or something like that) and therefore crossed state lines?
4. The government does, but I think it does it via incentives of cash for not overgrowing as opposed to forbidding it
5. Yes, the lumber probably comes in from a different state?
6. Wasn't there a case recently from the GWB administration against California growers and the Feds won the case?

Here is another one: Does the Federal government have the right to force a drinking age of 21 nationally?

Close.

1. Yes. It's called the dormant commerce clause.
2. Yes. First Commerce Clause case reported in early 1800's. NY gave Robert Fulton a monopoly on steamship travel. Feds invalidated it.
3. Yes. Hotels are uniquely necessary for travel in interstate commerce. It makes not difference if it's a chain or not.
4. Yes. They limited production during the depression. No idea how it's done now. But they were allowed to regulate even small in-state producers of wheat because that production would affect interstate prices.
5. Yes. And it doesn't matter where the logs come from. Again, because the lumber can move in interstate commerce or lower wages can allow intrastate producers to undercut interstate producers in price, it affects interstate commerce. Depression era case.
6. Yes. And you are correct, this is a more recent case.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

they were allowed to regulate even small in-state producers of wheat because that production would affect interstate prices.

In that case, of course, the court even allowed the government to regulate small producers who kept the wheat for their own use/consumption rather than selling it. Probably always covered in Constitutional Law simply because the result seems so counter-intuitive to so many people.

[dms7834]

Cannot condone his action but his reasoning is solid (IMHO). Read the news lately?? our country and its leaders are financially and morally bankrupt.

Obama can keep printing money and in a few years your taxes will not even cover the interest needed to pay for 50 years of excesses and entitlements. Hell yes he was mad. I read, and have heard elsewhere, that he main gripe was a tax law that made it easier for the IBMs' et.al to outsource software to India while denying local software developers tax benefits allowed for other similar subcontractors..

No one should condone his actions but I can certainly understand his anger and frustrations.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

At the risk of un-hijacking this thread I'd like to discuss the next step in this sad tale: i.e. the IRS worker's widow who sued the pilot's widow.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the pilot's widow was negligent because she knew about the pilot's state of mind or intentions and did nothing to stop it.

Well, this seems to me to be somewhat far-fetched. First of all, it assumes facts that may never be uncovered. Even close friends indicated that this was totally out of character.

Finally, I think the pilot's widow can assert marital confidentiality to prevent the plaintiff from inquiring about what kind of communications she (pilot's widow) had with her husband.

The lawsuit seems to have been amended and drops Stack's wife as a defendant.

http://www.kvue.com/news/Attorney--S...-85442882.html

Apparently, according to another story on another station the Hunter family's lawyer said they were only seeking to keep Vernon Hunter's autopsy results from becoming public. For some unexplained reason the lawyer claimed that required them to sue somebody associated with the event and name them as a defendant and Sheryl Stack was the apparently the obvious choice being the wife of the instigator. Not sure if that's a story that holds water. But supposedly the Stack family has agreed not to contest the request to not make the autopsy results public so they are no longer being sued. As to who else that would leave, the story is silent on that point.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

My point, which I think you are agreeing with, is that simply going on and on how the federal government is doing one unconstitutional thing after another is a gross simplification of what usually happens ... that is to say the action is constitutional albeit leaves quite a stink.

How do we explain what once was constitutional and is no longer?

Some are going to think that the change in law stinks and some aren't. Depending on the issue.