Practicing lawyer will answer questions

Agreed. What's that old adage? No good deed goes unpunished...lol

 

Because you seem very sensitive about the opinions of strangers online, and very easily triggered by those opinions.

 

Seconded. We often just post questions into the void, hoping that someone who knows something about the answer might be on that day, having an open offer of help is great.

 

I thought this thread was a good idea, but now it's just turning into a pointless argument.

I say everyone just calls it quits with all this nonsense.

His credentials really don't matter, honestly. All that matters is accurate information. Unless someone wants to contest the information that's already been supplied, then this is just detracting from people actually seeking information.

Like kids... "Now no one gets ice cream!"

 

I dunno, I guess I just get miffed when someone is rude to me for no reason immediately after I offered to do a nice thing. It is what it is.

 

I think the term you're after here is "officer of the court". I think a practicing attorney would have flagged that for clarification.

 

Not everyone who is a part of the judicial process is an officer of the court, although some might refer to themselves as such. For instance, I would not consider the Judge's clerical staff to be officers of the court. That's where I thought the OP was going, which I pointed out in my response.

 

Nonsense. Do you even know any practicing attorneys? Not all of them are working 70 hour weeks. Many have time to raise a family, have hobbies, write books even, all while practicing law.

How do I know that? I'm a practicing patent attorney (as implied by my handle).

Don't believe me? Who cares? You're just some anonymous flamer on the internet.
Of all the people here, or anywhere, you may be the only one who cares what you believe.

 

Heeeeeeeeey!

I can already see this thread has the makings of off topic arguments going on. I would suggest we all calm down, stay on topic and relax before a headache ensues. If there is an ACTUAL question of fakery going on or whatever it will be sorted out eventually by the mod squad. Not doubting the OP at all in this situation just saying in case. BUT at the moment things seem pretty chill overall (or they were). So just a reminder to stay on topic, but also do your own research to in anyway you can. I'd hope people not just take this thread at complete face value.

Ya know? Do your own leg work, call places, ask questions (to people in person), watch court videos or whatever and so on. Once again nothing against @Neidermeyer I got no reason to doubt him personally atm or anything. I'll take his word for what he does in good faith . The problem with these threads though is the anonymity of the internet. It is all to anonymous for folks to lend trust and that's how you get people posting in suspicious/confrontational ways.

I'll keep the thread open for now if we get things can get back on topic, but if this bickering stuff goes on I think it be best to lock it and clear house. So, I'll be watching if things keep descending into the fringes of madness.

 

Officers of the court are defined by law. You don't get to consider someone as one, or not...well you might, but it has no legal validity, it's just someone's personal ruminations. I was telling the OP "officer of the court" would be a more accurate reference. Thanks. The last comment was indeed an admonition, however.

 

I mean... maybe? That's like saying a teacher would fix grammar, syntax, and spelling in his/her replies.

"Great question! By who I assume you meant whom..."

Not everyone appreciates a grammar Nazi or likes being corrected. More of a personality trait and was superfluous information regardless.

Besides... He asked for clarification. It was a vague question.

See? He can justify his reasoning. How about we stop playing the guessing game and base any credibility by the accuracy of any provided legal information.

Edit: Going to unfollow this thread, I'm turning into a "practicing" defense attorney. Again, all that matters is information provided. Good luck everyone.

 

You could say that, in fact you just did. "Not everyone appreciates a grammar Nazi", however I wasn't correcting anyone's grammar. I was telling the OP what to call something to convey a more accurate picture of what he/she is after. I was also pointing out to the "attorney" that it would be more functional to recognize this error and provide the information (so the term "member of the court" doesn't wind up in a manuscript instead of "officer of the court".) Since you used the N word:

don't ASS U ME.

 

To say something is 'defined by law' means that it is defined in statute, or possibly in case law. Officer of the Court is a just a term that has been adopted over time. I'm not saying it might not be codified somewhere, but I haven't seen it. They tend not to stress on that minutae in law school.

Also, I wasn't going to make a correction until after it was clarified. Then I got sidetracked with the thread devolution. Mea Culpa. But yes, for Judge/Bailiff/Clerk/Reporter/Attorneys , Officer of the Court is an appropriate term.

 

I'll chalk this up to a failed attempt at doing a nice thing. I've asked the mods to delete the thread.

 

OKAY!

THAT'S THE END OF THIS THREAD!

DIE THE DEATH!