Mason Rountree
-
Content Count
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mason Rountree
-
-
Your questions can raise complicated legal issues. No offense to those on this site, but I would not recommend that you accept speculation on your questions from laymen. My suggestion would be that you contact an elder lawyer/estate planning attorney. My wife handles complex wills/trusts/estates, but I'm not sure she could easily answer your questions without researching it adequately. I know of no other Paulding attorneys who have the expertise to confidently answer your questions. You could try calling Larry Christensen in Marietta (he's a disability attorney) for a referral to an elder attorney. I'm sure he knows someone who can answer your questions. You will likely have to pay for a consultation (roughly $200 - $300) and/or research into your particular issue which could cost substantially more.
Good luck. This area of law is evolving, especially with the increasing costs of health care, etc.
-
4) Forget the conservatives. Over the last 230 years of American history we conservatives have hated Blacks, Jews, Women, Catholics, Blacks some more, the Irish, Mexicans, Chinese, again with the Blacks. . . We conservatives always oppose extending the blessings of the liberty that we want for ourselves. It's what we do. We wake up in the morning & wonder to whom we can deny freedom. But here's the saving grace of us conservatives: once you manage to crowbar some extension of freedom down our unwilling gullets we manage to digest it pretty well. Modern conservatives (most at least) can now be depended upon to defend the very rights that were extended over the screaming, wailing, teeth-gnashing, woe-betiding, doom-saying objections of our political ancestors. And the liberals wish they had the nads to stand for freedom with such tenacity.
Extend full rights to gays & in twenty years we conservatives will not only be pretending we never had any objection. We'll have think tanks busily constructing scenarios to explain how it was all our idea to begin with. Don't forget: last year's troublesome minority is this year's crucial swing voter.
I can't let my friend, TBAR, get away with this one. As a liberal (depending on your definition of same), I can likewise make the following observation:
Forget the liberals. Over the last 100 years of American history, liberals have hated whites, Christians, men, protestants, whites some more, the rich, the middle class, the poor, the Mexicans, Japanese, and the whites some more. It's what we do. We wake up in the morning & wonder to whom we can deny freedom and require submission to governmental authority. When it is politically expedient, we liberals will even extend freedom to the oppressed and, relucantly, accept the blessings of liberty pretty well, like we did in the 1990's.
While that's obviously tongue-n-cheek, I think it is unfair to equate by name, under either scenario, the politics of the 1700's to the politics of the 21st Century. IMO, a conservative today is the equivalent of the liberal of the 1700's. A better analysis is comparing statism vs. anti-statism. For the most part, modern conversatives and liberals accept the strong role of government in our lives. For liberals, it comes down to controlling one's money to promote their concept of an egalitarian society. For conservatives, it comes down to controlling one's behavior to promot their concept of personal responsibility. These are generalizations, of course, but both share the use of government to enforce their concept of morality.
On the other hand, anti-statists believe that, as Seinfeld so aptly put it, we are the masters of our own domain. While both conseratives and liberals share some anti-statism inclinations, it is difficult to reconcile anti-statism with statism. Fascism is arguably equivalent to modern-day liberalism, as both fundamentally believe in the controlling role of government. While it is fair to make the same argument about conservatism, it is my belief that modern conservatives, which I further believe are more equivalent to the liberals of the 1700's, are more philosophically able to defend and promote the concepts of freedom and security than today's liberals.
*Edited to say, sorry for the hijack.
-
I would recommend Larry Christensen in Marietta. Call my office at 770-443-6060, and I can get his number for you.
-
I like this topic, but have struggled to add any meaningful post. I think the error of those who suggest that free will is a fiction is that they confuse pre-disposition with pre-destination. Simply because genetics, environment, experience, etc. affect our thought process and, therefore, our decision-making, does not render the decision coerced. Those who believe in pre-destination, I suppose, accept the view that our actions and decisions are pre-ordained and therefore coerced by some entity or power. Pre-disposition, on the other hand, implies that our decisions are educated or influenced by our past exeperiences and/or genetic tendancies. I don't think that the concept of coercion can be reconciled with an external/internal influence.
I'm a believer in liberty and the freedom to exercise choices, subject to legal constraints. One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mills, wrote in his book, On Liberty, that individuals should pursue freedom without regard to even societal constraints. Conformity, in his mind, undermines freedom. I personally cannot accept as realistic such a pure view of liberty. That may be the point, though. Free will is not static but evolving. At least that would explain why some individuals eschew liberty and free will in favor of collective thought, such that they prefer the government and/or society to make decisions for them.
*edited for clarity and typos
-
Let's not judge. Maybe grandma got run over by a reindeer the night before. "Inexperienced traveler" must be the new code word for moron.
-
It seems that the pastor's mistake was in how he labeled those who want to occupy America. I think Newt Gingrich characterized them best as "the irreconcilable" wing of Islam. The distinction is critical. The debate, I think, is over radical Islam, not those in the mainstream of their religion. If the pastor's comments had been more narrowly tailored to the irreconcilable wing of Islam, we would not being having this conversation, as his opinion is the basis for our current war on terror.
-
I've never heard that before. Thanks for the info. Did you also know that under Georgia law if you are convicted of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, you can never obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon, even if you are pardoned for the crime.
-
From the article linked above:
"Snake handling is based on a passage in the Bible, in the Gospel of Mark, that says a sign of a true believer is the power to 'take up serpents' without being harmed."
Why does this make me think of Ted Haggard?
Does this mean that she went streight to Hades? I'd like to know whether the other church members are glad she's gone since she wasn't a "true believer" or whether they think she's going to heaven.
-
When you say DA, you do mean Dumb A---, right?
Where's the p.com peanut gallery that wouldn't vote for me if I were running for dog catcher? -
I'm with you, Eddie. I voted for this amendment. Frankly, I can't believe we would need an amendment like this one, but it was obviously motivated by the US Supreme Court decision undermining private property rights.
-
Mason,
Just so you know, I voted for you for District Attorney.
Are you planning to commit a crime or something?
My wife would rather me come home drunk than come home as DA. And I would need to renovate my dog house. -
As many of you may have heard, Justice Carol Hunstein is up for re-election in an non-partisan race on November 7th. She has served on the Supreme Court of Georgia (the highest court in the State) since she was appointed by Zell Miller 14 years ago. Prior to her appointment by Governor Miller, she served as a Superior Court Judge in Dekalb County. When I clerked on the Georgia Supreme Court in law school, I knew her and she had a reputation for being a fair, independent, hardworking justice who does not carry an agenda to the Court.
Unfortunately, my party has decided to make this race partisan by suggesting she is a liberal Democrat and her opponent is a conservative Republican. The characterization is false and misleading. Justice Hunstein is supported by many conservative Republicans, including former Attorney General Michael Bowers. She has also been endorsed by multiple Republican District Attorneys, such as Pat Head in Cobb County. Also, Zell Miller is her campaign chair, and the former attorney for the State Republican Party supports her.
Justice Hunstein supports the death penalty and voted with the majority in upholding Georgia's ban on gay marriage. Her voting history reveals she has voted in both Republican and Democratic primaries.
Justice Hunstein also has a compelling family story. She contracted polio when she was two years old, lost her mother when she was eleven years old, and lost a leg to cancer when she was 14 years old. Given the time in which she lived, her father discouraged her from obtaining an education. Nonetheless, when she was in her 20's, she paid her way through school and became an attorney in the mid 1970's.
This remarkable woman deserves to be re-elected to the Georgia Supreme Court.
-
Mason,
I can say that you represented yourself as the Republican representative for the debate. When I suggested we have candidates debate each other you told me you didn’t want this to be about the election. Now you say “No soap box here” and you had no intent in participating; but this is not what you represented to me on two occasions. I feel you were either less than honest with me then; or you are being less than honest with the citizens of Paulding now.
Why do you want a local person like me to talk about national issues? The candidates should be the ones debating the issues. That is a fact and I agree it is a stubborn thing.
Ken
You are 100% wrong, Ken. You and I spoke the night of the election on the bond referendum in the Annex. As you will recall, my two children were with me as the votes were tabulated. I specifically told you who would be participating as representatives. I never ever said I would be debating. Don't misrepresent our conversation. You can verify my involvement with those who I identified to you agreed to participate. You can also verify with Pat.
My participation is a celebration of discussing political issues. I, with my wife and a few others, were organizing the event. You told me you would call me back and I gave you my telephone number. You failed to call me back until over a week later after I had to call the Democratic Party hotline and leave a message.
I want local personalities to discuss national issues because it is different and fun. The idea was to have the inaugural event at the Dallas Theater. You could have identified anyone as a representative participate. Did you call the state party? Did you discuss it with Papillon?
I wish your party the best, as I strongly believe in our system of checks and balances. But your party will continue to lose credibility locally if it is unwilling to be a participate in community events.
-
When asked about a debate, the P.C. Dem Chair proposed a candidate debate but Mason Rountree did not want it to be about the elections. It was obvious that he did not want the public to hear what the republican candidates had to say; he especially didn’t want the public to hear what the Democrat candidates had to say, maybe out of fear they would vote that way. Instead he, a lawyer, trained in debating, wanted to debate a local person about national issues. Mason specifically said he wanted to debate national issues not local issues. Some feel Mason, and others, would most likely advertise that one person's personal views as the views of all Democrat candidates. Democrats don’t goose step that way. We welcome everyone’s views; unlike our local Repubs that want to censor what you hear and what you say.
In my opinion this debate was merely a soap box for Mason Rountree to grandstand from.
Jack:
Glad you're here. Unfortunately, you don't have the facts. I was not participating as a representative of a party, a panelist or a moderator. I am interested in political discourse and wanted to encourage further discussion about national issues. I have no problems with having a candidate be a representative of a party at the debate. However, the idea was to discuss national issues, not local ones. Also, as you know, there are no local democrats running for office, so the suggestion from the PC Dem Chair was specious. I'm interested in local issues as well, having run a campaign previously on such issues.
You guys are the odds on favorites to take the House. Why are you afraid to discuss national issues in an open forum.? No soap box here, as I had no intent to participate. I have P.com for that. As Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stubborn things." I'm glad you have an opinion, but wish that you would share it openly in public rather than behind an anonymous name.
-
The state of the local Democratic Party is sad. In an effort to encourage political discourse, a debate among Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians (with a neutral moderator and panel) over state and national issues was tentatively planned in late October prior to the elections in November. Local Republicans and Libertarians were willing to engage in the debate to be held at the new Theater in Dallas. City and County elected officials were willing to participate. Unfortunately, the local Democratic Party refused to participate. How sad.
You would think that a political party which very well might take control of Congress in January would have accepted an invitation to debate important issues such as Iraq, terrorism, the economy, and ethics in government in such a forum. Instead, the Democrats' response to the invitation was that they would only participate if candidates for local office were the representatives of each party. Of course, there are no local Democratic candidates for office in Paulding County.
I don't understand how the local Democratic Party can expect to convince Paulding Countians to vote Democratic in the upcoming national elections if it is unwilling to engage in political discourse in an open forum.
-
Jimmy Berry sets the standard for criminal defense attorneys. He is courteous, hardworking, intelligent, and very well-spoken. He defends guilty people and innocent people. He is being paid around $60.00 per hour for his work on the Ledford case when he is in court and $45.00 per hour out of court, just like every other indigent defense attorney in the State of Georgia who is paid hourly. The U.S. Constitution requires that the accused have a right to competent counsel (at the taxpayer's expense when the accused is indigent), even if they are guilty as hell.
As for the current DA's Office, the chief assistant will represent the State very well. He has a significant amount of experience and is being assisted by another ADA who spent over 20 years in the DA's Office in Cobb. Both know Jimmy Berry well. It will be fair case, which is what our justice system requires.
-
-
Skillet:
I'm a political junkie like several others on P.com. My second job is practicing law in Paulding County. Our office is located next to the Courthouse where the election results are posted. Folks tend to mill around downtown Dallas as results are posted. I'm opening my office if people want to get out of the heat and get a drink and food (no alcohol, though - those damn lawyers). You're invited to come by if you'll be in town. The turnout for the run-off will be very low (and probably the number of folks who watch the results), but it's still fun to get the results first-hand.
- Mason
-
Politicalmonster is right. I just telephoned Probate Court, and the screen will not be used tonight.
However, the election results will be posted on paper. We'll still be here and have results from all runoffs available via computer. I think we'll know something on the DA race by 9:00 p.m.- Mason
-
We'll open our doors around 7:00 to 7:30 p.m., although results may not come in until 8:30 pm or so.
-Mason
-
P.commers:
We will open our office again as the election results are posted on the Square on August 8th. You and your family are invited to come to our office for drinks and chips, etc. Three weeks ago, results started coming in around 8:15 p.m. I suspect the turnout for the run-off will be very low, but it is nonethelss fun (and rewarding) to watch and calculate results as they are released. In additiion to the Distirct Attorney's race, there are run-offs for Secretary of State (Repub and Dems), Agriculture Commissioner (R only), Lt. Governor's race (Dem only) and 4th Congressional Seat (Cynthia McKommie).
Please call my office if you need directions. I hope to see you on the Square.
Mason and Ana Rountree
Rountree Law Firm
27 Courthouse Square
Dallas, GA
770-443-6060
-
Voucher programs will divert public money to religious organizations no matter what you call them.
I'm wondering when the jack-booted gov't thugs will start knocking on our doors next. Wait. They aleady are --- remember the Patriot Act?
TBAR:
Tax dollars used to encourage faith-based initiatives, IMO, do not violate the First Amendment. In fact, encouraging vouchers will return more money to public education. If, for instance, there is a $5,000 voucher to a family who wishes to send their child to a private school and the average cost to educate that child is $8,000.00 in the public school system, the family's choice to send the child to private school saves the system $3,000.00 so that it does not have to educate the child. This is not some program promoted by jack-booted gov't thugs but rather a responsible and efficient method to offset the failings of the public school system.
-
You can stop by my office at 27 Courthouse Square (next to the Courthouse) and either my paralegal, Pam, or I can notarize for you. Just bring your driver's license.
- Mason Rountree
You can stop by my office at 27 Courthouse Square (next to the Courthouse) and either my paralegal, Pam, or I can notarize for you. Just bring your driver's license.
- Mason Rountree
Thank you so much for the offer, is there a time you are closed for lunch or anything?
Somone should be here. You can call ahead at 770/443-6060 to be sure. If I'm not here, let whoever you talk to know that I told you to come over.
-
You can stop by my office at 27 Courthouse Square (next to the Courthouse) and either my paralegal, Pam, or I can notarize for you. Just bring your driver's license.
- Mason Rountree
Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamp Question
in Internet Cafe
Posted
The issue is usually raised when an elder parent is placed in a nursing home at Medicare's expense. (That doesn't sound like your situation, but you are wise to be cautious regardless.) UnfortunATELY, I can't answer your question. If the feds can ever show that the intent of a conveyance is to defraud Medicare, criminal issues could arise. Again, I would suggest consulting with an elder attorney on this question as well. I'm sorry I can't help more.