I threw up a little in my mouth just like I do when someone answers "I sometimes work too hard" to "What is your greatest weakness?" in a job interview.

That's a good question. I suppose it's possible that the testimonial refers to Jerry's performance when he was previously employed by an attorney. (And how could you find a better supervisor than Roni Deutch?)

To obtain a conviction for UPL, you might need at least one concrete unsupervised transaction. However, the Florida Bar also has in its quiver the remedy of injunction. It seems to me that his website alone might be sufficient to support enjoining him from engaging in this "enterprise" -- even if he has no actual victims clients.

Would this guy have to work under the supervision of an attorney in California?

Do you think Jerry will assist me to "fill in the blanks"?



PS. TFB == The Fogbow == The Florida Bar (seen in URL above)

What's a good bullshit answer for that question?

My real answer is "Fuck you, I don't work for places that give a Scientology personality test."

My new favorite answer to that crap: "That's a clown question, bro. "

You take a question like this, which is heavily negative, and turn it into a positive. So if you're asked about a negative trait, mention how you deal with it so it doesn't affect your work.

When asked this at my last interview, I mentioned that I have a problem with tunnel vision and I get too focused on only one solution to a problem. Since I know this is an issue with me, I don't hesitate to bounce ideas off coworkers, which helps to not only identify other avenues of approach, but in doing so I've discovered that by simply talking about the problem out loud I often times see solutions I never considered before.

I got the job.

Unless this was a rhetorical question, in which case Bluebook's answer above will suffice.

My greatest weakness is a recurrent urge to answer loaded questions sarcastically. However, that's offset by my greatest strength, which is self-control.

This guy claims to be a member of Mensa? We saw some proof of Aristotle the Hun's claim, albeit in the form of a reproof from national headquarters for misrepresenting his local position as a national position, but is there any proof that Collette ever qualified? I think he is the sort of person who would claim anything that he thinks makes his lowly, unsuccessful self appear exalted.

Frankly, the Mensa test is not that hard and does not prove intelligence that far above the norm. I think someone of average intelligence could probably be trained to pass it. Some friends and I did the home version and all passed. We also asked the questions from it to the father of the household we were at, and despite the fact that he was drunk, he stunned us all by getting every question right without any delay or even using paper. Of course, he would probably have passed even the more rigorous tests of the more selective high IQ dicksizing groups.

I don't think people with success in real life actually feel compelled to seek approval from people based on a natural accident of being able to score high on a standardized test. Good. So you have a good natural ability. Have you done anything with it? If so, what?

Is there a society for people with a particularly strong pectoral muscle? I don't think so. Why? Because having a particularly large pectoral muscle is irrelevant to anything important. However, people do win Olympic medals in javelin throwing, something where the pectoral muscle is important.

Mensa is, basically, a group of wankers. It is no surprise that a wanker like Collette would boast of membership. It would be doubly pathetic if he did not qualify, because that would mean he is incapable of even qualifying to be a wanker.

You know, that sentence right there just inspired a bunch of internet porn watchers to reach for the stars.

YES, YOU TOO COULD QUALIFY!!

The Drip has up a new press release on the case. It says Collette offered to limit discovery to "just the original birth records". The President's attorneys declined - color me surprised.

Despite their delusions to the contrary, Dummett, Kerchner, Purpura, Collette and Taitz are not the gatekeepers for the eligibility of anybody for anything.

Amazing. Collete was willing to give up his rights to stuff he had no rights to anyway. Whataguy!

In exchange for the President giving him access to records that he has no actual ability to authorize access to, as original records held by the State of Hawaii.

Also, for access to microfiche that may not exist or may not have ever existed.

I'd say this amounts to an indirect confirmation that there is some really hinky stuff in Obama's birth records.

Maybe Gifted Negotiator Jerry should throw in a 50% interest in his Publisher's Clearing House winnings as an added incentive.

Docket update. All filings by plaintiff Collette.

As a pro se plaintiff, Collette is asking for attorney's fees? Who is responsible for enforcing UPL in Florida? His website advertising should be enough for an investigation.

The question of whether attorneys representing themselves can collect attorney fee awards is a complicated question depending upon the jurisdiction and the legal basis for requesting award of fees. In some cases (especially those where attorneys defend themselves against frivolous claims or where the entitlement to fees is based in contract or a specific fee-shifting statute) the answer is sometimes "Yes". But more generally (especially where the pro se attorney initiates the suit) the answer is "No."

But a paralegal? Sorry, Jerry, I don't theenk so. My advice is not to spend that fee award quite yet.

Yoo hoo, Solicitor Jerry! You might want to check out this case: Kay v. Ehrler, 499 US 432 (1991). Addressing the underlying public policy authorizing fee awards in a civil-rights/ballot-challenge case, the U.S. Supreme Court held:


Yeah, I know, I know, the case doesn't apply because Kay was a licensed Florida attorney whereas Jerry is the world's most brilliant paralegal. Oh well.

But what does an outshineing paralegal have for other choices when his is not a meritious claim

There is generally a test of some sort.

Circuits are split on this, but one example is where a pro se attorney files a FOIA suit and prevails. In addition to the ordinary fee-shifting test, jurisdictions that allow a pro se attorney to collect fees generally require that the attorney have been acting in the public interest and that the attorney forewent other paying employment.

I believe the majority rule in FOIA cases, though, is that fees are not available to the pro se litigant, attorney or otherwise.

Choices? I think he's just "RSOL".*
______
* Really Shit-Outta-Luck.