The Post and Email

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:32 pm

Quote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
In my case it's "Sterngard Friegen, Attorney for We the People."

Ahem! Mr. Friegen. PLEASE do not purloin the title that rightly belongs to our own Lady Liberty. [-X

Only one person could possibly be the "Attorney for We the People": the one, the only Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:37 pm

June bug wrote:

Quote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
In my case it's "Sterngard Friegen, Attorney for We the People."

Ahem! Mr. Friegen. PLEASE do not purloin the title that rightly belongs to our own Lady Liberty. [-X

Only one person could possibly be the "Attorney for We the People": the one, the only Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

I have one client who I know for at least 30 years (and probably prior) has used "Esq."

I have another who uses it only in correspondence to a certain defense attorney, as my client knows it is a pet peeve of the other attorney and does it just cuz...he knows it pisses him off. :lol:

I know very, very few who use it, and very few who even use J.D.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

Quote:

Ahem! Mr. Friegen. PLEASE do not purloin the title that rightly belongs to our own Lady Liberty. [-X

Only one person could possibly be the "Attorney for We the People": the one, the only Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Sterngard is a USURPER!! :shock:

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:49 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

June bug wrote:

Quote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
In my case it's "Sterngard Friegen, Attorney for We the People."

Ahem! Mr. Friegen. PLEASE do not purloin the title that rightly belongs to our own Lady Liberty. [-X

Only one person could possibly be the "Attorney for We the People": the one, the only Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Awww, don't feel bad. I iz savin' you some -xx

for the Friday/Monday chapters of "ChO Rly and the 'Chustice Factory".

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:51 pm

This all pretty much confirms my prior belief that "esquire" has rather more to do with horses and knights than it does with attorneys.
[center]http://www.leonthas.com/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=254[/center]

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:58 pm

Charleton Heston's real name was John Charlton Carter. Heston was the NRA spokesman, and big with the rightwing. I believe Joey Farah was a fan too.

I don't think Joey is John Charlton. But, I wonder if "John Charlton" is a pseudonym.

```````````````````````````````

Lola_Getz · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:26 am

TollandRCR wrote:

This all pretty much confirms my prior belief that "esquire" has rather more to do with horses and knights than it does with attorneys.
[center]http://www.leonthas.com/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=254[/center]

Awww, ain't it great when the entire family can enjoy the same hobby, plus everyone gets a pony? :lol:

In UK law firms, as nearly as I could tell when I still worked for one, "Esquire" is used by solicitors only, to differentiate them from barristers. I never actually asked anyone about it, but I did notice over the years that barristers didn't seem to use the term, while solicitors did. I haven't worked in the legal world since the 90s and don't know if anyone bothers with the "Esq." thang anymore.

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:18 pm

mari wrote:

I have noticed a strong correlation between the use of Esquire and the tendency to be pedantic.

I wonder when that would come up. That means the exact equivalent in Dutch is doctorandus. Even people (including women, yes) who are 80 and have never entered a university building for 55 years, will still call themselves "doctorandus" and put Drs in their address. Well, most of them, since both Doctors and the public at large think it is pedantic. And a standing comedian calling himself "Doctorandus P" did not help either. Particularly politicians try to avoid it, but of course, since Drs is an offical title, they can get unpleasant surprizes sometimes. Imagine someone who everybody knows as Robbie Janssen appearing on ballot papers as Drs Robertus Janssen.

Even as a Belgian, you sometimes cannot escape this pedantry. Having subscriptions to two Dutch high-brow publications, I always hated it when they addressed me as Drs P.A.N. Pieniezny. Until I dared to object and got a letter back addressing me as "Mr. P.A.N. Pieniezny, Esq.". :evil:

shrek · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:29 pm

Lola_Getz wrote:

TollandRCR wrote:

In UK law firms, as nearly as I could tell when I still worked for one, "Esquire" is used by solicitors only, to differentiate them from barristers. I never actually asked anyone about it, but I did notice over the years that barristers didn't seem to use the term, while solicitors did. I haven't worked in the legal world since the 90s and don't know if anyone bothers with the "Esq." thang anymore.

When I were 'lad (ie solicitor*) I don't ever remember being referred to as an Esq. far less designing myself as such.

Since becoming an Advocate** I frequently get mail adressed to me as Esq.

Accordin' to Wiki original usage for legal peeps was for barristers, but not solicitors.

The tabloid media observes only two designations applicable to lawyers "Top" or "Disgraced", the latter usually following the former after sufficient elapse of time

*Admittedly a Scottish one.
** The Scottish equivalent of a Barrister

Lola_Getz · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:44 pm

shrek wrote:

Accordin' to Wiki original usage for legal peeps was for barristers, but not solicitors.

The tabloid media observes only two designations applicable to lawyers "Top" or "Disgraced", the latter usually following the former after sufficient elapse of time

See there, Shrek, I always learn new stuff here! I was always curious about the "Esquire" thing when I started working in London (at Lovells, who maybe you've heard of) but, as a Yank, could never bring myself to ask because I thought I might be laughed at for not knowing. I tried to figure it out on my own, and then decided I didn't care one way or the other because it seemed that the only people who used it were the ones I considered to be pompous asses anyway.

shrek · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:54 pm

Lola_Getz wrote:

See there, Shrek, I always learn new stuff here! I was always curious about the "Esquire" thing when I started working in London (at Lovells, who maybe you've heard of) but, as a Yank, could never bring myself to ask because I thought I might be laughed at for not knowing. I tried to figure it out on my own, and then decided I didn't care one way or the other because it seemed that the only people who used it were the ones I considered to be pompous asses anyway.

'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment'

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:27 pm

shrek wrote:

Lola_Getz wrote:

See there, Shrek, I always learn new stuff here! I was always curious about the "Esquire" thing when I started working in London (at Lovells, who maybe you've heard of) but, as a Yank, could never bring myself to ask because I thought I might be laughed at for not knowing. I tried to figure it out on my own, and then decided I didn't care one way or the other because it seemed that the only people who used it were the ones I considered to be pompous asses anyway.

'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment'

My favourite scheming Prime Minister.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:48 am

John Charlton's latest piece of idiocy.

Kenyan Ambassador refuses to acknowledge Obama Sr.’s paternity
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... paternity/

A 'concerned Italian citizen' writes to the the Kenyan ambassador in Rome asking if the Kenyan Government has any documentation confirming that Obama Sr. is President Obama's father and gets no reply. Conclusion: this is evidence that :

Quote:

...that the Kenyan Government has some sort of agreement with the Obama campaign to bolster his claims regarding his birth and parentage.

Wrong! - It's evidence that the ambassador has better things to do than waste her time on this crap!

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

No wonder Hawaii can't respond. They are getting flooded with this BS. :lol:

Quote:

Bjorn Rafto
I am in the “process” shall we say to inspect the front and back of my son’s original birthing document created and certified by Tripler Army Medical Center and obtain a certified copy of same all pursuant to 338-18(b)4. I initially talked to “Onaka” who stated to me “we don’t do that anymore” though he acknowledged the original document would have been certified by a TAMC administrator, sent to the state and then would be held to this day in an archive. So I wrote a letter to Onaka to get the denial in writing – for obvious reasons – mailed it in Hawai’i in August and got no response.

So last week I enclosed a copy of the Onaka letter with a cover letter to F$kina and sent it USPS CRR with a request for a ten (10) business day response from the date of service.

I keep you all posted.

Bjorn

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... /#comments

emphasis added

BareFanBob · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:25 pm

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, but I'm just called Geek ( which, by the way, is better than Nerd).

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:59 pm

The guy who runs the "Post & Email" site is about as clueless as All Purpose Private Attorney General (and shampoo maker) Paul Mitchell. Has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same place at the same time? I think Charlton may be Mitchell.

editorkorir · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

The guy who runs the "Post & Email" site is about as clueless as All Purpose Private Attorney General (and shampoo maker) Paul Mitchell. Has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same place at the same time? I think Charlton may be Mitchell.

I always thought Mitchell looked like the older, coked out brother of pitchman Bill Mays

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:36 pm

editorkorir wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

The guy who runs the "Post & Email" site is about as clueless as All Purpose Private Attorney General (and shampoo maker) Paul Mitchell. Has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same place at the same time? I think Charlton may be Mitchell.

I always thought Mitchell looked like the older, coked out brother of pitchman Bill Mays

That's them!

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

Quote:

Editorial: Oct. 4, 2009 —Okubo has really got herself in a pickle now
October 4, 2009 by John Charlton

STATEMENTS BY COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR OF HI DOH, FALSE, MISLEADING & BIZARRE
by John Charlton

In the last 24 hours the news coming out of the Director’s office at the Hawaiian Department of Health is strange indeed.

First Janice Okubo can’t spell the name Dunham correctly, on 2 different occasions (does her conscience bother her about this?); second she cannot give a straight answer to a question, yes or no; third she denies requests which are lawfully made for information, and grants others which are not made. (See link to Leo Donofrio’s blog below)

Second, according to national standards of terminology in use for vital record keeping, Dr. Fukino’s statement in July, which refers to vital records maintained on file, indicates that these were never accepted by the Registrar of Vital Records as proven; and that therefore some information is not even prima facie evidence. (See link to TerriK’s blog below)

more here http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... ickle-now/

bogus info · **Joined:** Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 pm **Posts:** 5484

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... le-cooked/

Quote:

Editorial: Oct. 5, 2009 — Now Obama’s Goose is double-cooked
October 4, 2009 by John Charlton

A SYNTHESIS OF WHAT IS KNOWN INDICATES THAT OBAMA CANNOT PROVE HIS BIRTH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM
by John Charlton

Lola_Getz · **Posted:** Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:14 am

bogus info wrote:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/editorial-oct-5-2009-%e2%80%94-now-obamas-goose-is-double-cooked/

Quote:

Editorial: Oct. 5, 2009 — Now Obama’s Goose is double-cooked
October 4, 2009 by John Charlton

A SYNTHESIS OF WHAT IS KNOWN INDICATES THAT OBAMA CANNOT PROVE HIS BIRTH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM
by John Charlton

OMG, so he really is from Krypton!

cbreitel · **Posted:** Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:26 am

Is anyone following this accepted/filed/received stupidity? The birthers seem very frenzied and excited about that for reasons beyond my comprehension. I am a lawyer and did not know there was a legally significant difference between these words. Maybe if I had gone to the University of Birfistoon College of Law I would understand such things, along with other advanced legal concepts like "sown affidavits" and "the nonexistence of the political question doctrine."

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

cbreitel wrote:

Is anyone following this accepted/filed/received stupidity? The birthers seem very frenzied and excited about that for reasons beyond my comprehension. I am a lawyer and did not know there was a legally significant difference between these words. Maybe if I had gone to the University of Birfistoon College of Law I would understand such things, along with other advanced legal concepts like "sown affidavits" and "the nonexistence of the political question doctrine."

I've not followed it as closely as some other things birther, but from what I can gather from the blathering, this is my understanding of the theory about filed/accepted/recieved.

They start with the assumption that Fukino's and Okubo's statements somehow PROVE Obama's BC has been AMENDED (don't ask me how cuz I have no idea how they leap to that conclusion based on the statements).

Therefore, according to their theory, rather than "filed" it should say "accepted" since there would have to have been information gathered and approved on whatever the amendment is. Since his says "filed" when it's "obviously" been amended, it is a fake, created out of whole cloth, supposedly.

That's kind of the down and dirty of the best i can grasp what they are claiming regarding the wording. It could be completely wrong because it's hard to follow, but that's what I got out of it.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:29 am

So let me get this straight, in order to protect Stanley Anne's honor they put "white" on the birth certificate so that NO ONE WOULD KNOW SHE HAD AN INTERRACIAL CHILD! What was the next step of this "cunning plan" ? Painting baby Barack white for the rest of his life? ](*,)

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

The Post and Email

Who is online