The Lonely Victims

Some could find this amusing, yet what is the responsibility of legal representation? A lawyer is hired in the first place to ensure there is no false claims or failure of legal terminology within the context filed with the Patent Office. The Claimant would not need legal representation if he had such training in his own right. The Insert, as written, presented uncertainty as to who was to remove the false claim, with the implied expectation that the clause would be removed before filing. The filing with the clause constituted false representation on the part of the Author, and failure of representation by the final Preparer of the Document (a real indicator that this lawyer distorted the Applicant’s claim, and then compounded the defect by filing the Claim with the false assertion; one never made by the Applicant). I would mention that legal representation cannot bind a Client to a legally binding assertion without the Consent of the Client (this means the lawyer was legally bound to point out the error to the Client before filing). It is not as funny as it sounds, and the conduct of the lawyer should be up for Review at the instigation of the Patent Office.

Most Economists will think this Post applies to me, more than it attacks the position of Most. Oh Well, We must just struggle along anyhow. This pertains to the Above, because the World is filled with Crap, and a vetting system truly need be designed. The chevalier use of Papers little understood, and most often misinterpreted, does cause great lack of Judgement. The humor is that Economists refuse to utilize their great Math ability to explore the failings of economic Papers. Only one in three Papers are likely to be free of Error, and only one in eight is likely to contain any original material. Understand that is my own evaluation, not based on anything except my own non-mathematical experience. This Reservoir is adversely compounded by several separate Schools of Thought, All functionally found Wanting by at least one other School. I would advise the Reader just to listen to Me, as I am full of Bull, but do not have any other axe to grind (meaning I can assert innocense in the distortions I propagate).

John Quiggin provides Insight into the entire discussion today (I had previously planned on writing upon the European bank rates, but ran across these articles) by implying that most Economists know what models work, and they are rather simple in design. Complexity is introduced only to get greater details about the Production or Market process. I will not intrude, and suggest there is any injection of confusion, so that Economists can ask for a Raise. The path to the Truth is like a City Street map, and the Reader should stick to the main routes. lgl