• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another word to the wise...

M

murphy2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
143
Location
, ,
imported post

It has always been my belief that laws are written for all to understand. If this where not true we all would be criminals not knowing whats right and whats wrong. How can youOBEY something you don't understand? For the government to say you need to be a lawyer to practice law is just part of the legal racket/profession. Like many other rackets imposed on citizens. I know a man who was told by a judge he "would have won the case if he had a lawyer" He replied "I was ether right or I was wrong". The judge admitted he was right but he didn't have a lawyer. There is justice for you. There is no commonsense in our legal system it's all based mostly on feelings and procedures. (Lawyer) We can't have people making sense that would destroy our industry and profession! Laws are really simple, "you can't do this or that". They have made law so complex you can't help but go to them for there "services".Who makes the laws? Mostly lawyers (turned politician)and lobbyist who want laws past that require you to give them some of your money, example,insurance companies.It's all a racket!
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

You should watch what you say in ANY medium.

Emails? All are saved, forever.

Text messages? All are saved, forever.

Voicemails? More than likely they are saved forever.

Be smart in your words!
 
G

Gentleman Ranker

Guest
imported post

murphy2 (21 July 2008 Monday 14:34) says:

It has always been my belief that laws are written for all to understand.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you might want to exercise some caution about that. When I was trying to educate myself about the law, I was reading a Nolo Press book on the subject that quoted a Federal judge to the effect that "no one really knows what <the law in question> actually means." I'll try to find that citation if it would be helpful.

Statutes are acts of the legislature, which means they are often the result of political compromise rather than philosophic reflection and statesmanship. Unfortunate but true.

You may have heard the old saying, "two lawyers can thrive in a town where one alone can't." More seriously, remember that we have an adversarial system of justice, which means that it is intended that truth be discovered by having the two sides argue their side of things as forcefully as possible. Skill in argument can trump "right" when one is looking for "right" through skillful argument.

Just some thoughts.

regards,

GR
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:
murphy2 (21 July 2008 Monday 14:34) says:

It has always been my belief that laws are written for all to understand.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you might want to exercise some caution about that. When I was trying to educate myself about the law, I was reading a Nolo Press book on the subject that quoted a Federa judge to the effect that "no one really knows what <the law in question> actually means." I'll try to find that citation if it would be helpful.

Statutes are acts of the legislature, which means they are often the result of political compromise rather than philosophic reflection and statesmanship. Unfortunate but true.

You may have heard the old saying, "two lawyers can thrive in a town where one alone can't." More seriously, remember that we have an adversarial system of justice, which means that it is intended that truth be discovered by having the two sides argue their side of things as forcefully as possible. Skill in argument can trump "right" when one is looking for "right" within skillful argument.

Just some thoughts.

regards,

GR
Click to expand...
He is right about the power of argument. I was in debate in High School and often times it was not the facts that convinced, but the ability of the debater to argue! To creatively take the information to convince the people that he was right and the others were wrong.

I recently had the same issue incourt. . . I filed all the proper paperwork, submitted all the evidence in defense of myself and the judge said where is your lawyer? I said I represent myself in this case. He immediately said.. "Judgment for the plaintiff. . Pay them, I don't have time for people with no legal background defending themselves."
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

Next time a judge says that, tell him you're a career criminal and have plenty of legal background.

I once asked for a receipt for payment of court costs because I said that I was a professional criminal and I needed it for itemizable business expenses on my tax return. They gave me the receipt, somewhat hurriedly.

-ljp
 
G

Gentleman Ranker

Guest
imported post

Theseus (22 July 2008 Tuesday 14:56) relates:

... the judge said where is your lawyer? I said I represent myself in this case. He immediately said.. "Judgment for the plaintiff. . Pay them, I don't have time for people with no legal background defending themselves."
Click to expand...
Something like that happened to a deputy sheriff friend of mine many years ago. He basically filed his own divorce papers without formal legal assistance (though he did have some help from friends in the courthouse). It was as uncomplicated as such things can be, but even so his results took the full time allowed by law to come through. He explained to me later that he was being sent a message, more-or-less "We'll let you get away with this, this time, but don't think it's something we tolerate willingly."

To be fair, one of the few times I was on a real jury involved some little dispute over an auto repair bill that had somehow come up past small-claims court. Both parties argued pro se, and the judge had clearly seen the same issue before and was sick and tired of it. I could see why. One party had some evidence and made sense, the other was trying to be Clarence Darrow and failing miserably.

Representing yourself in court can be done, but whether because of the lawyers' old boy network, or judges'
exasperation with incompetent litigants*, being your own lawyer can be a problem.

regards,

GR
-------------------------------------------------
*Not talking about you personally, Theseus.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:
Theseus (22 July 2008 Tuesday 14:56) relates:

... the judge said where is your lawyer? I said I represent myself in this case. He immediately said.. "Judgment for the plaintiff. . Pay them, I don't have time for people with no legal background defending themselves."
Click to expand...
Something like that happened to a deputy sheriff friend of mine many years ago. He basically filed his own divorce papers without formal legal assistance (though he did have some help from friends in the courthouse). It was as uncomplicated as such things can be, but even so his results took the full time allowed by law to come through. He explained to me later that he was being sent a message, more-or-less "We'll let you get away with this, this time, but don't think it's something we tolerate willingly."

To be fair, one of the few times I was on a real jury involved some little dispute over an auto repair bill that had somehow come up past small-claims court. Both parties argued pro se, and the judge had clearly seen the same issue before and was sick and tired of it. I could see why. One party had some evidence and made sense, the other was trying to be Clarence Darrow and failing miserably.

Representing yourself in court can be done, but whether because of the lawyers' old boy network, or judges'
exasperation with incompetent litigants*, being your own lawyer can be a problem.

regards,

GR
-------------------------------------------------
*Not talking about you personally, Theseus.
Click to expand...
What?! Stop with the personal attacks!! No!! Haha.

Seriously though. . my evidence even showed that the plaintiff was hiding evidence in order to reach a substantially higher claim against me than they were entitled and the evidence was ignored because I didn't have a lawyer.

That is a complete misscarriadge of justice and can not be allowed to happen in the US. THis is an elitest attitude that needs to be challenged. . I will ignore the courts ruling in this case and will think nothing of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top