Sunday, August 30, 2009

Can We Stop Taking Legal Advice From This Guy Now?

I'm going to qualify this by saying I'm NOT a lawyer, but I don't think Wikipedia has this wrong.
So with the heavy qualification of, "I don't believe everything I read on the internet," let's go to the record:
Coram Non Judice - "The information that I have received is that the Utah Bar has approved noted Denton attorney Natalie Malonis' application to appear Pro Hoc Vice in the case of Jessop v. Jessop, and that Carolynn's local attorney has filed a motion and order in the case sponsoring Malonis' appearance. This may correspond with the upcoming hearing on the matter in Judge Walther's court in Schleicher County, Texas that is currently scheduled for September 28th.

I wonder if Grandpa Bile Medvecky's post on Pro Hac Vice [sic]* gave Malonis the idea to appear for Carolyn in the Utah court? Thanks, Bill, that was a good idea..."
Except, for this interesting tid bit from the "Wiktionary: "pro hoc vice" is a common MISSPELLING of "pro hac vice."

Bill Medvecky appears to be RIGHT
.

Whoever, or Whatever TxBluesMan is, he/she is not right.

Feel free to advise your Modern Pharisee. I could have it wrong, I'm not a lawyer. But if I'm right, whatever Blues is, is at best, a bad lawyer.

* Means "spelling in context," meaning the author is quoting as spelled by the one he quotes and generally meant to question the spelling found "in context." To note something [sic] is to suggest one of two things, that there is an alternative and legitimate spelling, or that the author quoting another author (for it must be spelled) is saying the quoted author is probably WRONG in their spelling choice. From this flows the common misunderstanding (just as in the hac/hoc controversy) that it means "spelling in-correct." Functionally, after examination, this is usually what is being claimed but not strictly what [sic] means, as it's true meaning is more polite.


Sphere: Related Content

11 comments:

Toes said...

I think I will form an ad hac committee to look into this.

:-)

The Pharisee said...

Oh, I like that.

Toes said...

In Hac Signo Vinces!

Vulture said...

You have to consider the source. Old Caput Penitus Culus has never been wrong (in his own mind).

I have no idea who that ambulance chaser is...but I do know that he's a complete jerk who's impervious to rational thought.

Rebeckah said...

You are free to take advice from whomever you wish. I trust Blues and Ron because their track record is pretty solid. Not 100%, but then no one's could be in this arena. And the observation that it is a misspelling is entirely accurate in this instance. A judge would have understood it, but they would also laugh to themselves at someone who used that spelling. Different professions have different standards, so just because someone else might find "hac" and acceptable substitution fot "hoc" it doesn't mean it holds true in the legal profession. But don't take my word for it, ask a few random judges and lawyers what their reaction would be to a document with that on it. Besides, it shows Medvecky's lack of reading skills that he can't correctly transfer one three letter word from a legal brief into his blog. Sorry, Blues and Ron win out over Bile Medvecky and you every day of the week. You two rage and attack but you really remind me of my 6 pound yorkshire terrier growling at passing cars -- totally outmatched.

The Pharisee said...

Blues is apparently wrong on this. The only Dallas area attorney I can find that agrees with Blues on the Hac/Hoc controversy, is this "Hoc" ambulance chaser.

Charles Foster Malloy.

Heck, for all I know it is Blues. I do know they're about the only two attorneys (assuming Blues is a bad attorney) in Dallas that I could find using the latin "hoc" instead of "hac."

Xorphshire said...

Whoa there.

Who's who's raging and attacking who? And be careful about supposing who's "outmatched."

Vulture said...

You two rage and attack but you really remind me of my 6 pound yorkshire terrier growling at passing cars -- totally outmatched.

I'll put my two Yorkies (net weight: 11 lbs) against the Caput a Palus any day! He's nothing but a blow-hard and a coward.

The Pharisee said...

Blues probably thinks it's "Pro HOC Vice" because he has heard it pronounced, in court, or somewhere.

The pronunciation is: "proh hock vee-chay," so he's HEARD "HOCK" and thinks that because "hoc" sounds like the spelling, "hoc" IS the correct spelling.

Only, it's Latin folks, and the pronunciation rules are different.

RINKEVICHJM said...

pro (PREP ABL) hac (PRON/DEM 3 1 ABL S F) vice (N 3 3 LOC/DAT/ABL S F)
whereas hoc (PRON/DEM 3 1 NOM/ABL/ACC S M/N(ABL only)) which does not match the gender of 'vice', the noun, which it is modifying ('vice' is feminine, not masculine or neuter).
Thus "In Hoc Signo Vinces" (by this sign thou wilt conquer) is correct (Signo is neuter)
Be glad Latin isn't Lithuanian (with 7-10 cases and more participles than any other IE language).

The Pharisee said...

It only took all of September, October and November, (and one week into December) but someone on the "other side" woke up and realized.

I'm right.

Bill is right.

Blues is a MORON.

Thanks to Rebeckah.

"Actually, it’s supposed to be written 'hac' but pronounced (although HOW anyone knows how to pronounce a dead language is beyond me) 'hoc'. Technically Hugh wasn’t wrong. Not that I’m defending the man, but I’m big on facts." :D

(Rebeckah said this on December 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM)

I did take Latin in high school. There is a Catholic Church and they do a lot of things in Latin, (still) and there's this thing called the "Vulgate," which is all in Latin.

Take that, LambChop.