US attorney: Difference between revisions

Readers may detect some animus — a peculiar aversion — on [[Amwell J]]’s part to attorney’s of a North American disposition, but really he is quite fond of them, one on one. Individually [[US attorney]]s are uncommonly good, decent people, and as long as you don’t get them on the subject of US Regulation or market practice, perfectly agreeable company, especially after a few snifters. It is only when you take them as collective that the prospect palls.

For they — and the institutions that have shaped them and which they comprise — have come up with some of the most confounded gouts of articulated of nonsense ever to don a pair of stilts.

 

Things like:

Now we Brits are hardly ones to throw stones — even we from the former colonies of the antipodes — but [[US attorney]]s tend to suppose everyone knows about their jurisdiction, cares about it, is in awe of it, and will have no objection to submitting to it. Every now and then you come across a [[counterparty]] in some far-flung backwater (continental {{tag|Europe}}, for example) who expresses bafflement or even affrontery at the thought of subjugating itself to the law of the [[:Category:US Securities Regulation|Americans]]. That this might happen takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise. Then again, the fact it takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise, takes everyone ''else'' by surprise. It is a fruitless task trying to get the bottom of who is most justifiably surprised but, for the record, it’s us.