FF 50 shenanigans on Pedigree?

[Mr.Diggler]

Satan doesn't need any help from me. -Watson

Diggler

[greggy]

It's known as being Roy'd.

 

 

I'd completely forgotten about that word...will have to remember to use it again here and there

 

I was recently Roy'd again. By the same person that Roy'd me last year.

 

 

The scru-job was good enuff that you went back for seconds?

 

Benefit of the doubt 1st time round. Second time, not so much.

Get over the DD 1

[Old Fashion PB and J]

whomever

Ignore

[divad]

You're not irritating anyone, but your analysis of the decision is . . .

 

If your "amateur interest" in the law has you reading judicial opinions, then you'd find this one to be rather scathing. If you are really curious (outside of obfuscation of the court's findings) you could go and physically view the file to your heart's desire.

 

As to criminal prosecution, an indictment requires an interested prosecutor. Prosecutors are generally attorneys as well. As a rule they have their hands full, and allow attorney discipline to be handled by the structure that is set up to do so, i.e., the disciplinary division of the State Bar.

 

[fantastic_four]

If your "amateur interest" in the law has you reading judicial opinions, then you'd find this one to be rather scathing.

 

This one was a "referee" decision--that's how the document referred to him. I found this appellate fairly unscathing--the most scathing part was where it said his defense that he didn't understand that what he was doing was illegal didn't fly since he had already been a lawyer for 16 years, which just seemed logically straightforward, although not uncompelling. Perhaps that one is scathing for a disbarment, I have no idea...I'm used to reading about murder trials where the sparks fly from the prosecutor, defense, AND the judge during sentencing. I think the main trial documents I've looked at were for serial killer cases...judges occasionally get rather preachy in those.

[VintageComics]

It's known as being Roy'd.

 

 

I'd completely forgotten about that word...will have to remember to use it again here and there

 

I was recently Roy'd again. By the same person that Roy'd me last year.

 

 

The scru-job was good enuff that you went back for seconds?

 

Benefit of the doubt 1st time round. Second time, not so much.

Get over the DD 1

 

Oh, I'm over it. I just won't forget it.

 

[Foolkiller]

You're not irritating anyone, but your analysis of the decision is . . .

 

If your "amateur interest" in the law has you reading judicial opinions, then you'd find this one to be rather scathing. If you are really curious (outside of obfuscation of the court's findings) you could go and physically view the file to your heart's desire.

 

As to criminal prosecution, an indictment requires an interested prosecutor. Prosecutors are generally attorneys as well. As a rule they have their hands full, and allow attorney discipline to be handled by the structure that is set up to do so, i.e., the disciplinary division of the State Bar.

 

 

Prosecutors are always attorneys.

 

I could explain the entire disciplinary process, but it's a bore.

 

Let me just say that Doug was disbarred after an investigation that's led by the NY Disciplinary Board, which is made up of lawyers. There's also an attorney code of professional responsibility. While a conviction of a crime may lead to disbarment, it's certainly not automatic, and the proceedings to disbar an attorney are vastly different. I would say it's probably as rigorous as any trial and the members who are making the ruling far more educated than the average jury.

 

In New York, attorney discipline is not handled by prosecutors. Criminal law is entirely separate system. No individual judge has the power to take an attorney's license away, though they can make recommendations to the appropriate body.

 

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was over whelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

[fantastic_four]

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was over whelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

 

I haven't seen anyone doubt his disbarment was undeserved...for my part, I'm trying to understand the nature of what he did since he's being re-tried right here in the court of public opinion. The most compelling thing I've heard in the whole thread is you saying he ruined people's lives...it's difficult for me to draw a line between taking two years to pay off an escrow and ruining someone's life being unfamiliar with settlement escrow or disbarment standards of ethics without filling in sordid stories from articles I've read or movies I've seen.

[ImageMask]

You're not irritating anyone, but your analysis of the decision is . . .

 

If your "amateur interest" in the law has you reading judicial opinions, then you'd find this one to be rather scathing. If you are really curious (outside of obfuscation of the court's findings) you could go and physically view the file to your heart's desire.

 

As to criminal prosecution, an indictment requires an interested prosecutor. Prosecutors are generally attorneys as well. As a rule they have their hands full, and allow attorney discipline to be handled by the structure that is set up to do so, i.e., the disciplinary division of the State Bar.

 

 

Prosecutors are always attorneys.

 

I could explain the entire disciplinary process, but it's a bore.

 

Let me just say that Doug was disbarred after an investigation that's led by the NY Disciplinary Board, which is made up of lawyers. There's also an attorney code of professional responsibility. While a conviction of a crime may lead to disbarment, it's certainly not automatic, and the proceedings to disbar an attorney are vastly different. I would say it's probably as rigorous as any trial and the members who are making the ruling far more educated than the average jury.

 

In New York, attorney discipline is not handled by prosecutors. Criminal law is entirely separate system. No individual judge has the power to take an attorney's license away, though they can make recommendations to the appropriate body.

 

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was over whelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

 

'Nuff said.

[divad]

Prosecutors are always attorneys.

 

Well, yes, in NY, but not in Wyoming . . . All it takes is a gun, and a few head of cattle.

[divad]

 

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was overwhelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

 

Which, of course, is why I invited him to read the factual record. This decision is the decision of the reviewing Court which overturned the Hearing Panel's original disciplinary ruling regarding penalties, finding it woefully insufficient for the infractions committed.

[divad]

If your "amateur interest" in the law has you reading judicial opinions, then you'd find this one to be rather scathing.

 

This one was a "referee" decision--that's how the document referred to him. I found this appellate fairly unscathing--the most scathing part was where it said his defense that he didn't understand that what he was doing was illegal didn't fly since he had already been a lawyer for 16 years, which just seemed logically straightforward, although not uncompelling. Perhaps that one is scathing for a disbarment, I have no idea...I'm used to reading about murder trials where the sparks fly from the prosecutor, defense, AND the judge during sentencing. I think the main trial documents I've looked at were for serial killer cases...judges occasionally get rather preachy in those.

 

You are thick, kind sir, THICK. Opinions like this are summary in nature, and it's not the referee's opinion, but the review and disaffirment of the referee's and hearing panels recommendations.

[divad]

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was over whelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

 

I haven't seen anyone doubt his disbarment was undeserved...for my part, I'm trying to understand the nature of what he did since he's being re-tried right here in the court of public opinion. The most compelling thing I've heard in the whole thread is you saying he ruined people's lives...it's difficult for me to draw a line between taking two years to pay off an escrow and ruining someone's life being unfamiliar with settlement escrow or disbarment standards of ethics without filling in sordid stories from articles I've read or movies I've seen.

 

48 Counts! 48 stories, 48 episodes of Law and Order (for you TV types)

[Foolkiller]

Any notion that Doug was stripped of his license with poor or weak evidence is a complete fallacy. There was over whelming evidence (whether in the published opinion or not).

 

I haven't seen anyone doubt his disbarment was undeserved...for my part, I'm trying to understand the nature of what he did since he's being re-tried right here in the court of public opinion. The most compelling thing I've heard in the whole thread is you saying he ruined people's lives...it's difficult for me to draw a line between taking two years to pay off an escrow and ruining someone's life being unfamiliar with settlement escrow or disbarment standards of ethics without filling in sordid stories from articles I've read or movies I've seen.

 

1. There's no "paying off an escrow" -- I'm not sure what your thoughts are, but money that is in escrow IS NOT THE ATTORNEY'S. It's not paying off a debt, it's not your money. IT'S STEALING. Pure and simple. Even if you intend to repay the money, the bottom line is, you can't help yourself to it.

 

2. Here's the deal, Doug represented many personal injury clients. I represent many personal injury clients. I get a settlement in. My clients need that money in many cases. That money helps them pay medical bills (since some can't work as a result), basic life necessities or makes their lives a little more comfortable, or even, at a minimum, gives them closure to a traumatic event. Someone who does this revictimizes the victim. So the very person who was supposed to help them is now hurting them AGAIN.

 

This equates to ruining someone's life. Some of the people were elderly, some didn't know the system well enough to dispute it. There's no doubt about this.

 

So again -- when you get money in, "borrow it", fail to repay it, you've essentially stolen from your client. Pure and simple. The settlement is not for you to help yourself to, but to compensate your client. If you are holding money from a real estate transaction, the money is not yours.

 

It's one of the most serious transgressions and it happened many times. And that's just the ones he was charged with, who knows how many others.

 

I'll tell you what, you hire me, when I finally settle your case (a year or two after you hired me), and you have $10,000 in unpaid medical bills, give me a call and tell me when I gave myself an interest free loan for two years that I may pay you back on one day affected you (and your credit and the rest of your life) how you feel. It's your money, not mine.

[Transplant]

Give up Brian. Apparently he wants a statement from the victims that it was really a bad thing Doug did. Short of that, well what do we know. It might not be THAT bad.

[batman_fan]

At the end of the day it comes down to:

 

"Doug has really cool books I want to buy and if I have to blow this scumbag so I can buy them so be it"

 

The mind of a collector never stops amazing me. People buying from Doug should be happy about these threads, it either forces lower prices in Doug's auctions because of the reduced bidder poll or forces Doug to shill bid them up so they don't go too cheap.

[thirdgreenham]

At the end of the day it comes down to:

 

"Doug has really cool books I want to buy and if I have to blow this scumbag so I can buy them so be it"

 

The mind of a collector never stops amazing me. People buying from Doug should be happy about these threads, it either forces lower prices in Doug's auctions because of the reduced bidder poll or forces Doug to shill bid them up so they don't go too cheap.

 

Ooh, let me in.

[Jeffro.]

I love a parade . . .

I sing and I dance, to the beat of a drum

I love a parade.

 

Judy Garland?

 

Chevy Chase

I figured it was Robert Preston in The Music Man.

 

I have extremely heavy loafers.

 

Tell them to get their fat azzes off the couch and get a job.

[THE_BEYONDER]

There is a direct correlation between swindling client funds & the existence of Pedigree in the 1st place. Why support a company that built itself using stolen money?

[Mark 1]

At the end of the day it comes down to:

 

"Doug has really cool books I want to buy and if I have to blow this scumbag so I can buy them so be it"

 

The mind of a collector never stops amazing me. People buying from Doug should be happy about these threads, it either forces lower prices in Doug's auctions because of the reduced bidder poll or forces Doug to shill bid them up so they don't go too cheap.

 

At the end of the day you have nothing better to do than criticize others from behind a computer screen and that makes you no better than anyone. Think you can beat a dead horse any more? Jeez it's like you just go around and around in circles saying the same over and over that has already been said by others.

 

And you think by coming on this forum and bashing others (including me which your post certainly seems directed towards) makes you any better?

 

Ever hear if you have nothing nice to say...keep your mouth quiet? Or live and let live? I guess these are the types of things your parents forgot to include in your holier than thou training.

 

You follow your moral compass and i'll follow mine. I'll buy my books from whomever I prefer and if that doesn't agree with you...well you can me.

 

Don't put quotes around something that was never said...at least by me.

 

Some of you guys on here act like you are 12...well what should I expect?...this is a comic book forum so it shouldn't be a surprise that some have the maturity level of a child.

 

Have you seen the Pedigree website? Do you see the amount of books he has for sale and how many sales he makes? See the new listings page....He has plenty of customers beyond me and my measly 5 books...plenty. Including the guy who this post and the FF50 is all about. Where is the hostility toward him?

 

I think you have a lot of work ahead of you if you intend on judging everyone who buys or sells from him. Perhaps you need to locate each person who deals with him so you can tell them how wrong they are and how bad it is for the comic book community. Good luck with that...

 

You think this forum can get back to discussing comic books instead of slinging mud? Sure, slinging mud is probably more fun but in the end...it makes you no better than anyone else.

 

I'll expect some more witty banter and bashing...whatever....the beat goes on