SEARCH
Loading
The Florida Bar
www.floridabar.org
The Florida Bar News
January 15, 2010
Letters
I would like to report that I was almost a victim of an Internet fraud scheme myself (“Swinders hit lawyers with sophisticated schemes,” December 15 News).
I was contacted online in October about doing collection work for a Hong Kong firm. I refused to do it on contingency basis. I required a $100 payment to do a demand letter. The scammer paid me that amount and I did the letter.
I could not verify the company that owed the money through agencies such as the Florida Secretary of State. The demand letter came back undeliverable as addressed. By this time, the scammer had told me that the debtor company was to make payment directly to me. I never thought that he would get a dime, for the debt was for over $1 million.
The debtor company in question was in Miami. However, I did receive a cashier’s check for $858,000. I immediately informed the scammer. He told me that because I had been a good lawyer, I could take $10,000 out of the total and he would give me instructions to wire the rest.
He wanted me to wire at least some of the money the morning of the Monday after the check was deposited. The check was deposited on December 4. However, because of it being a check over $50,000, Bank of America put a hold on the check. Before I sent the scammer an e-mail as to when I could wire the money to him, I received a call from Bank of America informing me that the check was counterfeit.
I communicated to the scammer that if he wanted to continue having dealings with me, I would need to be paid for my time wasted on the issue of the bad check and also to prove to me how was it that he was not involved in the fraud. I would not accept any checks from him or third parties associated with him.
I never heard from him again.
Luis Basagoitia
Orlando
Gay Adoption
I beseech you: Please, no more letters regarding gay adoption.
I am confident other Bar members join me in saying we are sick and tired of the respective sides’ righteous indignation, moral outrage, and dueling biblical references.
Alternatively, please set a future date that such letters will no longer be published. After all, both final argument at trial and appellate oral argument are limited in time and scope.
Furthermore, does either side really believe it can convince the other of the other’s error of its ways?
Claudos G. Spears
Young Harris, GA
______________________
In his December 15 letter, Thomas F. Haskins, Jr., argues that the provisions in Leviticus I quoted in my November 15 letter should somehow be read as applicable only to the ancient Jews, but that since homosexuality is also condemned in “the age of grace,” i.e., the New Testament, therefore, “it is not hypocritical to rely on the Bible’s proscriptions of homosexuality.”
First, Mr. Haskins ignores the fact that there is nothing anywhere in either testament of the Bible that states that for believers the various Old Testament pronouncements cited in my original letter are no longer applicable, and indeed religious people like Mr. Metcalfe regularly cite selected portions of the Old Testament when it suits their purposes while ignoring the parts they don’t agree with. But beyond that, it is just as hypocritical to rely on selected portions of the New Testament without acknowledging other passages in the New Testament that all decent people must condemn as immoral.
Take the subject of slavery. Slavery is repeatedly condoned and approved not only in numerous passages in the Old Testament, but also in many passages of the New Testament. See, e.g., Ephesians 6:5-9 (“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling”); Colossians 3:22-25 (“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything”); 1 Timothy 6:1-5 (“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor”); Titus 2:9-10,15 (“Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity”) 1 Peter 2:15-20 (“Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference”), and there isn't a single passage anywhere in either testament of the Bible that condemns the practice of slavery.
Anyone has the right to oppose homosexuality in general and gay adoption in particular, but please, let’s leave the Bible out of it. As the noted biblical scholar Ira Gershwin has written: “The things that you’re liable to read in the Bible, it ain’t necessarily so.”
Finally, if Mr. Haskins objects to homosexuality because of its “deleterious health impacts,” then I assume he opposes only male homosexuality and that he must be a supporter of lesbianism, which, after all, is clearly safer, from a health perspective, than heterosexual sex.
James A. Altman
Orlando
Representing Children
While I applaud the thoughtful work of the Legal Needs of Children Committee and its effort to develop solutions to assist abused and neglected children with the various legal issues they face in the juvenile dependency system, I don’t believe their proposed legislation provides the most efficient and effective way in which to make these changes.
Having served as a volunteer attorney guardian ad litem for over 100 children since 1986, I believe my being an attorney GAL has clearly benefited those children and allowed me to address legal issues on their behalf regarding education, immigration, mental health, securing needed services, and expediting permanency.
So I agree dependent children do benefit from having attorneys, but my experience tells me the most appropriate cost-effective model of representation is attorneys protecting their best interest through the GAL Program.
Consider:
• Most dependent children are 10 years old or younger. They inherently lack the capacity to direct the work of an attorney appointed to represent them as a client. If a child’s attorney finds himself in that position, wouldn’t that representation effectively end up duplicating the GAL’s as best interest or substituted judgment?
• Children should have a voice in these judicial proceedings. As GAL, I am legally obligated to inform the court of the child’s wishes, a requirement that’s worked well since the statute was enacted. And, with children of sufficient age, understanding, or experience, I feel ethically obligated to request an attorney for that child when my recommendation differs from that child’s wishes.
• Finding permanent homes for the children as quickly as possible is the juvenile court’s goal. It seems adding more attorneys to a case where there are often at least four attorneys already representing parties is likely to result in significant delays and that would be the antithesis of the state’s goal for dependent children.
• Given Florida’s current economy, where will we find funds for a new multi-million dollar agency to do this work? With the courts and the GAL program already underfunded, do we really need another unfunded mandate from the Legislature?
Robert L. Dietz
Orlando
Submit a Letter to the Editor
[Revised: 02-28-2012]
© 2005 The Florida Bar | Disclaimer | Top of page | 