dmgwork wrote:This rules went into effect on Jan 1 2010 for websites and on Feb1, 2010 for certain types of Internet testimonials and statements of past performance.

The webpage that contained improper word was from prior to Jan 1, 2010. Once it was pointed out I changed the text to focused which you then made a bid deal of like I was doing something wrong by changing my words when you already knew why the change was made.

4-7.2(c)(6) as you have quoted says a lawyer may not state they are a specialist which although based upon the same word is not the same as specializes. I never(intentionally or to my knowledge) stated I was certified, board certified, a specialist or an expert in NFA Firearms Trusts, because this would have implied that I was board certified in NFA Firearms trust, which I am not.

Regardless, I choose to change the test in case any lawyers or others were confused by the word and though I was board certified.

Again, thanks for pointing this out, its been fixed.

You also pointed out text written by others like on LinkedIn were they use the word specializes in their form and its beyond the users control.

When I receive a response to from the Florida Bar, I will know now to treat that text as I am unable to change it perhaps they will suggest or approve a disclaimer or say that lawyers cannot participate in LinkedIn or list what they do at all. What ever they suggest, I will comply with.

Lets see if I have this correct:

According to you prior to January 1, 2010 you could claim to be an “expertâ€

I have changed the wording as you have pointed out previously, to clarify that I am not claiming to be a specialist or specialize in NFA firearms trust to avoid any problems with violating the Florida Bar rules that went into effect this in January.

dmgwork wrote:I have changed the wording as you have pointed out previously, to clarify that I am not claiming to be a specialist or specialize in NFA firearms trust to avoid any problems with violating the Florida Bar rules that went into effect this in January.

According to you prior to January 1, 2010 you could claim to be an “expertâ€

Like I said Seacoast, when presented with your own damning words, you attempted to weasel out of your statement.

Further, when David addressed your accusations with facts and law and showed us that your little tirade of "GOTCHA's" was entirely baseless . . . . . instead of manning up, apologizing and for the accusations, you continue to whine like a little boy caught telling a "fish tale", exaggerating the facts. In these parts we call that a . . . . we all know what that is called don't we.

I knew you would attack me for not commenting on the Florida bar rules and low and behold, you did just that. The old damned if I do and damned if I don't scenario.

However, Bar advertising rules are quite convoluted and state specific. While I am not comfortable commenting on Florida bar advertising rules, I do feel comfortable about commenting on the general practice of law. I am familiar enough with the common law and general criminal law to know that practicing law without a license is a crime in most all of the states of this great union. You can thank lawyers for that bit of protectionism.

Seacoast, I am very sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but the only person with credibility and moral issues in this thread is yourself.

I am done with you in this thread. Nothing I say, even quoting your own words in which you do the very thing that you denied doing, will change your mind about anything.

Your Mind is made up. You will simply continue to deny, deny and deny until reality bends itself to your vision of how it should work. I know that they tell you that if you say something enough, people will believe that it is the truth, but it don't work that way around here. Not for you, me or anyone else.

It is obvious that you are engaging in a vendetta against David and will never let the truth or facts stand in the way of your perceptions and beliefs.

Maybe you should talk to some of those Islamic Mullahs, they need people like you. They never let facts get in the way of how they think reality should work.

Cheers.

ETA: Cleaned up verbiage and spelling . . . . Seacoast, you get the last word. You have my permission so have at it.

SC-Texas wrote: Further, when David addressed your accusations with facts and law and showed us that your little tirade of "GOTCHA's" was entirely baseless . . . . . instead of manning up, apologizing and for the accusations, you continue to whine like a little boy caught telling a "fish tale", exaggerating the facts. In these parts we call that a . . . . we all know what that is called don't we.

SC-Texas I admire you willingness to lie with impunity. It does not do much for your character, since that was apparently comprised long ago you are really not giving anything up.

On January 5, 2010 I quoted the following from the mighty gun trust lawyer’s website.

seacoastnh wrote:
Your website says:

"At Apple Law Firm PLLC, we specialize in creating NFA trusts across the nation, including South Carolina."

Does this mean you "specialize" in NFA trusts in Florida?

Goldman within 24 hours changed the statement to:

At Apple Law Firm PLLC, we focus on creating NFA trusts across the nation, including South Carolina.

I reference another website on January 6, 2010 where he created the following content:

seacoastnh wrote:

"David M. Goldman is a lawyer that specializes in Gun Trust cases in Florida On this site you will be able to check his practice areas and contact him online."

http://www.killerstartups.com/Site-Revi ... in-florida

The content has since been removed.

Goldman admits that he made the change to his website in response to my pointing out his violations. On January 7, he states:

dmgwork wrote:I appreciate your efforts to let me know where there may be a potential problem and as you have seen I have taken steps to correct it. If you know this, I am not sure why you mock my efforts to comply with the new rules.

This all occurs after January 1, 2010. Hopefully you will be able to wrap your great legal mind around the concept that the changes occurred after the effective date of the change in the rules which is January 1, 2010.


Now lets move on to the 300lb gorilla hiding behind the following question:

According to you prior to January 1, 2010 you could claim to be an “expertâ€

Some of you guys need to get a life. Seriously. I came here to learn and all there is in half of the threads here is bitching and moaning. Not many attorneys would really jump at the opportunity to get educated when it comes to black rifle law. Guys like you are going to run them off. I want a trust for my NFA stuff. I want it done right. To me a $25 Quicken Trust is like liability insurance on a Ferrari for your 16 year old son that you haven't even paid off yet. I'm a little annoyed at all the s--t I have to dig through just to find a few facts.

Elliot308 wrote:Some of you guys need to get a life. Seriously. I came here to learn and all there is in half of the threads here is bitching and moaning. Not many attorneys would really jump at the opportunity to get educated when it comes to black rifle law. Guys like you are going to run them off. I want a trust for my NFA stuff. I want it done right. To me a $25 Quicken Trust is like liability insurance on a Ferrari for your 16 year old son that you haven't even paid off yet. I'm a little annoyed at all the s--t I have to dig through just to find a few facts.

Just running off the Shyster's. Don't take it personal.

My $25 quicken trust is 9-0 for me. Sure I could spend money on a lawyer but I see no reason to pay one to do what I can do myself.