Attn: JMS are you Blaming Reagan for the mentaly ill being
Jms at B5
>suggest all Lawyers and Geraldo at the top of the list.
I got no problem with that....
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Dwight Williams
>
> >So if you want to send someone to veggie hell I
> >suggest all Lawyers and Geraldo at the top of the list.
>
> I got no problem with that....
Just make allowances for the lawyers who watch your back. Not to mention
the ones who are fans. Yes, I know of one or three such beings...
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ImRastro
>>suggest all Lawyers and Geraldo at the top of the list.
>
>I got no problem with that....
>
>
>
Hey! All lawyers? Come on, lots of lawyers spend their life (after accruing
student loans that reach to six figures) fighting for the poor and other
disinfranchised sections of society. I truely do not know of many other
professions that can make that claim. Name any social advancement in the last
100 years and I gaurentee there is a lawyer in the midst of it, making little
or no money off the issue, yet working himself into the ground. Sorry to be so
touchy, but as one of those lawyers I get a tad bent at this sort of
accusation. Shakespear said "kill all the lawyers." Anyone know the actual
context of that oft repeated quote? It supports my position.
OK, rant over,
Amy
Daniel W. Johnson
ImRastro <imra...@aol.com> wrote:
> Shakespear said "kill all the lawyers." Anyone know the actual
> context of that oft repeated quote? It supports my position.
It was from a character who wanted to make literacy a capital offense.
Is that what you mean?
--
Daniel W. Johnson
pano...@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
John W. Kennedy
>
> >>So if you want to send someone to veggie hell I
> >>suggest all Lawyers and Geraldo at the top of the list.
> >
> >I got no problem with that....
> >
> >
> > jms
> >
>
> Hey! All lawyers? Come on, lots of lawyers spend their life (after accruing
> student loans that reach to six figures) fighting for the poor and other
> disinfranchised sections of society. I truely do not know of many other
> professions that can make that claim. Name any social advancement in the last
> 100 years and I gaurentee there is a lawyer in the midst of it, making little
> or no money off the issue, yet working himself into the ground. Sorry to be so
> touchy, but as one of those lawyers I get a tad bent at this sort of
> accusation.
Easy to say when you haven't personally been the victim of barratry.
When you haven't been told: "The judge is his best friend; you'll have
to settle on his terms." When you haven't seen a close friend ruined,
his reputation destroyed, and his life's work made a laughingstock, in a
near reenactment of 1 Kings 21. When the newspapers print the other
guy's story while you're under a gag order.
I don't just want to murder the bastard. I want to run him feet-first
through a deli slicer.
And the way the rest of the local Bar feels about this guy? Same
reaction from every damn one: "He's one of those old-fashioned Newark
lawyers -- nudge-nudge, wink-wink."
Not to mention the fact that the easiest way to get out of jury duty (in
a one-day/one-trial jurisdiction) is to speak in complete sentences and
make nice distinctions.
Or that, until very recently, it was a criminal offense in New Jersey to
say publicly (and truthfully) that you had won a malpractice suit
against a lawyer.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't get all hopped up at the possibility
of finding a pearl in this particular dunghill.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
WWS
I can sympathize with that! Admitted, there are a few like IMRastro that
are honest and stick to their ideals - but I must say, face to face, I've
never met one that didn't see shaking down everyone he runs into 24 hours
a day as his primary line of business. One example springs to mind, a
local divorce lawyer - I know his office manager well. She says he wins
most of his cases, but she would never ever send anyone she knew to him,
since he brags to her how his primary tactic is to bleed both sides dry
financially, and then when they're both broke they're usually willing
to come to some kind of settlement without much trouble. He brings in
about 500K a year for doing that, get's nice write-ups in the paper for
his work with the bar association. His ex-partner (to his credit) had a
few more scruples than #1 did, and consequently he never found the business
quite as lucrative. So he got #1 to finance a political campaign and he's
now the sitting district judge.
If someone's got a problem with either one of them, best thing to do is
catch the next bus out of town.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Von Bruno
Geraldo at the top of the list.>>
I always find it amusing that people love to disparage lawyers ... that is
until they need one of course.
~Von Bruno~
Kurtz
"Von Bruno" <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000311162816...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
Then they heap praise on them? Yeah.
Von Bruno
lawyer in the midst of it, making little
or no money off the issue, yet working himself into the ground.>>
Some time back "60 Minutes" did a story skewering those "evil ambulance
chasing" lawyers who sought to turn victims into clients after tragites but
failed to properly focus upon those "evil" corporate entities attempting to
take advantage of people in shock to sign documents that would seriously
undermine, and work against, the victims best interest.
One of the safety valves incorporated into our social fabric is the ability of
its citizens to seek justice, when they feel they have been wronged, within a
legal system rather than turning to violence. It may be far from perfect,
however, it is the best that humanity has been able to create to date, and
lawyers, like Al Gore, are there to "fight for you" and your interests.
~Von Bruno~
John W. Kennedy
>
> ImRastro <imra...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Shakespear said "kill all the lawyers." Anyone know the actual
> > context of that oft repeated quote? It supports my position.
>
> It was from a character who wanted to make literacy a capital offense.
> Is that what you mean?
Said character had a point, in an age when literacy was rare, but meant
you got one "get out of execution free" card.
Brian Reed
Von Bruno wrote:
Sorry but I prefer the Law of the West as practiced by Wyatt Earp and Judge Roy
Bean to the tactics of Cochran, Shapiro, Sheck et al. Ron and Nicole had no
justice, and justice denied is no justice at all. Today's Lawyers do not seek the
truth they seek to obliterate it. At least our founding fathers had the right to
duel for their honor.
B. Reed
ImRastro
My only point, and I'm stickin' to it, is that the law is one of the only
professions that people embark on out of a desire to advance social issues and
social justice. And I meant what I said, every social advancement has had an
underpaid attorney either in front of the bullets or behind the scenes
advancing the cause for little or no personal gain or glory. IE...what
advanced civil rights in this country faster and further than Brown v. Bd of
Education? Who was responsible for it? Southern legal aid. The examples are
endless. They are not "pearles in dung heaps" as Mr. Kennedy would suggest.
We are legion, its just that no-one cares to make a TV series about us. :)
Having said that, lots of lawyers suck. Believe me, I know that better than
any of you, I know more of 'em. But what profession is that not true of?
People love to indiscriminantly bash attorneys. <shrug> Every so often I get a
wild hair and take issue. And you know, it is true that most people hate
attorneys.....except their own of course.
Amy
No hard feelings though. :)
(as an aside, and perhaps an explanation, I regularly get attacked for what I
do at parties by people I've never met before. When I tell them I'm an
attorney representing employees I can see their eyes narrow as they gear up to
tell me that Hoffa was "mobbed up." (something I, of course, have never heard
before). I can usually divert them by immediately pointing to my friend Gina
who works for the Prisoner Rights Fund. No one can resist that. She gets
really pissed).
Nathan Shafer
>
> One of the safety valves incorporated into our social fabric is the ability of
> its citizens to seek justice, when they feel they have been wronged, within a
> legal system rather than turning to violence.
>From working with lawyers in the course of my business, I think they do
something much more important in society that seeks to acheive order
within the chaos that is human interaction: they provide a mathematical
language, a calculus of human behavior. Lawyers take what is inherently
illogical and chaotic, and translate it into a language that makes it
coldly mathematical. Lawyers, IME, are not just important but vital to
a civilized human society.
- Nathan
Von Bruno
Roy
Bean to the tactics of Cochran, Shapiro, Sheck et al.>>
Earp and Bean were considered by many to be unsavory characters who were just
as bad as those they went up against or sat in judgement of. All Barry Sheck
did in the O.J. trial was prove that the LAPD was totally inept in their
gathering, preserving, handling, and testing of the forensic evidence. All
Johnny Cochran did was prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the D.A.'s legal
armada had proved nothing against his client.
O.J. Simpson may or may not have been guilty of the crime he was accused,
however, "justice" was done as he went through our legal process and, based on
the case presented by the prosecutors, found "not guilty." For those jack
booted totalitarians who have a problem with that I would humbly suggest they
reexamine the principles on which our legal system is based. We are "Innocent
until PROVEN guilty in a court of law," and not "Guilty until proven innocent
in the court of public opinion."
~Von Bruno~
Dan Forrest
> O.J. Simpson may or may not have been guilty of the crime he was
> accused, however, "justice" was done as he went through our legal
> process and, based on the case presented by the prosecutors, found
> "not guilty." For those jack booted totalitarians who have a problem
> with that I would humbly suggest they reexamine the principles on
> which our legal system is based. We are "Innocent until PROVEN
> guilty in a court of law," and not "Guilty until proven innocent in
> the court of public opinion."
Isn't that "Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT in
a court of law?" My problem with the Simpson defense is that they
raised a lot of doubts, but few that played to reason rather than
emotion, and hardly enough to generate a reasonable doubt that he had
committed the crimes of which he was accused. The entire jury process
has been perverted from finding a group of people who can reasonably
and impartially examine the evidence to one where each side tries to
find people whose backgrounds will make their case play better.
--
Dan
Von Bruno
few that played to reason rather than emotion, and hardly enough to generate a
reasonable doubt that he had committed the crimes of which he was accused.>>
I somewhat disagree. I feel the prosecution attempted to rely more on emotion
in their attempt to gain a conviction than the defense did in getting O.J. off
(I mean the D.A.'s music video during their closing summation appalled me
because it was clear that they were going totally for emotion rather than
reason).
The problem with the D.A.'s case was that their timeline of the events was so
incredible tight and that police misconduct in their invesigation was so
frighteningly clear and obvious. Personally, it would have scared the hell out
of me if O.J. had been convicted based on what was brought up and out in that
courtroom. I truly believe that the Simpson case illustrates that our system
can and does work most of the time.
Remember we had police officers who willfully lied to a Judge in order to gain
access to O.J.'s home, A police detective who travelled around with O.J.'s
blood sample in his pocket rather than deposit it at the lab (and what was the
deal with the lead detective souvenir hunting and grabbing a pair of Simpson's
tennis shoes?), forensic evidence that was improperly collected and processed
among other major problems with the case as presented.
Barry Scheck's examination of Mr. Fong on the stand was absolutely brilliant,
commendable, and purely scientific and based on reason.
<<The entire jury process has been perverted ...>>
I disagree. America's legal system has ALWAYS been based on an adversarial
model where the burden of proof rests solely on the State. Again, the O.J. case
reaffirmed my faith in California's jury system, and it is my belief that all
those who were rooting for Mr. Simpson to be convicted in the criminal case did
so based on emotion rather than reason.
~Von Bruno~
Brian Reed
Von Bruno wrote:
> <<Sorry but I prefer the Law of the West as practiced by Wyatt Earp and Judge
> Roy
> Bean to the tactics of Cochran, Shapiro, Sheck et al.>>
>
> Earp and Bean were considered by many to be unsavory characters who were just
> as bad as those they went up against or sat in judgement of.
But nobody messed with them or their families and lived.
> All Barry Sheck
> did in the O.J. trial was prove that the LAPD was totally inept in their
> gathering, preserving, handling, and testing of the forensic evidence. All
> Johnny Cochran did was prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the D.A.'s legal
> armada had proved nothing against his client.
All Sheck proved that was he could buy perjured testimony of supposed expert
witnesses. They refused to call their DNA expert because he would have confirmed
the findings of the LAPD and FBI labs. Their one contamination expert was and is
a fool who never did any testing on his own. If he wanted to test whether there
was rampant contamination in the lab he could have brought along some test kits
waved them around the lab and checked, but no, why because there was no
contamination. As for Mr. Lee's something wrong here he is a liar and could not
point to anything but a smudge on one envelope and a footprint made by the
bricklayers made years earlier. When he came to LA they had a board in the Lawyers
office for possible defences even before any of the evidense had been processed or
results obtained, what was one of the defenses proposed by Lee oh contamination,
planting of evidense, sounds like a biased and paid off witness to me. No Furman
DNA, Fingerprints ect were at the crime lab or on the glove or in the Bronco. The
LAPD personnel followed their usual procedures at crime scence which are
inherintly dirty places. The argument that OJ bled there weeks before and the
"real killer" then dropped blood at exactly the same spots and was thus changed
into OJ's DNA is riduculous nonsence only an idiot Lawyer would come up with to
fool a jury comprised of morons who couldn't get out of jury duty. A fair trial
would have required a jury made up of scientists and crime scene personnel to
evaluate the evidense fairly.
>
>
> O.J. Simpson may or may not have been guilty of the crime he was accused,
> however, "justice" was done as he went through our legal process and, based on
> the case presented by the prosecutors, found "not guilty." For those jack
> booted totalitarians who have a problem with that I would humbly suggest they
> reexamine the principles on which our legal system is based. We are "Innocent
> until PROVEN guilty in a court of law," and not "Guilty until proven innocent
> in the court of public opinion."
The Constitution is the basis of our legal system and does not say anywhere that
you are innocent until proven guilty. It only guarantees a trial by jury and being
represented by a Lawyer. I believe that in some areas we use the Napolionic codes
(Louisiana?) which states the reverse as used by the IRS which is run by Jack
Booted Thugs. The other part was created by lawyers and not the Constitutiont.
Also the first Amendment gives me the right to chant outside the court or anywhere
else that he is a murdering bastard and the blood of Ron and Nicole is on his and
his Lawyers hands.
Brian Reed
WWS
ImRastro wrote:
>
> Et tu WWS?
>
> My only point, and I'm stickin' to it, is that the law is one of the only
> professions that people embark on out of a desire to advance social issues and
> social justice. And I meant what I said, every social advancement has had an
> underpaid attorney either in front of the bullets or behind the scenes
> advancing the cause for little or no personal gain or glory. IE...what
> advanced civil rights in this country faster and further than Brown v. Bd of
> Education? Who was responsible for it? Southern legal aid. The examples are
> endless. They are not "pearles in dung heaps" as Mr. Kennedy would suggest.
> We are legion, its just that no-one cares to make a TV series about us. :)
>
> Having said that, lots of lawyers suck. Believe me, I know that better than
> any of you, I know more of 'em. But what profession is that not true of?
> People love to indiscriminantly bash attorneys. <shrug> Every so often I get a
> wild hair and take issue. And you know, it is true that most people hate
> attorneys.....except their own of course.
Here's a good, topical question about lawyers, and ethics. After
Mr. Clinton leads office, should he be disbarred in Arkansas by
the State Board? A complaint has been filed on the grounds of
perjury and obstruction of justice in a Federal Case. However,
his defenders say he did nothing unusual and that he was conforming
to commonly accepted legal standards and practices.
So, was his behavior worhthy of disbarment? Or was it just the
kind of thing that any lawyer would have done in his place?
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."