diablopilot 2 #151 December 11, 2004 QuoteCare to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so. Define innocent? You mean someone that has been covicted by the US judicial system including a jurry of 12 of their peers? Oh yeah, they're REAL innocent then.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #152 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut please don't refer to a high school diploma as something in which to reference great legal knowledge. The legal process is something any high school grad should know about. But you claim to know more than a lawyer in this, so I don't expect you to listen to me. QuoteI don't mean to sound insulting by this, but that quote shows you to be a layperson with a misunderstanding of the appeals process. All appeals get heard by appeals courts, so long as you demonstrate jurisdiction and justiciability. QuoteI'm saying I've supported my position because the evidence that has been presented by me has not been successfully refuted, hell, has it even been addressed? No, when presented evidence you discounted it based on age. Your critical thinking skills need work. Are you serious? Evidence wasn't presented, just an opinion statement by a former president in 1915. Don't make yourself out to be misleading - you know that no evidence was submitted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #153 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteCare to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so. Define innocent? You mean someone that has been covicted by the US judicial system including a jurry of 12 of their peers? Oh yeah, they're REAL innocent then. Thirteen people in Illinois fit that description, yet were subsequently found to have not actually committed the crime for which they were on death row, by investigations OUTSIDE the judicial system. THAT is the reason the Governor put a halt to executions in Illinois. The judicial system is about as infallible as any other branch of government. Ever had a letter go astray?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #154 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am still waitiing for yours since you brought up cost first. actually I didn't, but you can start here "$California spends millions more on capital cases California spends $90 Million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases. $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988). In January 2003, despite a budge deficit, California Governor Gray Davis proposed building a new $220 million state of the art death row. (New York Times, January 14, 2003)" Think Scott Peterson will get to enjoy this side of 'life' next week? ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #155 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteCare to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so. Define innocent? You mean someone that has been covicted by the US judicial system including a jurry of 12 of their peers? Oh yeah, they're REAL innocent then. How about this guy - spent 10 years in prison, 2 of which were on death row. He was convicted by 2 different juries of 12, years apart. See, the juries are made up of people like you that believe everything they read that is conservative in nature, which is why he could be put in front of 50 juries with 50 convictions. He was a pro-deather like you, but not now. You'll see Ray on taht makeover show this fall. http://www.ccadp.org/raykrone.htm He was the 100th innocent man freed via DNA, so you can pick any one of these if you want examples. Now, back to the question: "Care to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so." BTW, it's usually a state judicail system, not US unless you're talking federal, which is very obscure. To take that further, it's a county courthouse that convicts and sentences, the state mulls it over and rarely overturns or remands. http://www.justicedenied.org/volume2issue8.htm This is a scary case: UPDATE on Mumia Abu-Jamal "The trial judge, Albert Sabo, who died May 8, 2002, was a lifetime member of the policemen's union, which has mounted a nationwide campaign for Abu-Jamal's execution. Sabo was almost universally regarded as biased against defendants. A court official has sworn in an affidavit that Sabo said of Abu-Jamal, "I'm going to help them fry the nigger." Even before Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial, Sabo had sentenced more convicts to death than any other judge in America. At the trial and also in the several appeal hearings over which Sabo presided, Sabo almost without exception granted every objection of the prosecution and denied each of the defense. He excluded Abu-Jamal from the trial courtroom for a time and was described by at least one conservative journalist as blatantly antagonistic to the defense. At one hearing he imprisoned one of Abu-Jamal's lawyers for attempting to raise an objection. Not long after presiding over Abu-Jamal's proceedings in the mid-1990s, Sabo was removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, apparently on account of his having intimidated lawyers in numerous cases." That is a very notorious case, nationally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #156 December 11, 2004 http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-000212 That's Ray Krones criminal case, if anyone cares. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #157 December 11, 2004 Have you heard this story? In the dark of a wild night a ship strikes a rock and sinks, but one of its sailors clings desperately to a piece of wreckage and is eventually cast up exhausted on an unknown and deserted beach. In the morning, he struggles to his feet and rubbing his salt-encrusted eyes, looks around to learn where he is. The only human thing he sees is a gallows. "Thank God," he exclaims, "civilization." ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #158 December 11, 2004 You can spin it and post links to all the biased websites opposed to the death penalty all you want. The bottom line is it is here to stay. Period. The death penalty will never go away. There's good reasons for that. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #159 December 11, 2004 QuoteAs for the US Sup Ct, the friken clerk writes most of the decision and you know it. BS the guys here, but not me. Do you have any idea how competitive it is to be considered for a US Supreme Court law clerk? Do you think the justices are omnipotent? How else could they know everything about everything in the law. They don't just do criminal appeals. Also, it is the lawyers jobs to make the arguments, not the judge's to make them. QuoteI didn't say that all appeals that get filed get heard, or that any appeals that are heard are heard by other than appellate courts, I merely stated that most filed appeals get pitched and not heard. WTF do you mean pitched and not heard. You mean that the court ruled based upon the papers submitted? They don't just get pitched. Please show me any basis for you assertion that appeals are not given careful consideration. QuoteI'd say 10-20% of attorneys help people and the rest fuck them. Right now I'm suing 3 attorneys, I real estate broker, and a couple other people for robbing house. The pigs were remotely involved and their own refused to take a police report, but I have a mountain of evidence. The lawyers are involved because they owned the LLC that bought the house, now they have amnesia so an ethics complaint is forthcoming, not to mention the fact that they are in court record for being sued as, "shysters." Quote The truth comes out about your distain for the legal system. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #160 December 11, 2004 QuoteYou can spin it and post links to all the biased websites opposed to the death penalty all you want. The bottom line is it is here to stay. Period. The death penalty will never go away. There's good reasons for that. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. So you have no evidence to show that it's cost-effective or a deterrent then. I can remember when people said that segregation was natural and would never go away. They were both ignorant and wrong. Capital punishment has already gone away in the rest of the Western world. Can you name a SINGLE nation that abolished the death penalty and then decided they made an error, and reinstated it? It's just a matter of time here. It's already history in 12 states and DC, 1 more state has had its DP statute ruled unconstitutional, another one has a moratorium that looks like becoming permanent, and another 5 haven't executed anyone in over 30 years. That's over 1/3 of the states that think state-sponsored killing is wrong, and the number is increasing. Edited to add - why do you think the State of Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment runs a biased web site? Ditto for the State of Maryland?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #161 December 11, 2004 Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. =======================================Are those biased or unbiased sheep? I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #162 December 11, 2004 QuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #163 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Do you have good evidence that he's not dead? Have you ever actually SEEN him?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #164 December 11, 2004 Hahahaaha, ya, sad but true! Hopefully we will rewrite that in future years one way or the other. BTW, I haven't heard that. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #165 December 11, 2004 QuoteYou can spin it and post links to all the biased websites opposed to the death penalty all you want. The bottom line is it is here to stay. Period. The death penalty will never go away. There's good reasons for that. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. Do you really think anything is here to stay? This, "black and white" mentality works until someone adjusts things, then it becomes a requirement to make other absolute statements. Most of the industrialized world has done away with cap pun, we will too one day. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. So then you're a liberal? Or are you a Repub that's a sheep to your party? See, it works all ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #166 December 11, 2004 Do you have any idea how competitive it is to be considered for a US Supreme Court law clerk? Do you think the justices are omnipotent? How else could they know everything about everything in the law. They don't just do criminal appeals. Also, it is the lawyers jobs to make the arguments, not the judge's to make them. Very competitive; so what does that mean, the clerks will be even bigger pawns for the justices? I simply wrote that the clerks write most of the decisions for the justices, and it';s true. No, they are omnipotent, but they have the power of "God" in regard to disposing of a person's life, so for the appellant they might as well be God. I've stated that they hear criminal and civil appeals, and to further that they probably hear administrative appeals too. Right, the lawyer makes the arguments and the justice evaluates them, but a justice is still supposed to rule based upon law even if the defense lawyer fails to present it, but that's a bit to utopian in a country that still executes people for crimes committed as minors. WTF do you mean pitched and not heard. You mean that the court ruled based upon the papers submitted? They don't just get pitched. Please show me any basis for you assertion that appeals are not given careful consideration. It's impossible, unless you are a fly on the wall. What my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. The truth comes out about your distain for the legal system. Ya think? I didn't realize it was hiding. I wrote: "I'd say 10-20% of attorneys help people and the rest fuck them." Do you think you will get a lot of people in this forum or the country that will argue against that? See, if the cops are considering a citation/issue/whatever and they realize they are dealing with an attorney or someone that can afford an attorney, they will act much differently. If they are dealing with other people they will screw away as they wish. So you enjoy your privilege - good for you. I didn't say that America was a piece of crap for people of money/privilege. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #167 December 11, 2004 QuoteRight, the lawyer makes the arguments and the justice evaluates them, but a justice is still supposed to rule based upon law even if the defense lawyer fails to present it, but that's a bit to utopian in a country that still executes people for crimes committed as minors. Again, you do not understand the system. It is up to the defense attorney to preserve an issue for appeal. Then, the defense attorney determines what issues may result in a reversal and files an appeal. Based upon the issues presented and arguments made, the court is asked to decide that issue. In Utopia, there would be no crime or an unlimited amount of time. A judge is not there to give legal advice, but to rule on the issues presented. I can hear you scream if in your case the judge said you know, I'd dismiss this claim if you did X. Would that be fair and impartial?? QuoteWhat my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. Your opinion has no basis. Any appeal filed is heard by the court. Apparently, you are confused about higher appellate courts like the US Supreme Court making a decision to review a particular case. To get to that point, it was heard by an appellate court. Quote And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. Actually, the court will decide the issues presented but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit as is your attacks on the judiciary of this country. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #168 December 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Yeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #169 December 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Yeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. Well, you grew up, so it appears, became an attorney and you call yourself a shyster in your profile, so maybe the punishment wasn't severe enough. What kind of law do you practice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #170 December 12, 2004 QuoteWhat my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. Quote And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. Again, you do not understand the system. It is up to the defense attorney to preserve an issue for appeal. Then, the defense attorney determines what issues may result in a reversal and files an appeal. Based upon the issues presented and arguments made, the court is asked to decide that issue. As your crooked hero, Bush would say, "I know that." Actually you are procedurally right (I was saying the same thing), but wrong by application. A good attorney manufactures grounds for an appeal during the disclosure, discovery and trial without compromising the case at trail. Hell, they had appeal attorneys working at the start of the OJ trial. They had a mountain of paper they had to toss after he was acquitted. In Utopia, there would be no crime or an unlimited amount of time. No, that's fantasia, utopia would be in reality, but have a perfect justice system. A judge is not there to give legal advice, but to rule on the issues presented. I can hear you scream if in your case the judge said you know, I'd dismiss this claim if you did X. Would that be fair and impartial?? Judges are compelled to rule on law, even if it is not presented. Truth is, they can do what they want and even Superior Court Judges are, in all reality, appointed for life, at least in AZ. That vote process is just to jack us off; the governor appoints judges here. Hell, JP's are elected and none in AZ have JD to my knowledge, some have no college. Your opinion has no basis. Any appeal filed is heard by the court. Apparently, you are confused about higher appellate courts like the US Supreme Court making a decision to review a particular case. To get to that point, it was heard by an appellate court. I can show you cases that I've filed pro per that dismissed w/o consideration, so stick to your jurisdiction's knowledge. Appellate courts have the right to decide they aren't worth looking at and pitch them w/o reason. Actually, the court will decide the issues presented but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit as is your attacks on the judiciary of this country. Right, they will avoid sticky issues; been there done that. I had an employer that repeatedly paid me with NSF checks, 4 of 9, the AAC's (Arizona Administrative Code) specifically stated that an employee can quit under good cause if an employer repeatedly pays them with NSF checks. I quit and fought it for a year to the State Court of Appeals, where they summarily ignored it and dismissed it. Before you say that was administartive so it doesn't count, it sent to the State Court of Appeals. Also, I have other issues that were appealed with similar results. All of the judges were like your (Florida's) appellate courts and refused to answer the relevant issues, er, how is you say that ..."but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion." Right, another way of saying they find a crack and run-and-hide in it. Conspiracy theory; you're a joke. I wish it was a conspiracy, that way they would have to hide in the grassy knoll, but the way it is now it's the protocol. The way it is now is the way they do normal business; exonerate pigs for murders, execute some innocent people, jail many innocent people for years and make them sign waivers promising not to sue in exchange for their release. Ya, but shysters like you become the dispensers of justice so you like it. You think I'm the only one that feels this way? The system works in your favor so you like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #171 December 12, 2004 ROFL. He's calling himself a shyster to poke fun at his own profession. Lawyers have to be able to laugh at themselves, considering the rather universal hatred of the profession. Nobody likes a lawyer...until they need one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #172 December 12, 2004 QuoteWell, you grew up, so it appears, became an attorney and you call yourself a shyster in your profile, so maybe the punishment wasn't severe enough. I know. My mom tells people that I turn tricks to pay for my drug habit, so people won't think her son turned out too badly. My primary practice now is family law and real estate, though my favorite practice area is medical malpractice. I've basically doen everything in law except intellectual property, admiralty, estate planning and workers comp. I'm also fortunate to have my practice with my wife, which enables me to turn away clients who are assholes. There are other attorneys in town who are paid whores, my integrity is a little too important for that, and I'm busy enough with other clients to keep me happy. By the way, you are not too old. My best friend started law school when he was 40, giving up his life as an econ professor. I guess a PhD, two MA's (it makes him a MAMA) and three bachelor's degrees were enough for him. Given that he's your stereotypical Candian Socialist, we were bound to get along. I'm telling you, man, you can do some truly awesome things with a law degree - especially when you believe in what you are doing and when you aren't stifled by some big firm. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #173 December 12, 2004 QuoteI'm telling you, man, you can do some truly awesome things with a law degree - especially when you believe in what you are doing and when you aren't stifled by some big firm. You sure can. A lawyer friend of mine gives rides in his Stearman biplane so he can take it as a tax deduction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #174 December 12, 2004 QuoteI can show you cases that I've filed pro per that dismissed w/o consideration, so stick to your jurisdiction's knowledge. Appellate courts have the right to decide they aren't worth looking at and pitch them w/o reason. Yes, the appellate courts have the right to decide that the law is so well settled that the decision of the lower court is affirmed per curiam. Making the decision that your appeal lacked any merit is not the same as refusing to consider it. The law is far from the way things ought to be especially to pro se Plaintiffs. QuoteRight, they will avoid sticky issues; been there done that. I had an employer that repeatedly paid me with NSF checks, 4 of 9, the AAC's (Arizona Administrative Code) specifically stated that an employee can quit under good cause if an employer repeatedly pays them with NSF checks. I quit and fought it for a year to the State Court of Appeals, where they summarily ignored it and dismissed it. Before you say that was administartive so it doesn't count, it sent to the State Court of Appeals. Also, I have other issues that were appealed with similar results. All of the judges were like your (Florida's) appellate courts and refused to answer the relevant issues, er, how is you say that ..."but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion." Right, another way of saying they find a crack and run-and-hide in it. No, they make their decision only based on the facts at hand. The purpose is because sweeping opinions make bad law. Even the narrowest decisions can be overread. QuoteThe way it is now is the way they do normal business; exonerate pigs for murders, execute some innocent people, jail many innocent people for years and make them sign waivers promising not to sue in exchange for their release. Do you have a better system that our adversrial one? QuoteYa, but shysters like you become the dispensers of justice so you like it. You think I'm the only one that feels this way? The system works in your favor so you like it. If you can't make an intelligent argument without resorting to name calling perhaps you should not post here. If you don't like the system, work to change it, stop whining and calling BOTH sides shysters. You understand that because you have not been trained in the law, you are limited in your opinions. Why do you think you have the training to represent yourself as well as a professional? I can fly a plane; I can change the oil in my car. Does that mean I should work on the engine of my own plane? BTW I don't do criminal law, though I worked for the prosecutor in law school -- putting people away in court. I met defense attorneys both private and public that were not very good. Having practiced for about seven years, I can tell you there are a lot of subpar lawyers making a lot of good money in spite of themselves and it is disturbing. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #175 December 12, 2004 QuoteYeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. YUp and if the punishment doesn't deter, than it isn't much of a punishment. But that concept seems to be a tad too diffucult for some people here to understand. JP, if you go a couple of posts up you will see that I refered to a general consensus to the definition of punishment. I knew you would have been able to find a definition of punishment without the deterence factor, but the majority do have it written in. Try and think about why society came up with punishment.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,146 #160 December 11, 2004 QuoteYou can spin it and post links to all the biased websites opposed to the death penalty all you want. The bottom line is it is here to stay. Period. The death penalty will never go away. There's good reasons for that. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. So you have no evidence to show that it's cost-effective or a deterrent then. I can remember when people said that segregation was natural and would never go away. They were both ignorant and wrong. Capital punishment has already gone away in the rest of the Western world. Can you name a SINGLE nation that abolished the death penalty and then decided they made an error, and reinstated it? It's just a matter of time here. It's already history in 12 states and DC, 1 more state has had its DP statute ruled unconstitutional, another one has a moratorium that looks like becoming permanent, and another 5 haven't executed anyone in over 30 years. That's over 1/3 of the states that think state-sponsored killing is wrong, and the number is increasing. Edited to add - why do you think the State of Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment runs a biased web site? Ditto for the State of Maryland?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #161 December 11, 2004 Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. =======================================Are those biased or unbiased sheep? I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #162 December 11, 2004 QuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #163 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Do you have good evidence that he's not dead? Have you ever actually SEEN him?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #164 December 11, 2004 Hahahaaha, ya, sad but true! Hopefully we will rewrite that in future years one way or the other. BTW, I haven't heard that. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #165 December 11, 2004 QuoteYou can spin it and post links to all the biased websites opposed to the death penalty all you want. The bottom line is it is here to stay. Period. The death penalty will never go away. There's good reasons for that. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. Do you really think anything is here to stay? This, "black and white" mentality works until someone adjusts things, then it becomes a requirement to make other absolute statements. Most of the industrialized world has done away with cap pun, we will too one day. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. So then you're a liberal? Or are you a Repub that's a sheep to your party? See, it works all ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #166 December 11, 2004 Do you have any idea how competitive it is to be considered for a US Supreme Court law clerk? Do you think the justices are omnipotent? How else could they know everything about everything in the law. They don't just do criminal appeals. Also, it is the lawyers jobs to make the arguments, not the judge's to make them. Very competitive; so what does that mean, the clerks will be even bigger pawns for the justices? I simply wrote that the clerks write most of the decisions for the justices, and it';s true. No, they are omnipotent, but they have the power of "God" in regard to disposing of a person's life, so for the appellant they might as well be God. I've stated that they hear criminal and civil appeals, and to further that they probably hear administrative appeals too. Right, the lawyer makes the arguments and the justice evaluates them, but a justice is still supposed to rule based upon law even if the defense lawyer fails to present it, but that's a bit to utopian in a country that still executes people for crimes committed as minors. WTF do you mean pitched and not heard. You mean that the court ruled based upon the papers submitted? They don't just get pitched. Please show me any basis for you assertion that appeals are not given careful consideration. It's impossible, unless you are a fly on the wall. What my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. The truth comes out about your distain for the legal system. Ya think? I didn't realize it was hiding. I wrote: "I'd say 10-20% of attorneys help people and the rest fuck them." Do you think you will get a lot of people in this forum or the country that will argue against that? See, if the cops are considering a citation/issue/whatever and they realize they are dealing with an attorney or someone that can afford an attorney, they will act much differently. If they are dealing with other people they will screw away as they wish. So you enjoy your privilege - good for you. I didn't say that America was a piece of crap for people of money/privilege. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #167 December 11, 2004 QuoteRight, the lawyer makes the arguments and the justice evaluates them, but a justice is still supposed to rule based upon law even if the defense lawyer fails to present it, but that's a bit to utopian in a country that still executes people for crimes committed as minors. Again, you do not understand the system. It is up to the defense attorney to preserve an issue for appeal. Then, the defense attorney determines what issues may result in a reversal and files an appeal. Based upon the issues presented and arguments made, the court is asked to decide that issue. In Utopia, there would be no crime or an unlimited amount of time. A judge is not there to give legal advice, but to rule on the issues presented. I can hear you scream if in your case the judge said you know, I'd dismiss this claim if you did X. Would that be fair and impartial?? QuoteWhat my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. Your opinion has no basis. Any appeal filed is heard by the court. Apparently, you are confused about higher appellate courts like the US Supreme Court making a decision to review a particular case. To get to that point, it was heard by an appellate court. Quote And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. Actually, the court will decide the issues presented but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit as is your attacks on the judiciary of this country. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #168 December 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Yeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #169 December 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoes punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. Wow...they were able to deter and punish you without killing you? Amazing!!!! Yeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. Well, you grew up, so it appears, became an attorney and you call yourself a shyster in your profile, so maybe the punishment wasn't severe enough. What kind of law do you practice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #170 December 12, 2004 QuoteWhat my statement asserted was that most cases are never heard by appellate courts; they are summarily ignored. If the court wants to hear a case, they will, but many times they have an agenda going into session and look for cases that will allow them to exact their agenda. Can I prove this? No. Can you disprove it? No. It's my opinion based upon what I've seen come from many appellate courts. Quote And for appellate courts that are compelled to hear a given case, they will avoid issues if it doesn't support their prearranged decision. Again, you do not understand the system. It is up to the defense attorney to preserve an issue for appeal. Then, the defense attorney determines what issues may result in a reversal and files an appeal. Based upon the issues presented and arguments made, the court is asked to decide that issue. As your crooked hero, Bush would say, "I know that." Actually you are procedurally right (I was saying the same thing), but wrong by application. A good attorney manufactures grounds for an appeal during the disclosure, discovery and trial without compromising the case at trail. Hell, they had appeal attorneys working at the start of the OJ trial. They had a mountain of paper they had to toss after he was acquitted. In Utopia, there would be no crime or an unlimited amount of time. No, that's fantasia, utopia would be in reality, but have a perfect justice system. A judge is not there to give legal advice, but to rule on the issues presented. I can hear you scream if in your case the judge said you know, I'd dismiss this claim if you did X. Would that be fair and impartial?? Judges are compelled to rule on law, even if it is not presented. Truth is, they can do what they want and even Superior Court Judges are, in all reality, appointed for life, at least in AZ. That vote process is just to jack us off; the governor appoints judges here. Hell, JP's are elected and none in AZ have JD to my knowledge, some have no college. Your opinion has no basis. Any appeal filed is heard by the court. Apparently, you are confused about higher appellate courts like the US Supreme Court making a decision to review a particular case. To get to that point, it was heard by an appellate court. I can show you cases that I've filed pro per that dismissed w/o consideration, so stick to your jurisdiction's knowledge. Appellate courts have the right to decide they aren't worth looking at and pitch them w/o reason. Actually, the court will decide the issues presented but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit as is your attacks on the judiciary of this country. Right, they will avoid sticky issues; been there done that. I had an employer that repeatedly paid me with NSF checks, 4 of 9, the AAC's (Arizona Administrative Code) specifically stated that an employee can quit under good cause if an employer repeatedly pays them with NSF checks. I quit and fought it for a year to the State Court of Appeals, where they summarily ignored it and dismissed it. Before you say that was administartive so it doesn't count, it sent to the State Court of Appeals. Also, I have other issues that were appealed with similar results. All of the judges were like your (Florida's) appellate courts and refused to answer the relevant issues, er, how is you say that ..."but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion." Right, another way of saying they find a crack and run-and-hide in it. Conspiracy theory; you're a joke. I wish it was a conspiracy, that way they would have to hide in the grassy knoll, but the way it is now it's the protocol. The way it is now is the way they do normal business; exonerate pigs for murders, execute some innocent people, jail many innocent people for years and make them sign waivers promising not to sue in exchange for their release. Ya, but shysters like you become the dispensers of justice so you like it. You think I'm the only one that feels this way? The system works in your favor so you like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #171 December 12, 2004 ROFL. He's calling himself a shyster to poke fun at his own profession. Lawyers have to be able to laugh at themselves, considering the rather universal hatred of the profession. Nobody likes a lawyer...until they need one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #172 December 12, 2004 QuoteWell, you grew up, so it appears, became an attorney and you call yourself a shyster in your profile, so maybe the punishment wasn't severe enough. I know. My mom tells people that I turn tricks to pay for my drug habit, so people won't think her son turned out too badly. My primary practice now is family law and real estate, though my favorite practice area is medical malpractice. I've basically doen everything in law except intellectual property, admiralty, estate planning and workers comp. I'm also fortunate to have my practice with my wife, which enables me to turn away clients who are assholes. There are other attorneys in town who are paid whores, my integrity is a little too important for that, and I'm busy enough with other clients to keep me happy. By the way, you are not too old. My best friend started law school when he was 40, giving up his life as an econ professor. I guess a PhD, two MA's (it makes him a MAMA) and three bachelor's degrees were enough for him. Given that he's your stereotypical Candian Socialist, we were bound to get along. I'm telling you, man, you can do some truly awesome things with a law degree - especially when you believe in what you are doing and when you aren't stifled by some big firm. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #173 December 12, 2004 QuoteI'm telling you, man, you can do some truly awesome things with a law degree - especially when you believe in what you are doing and when you aren't stifled by some big firm. You sure can. A lawyer friend of mine gives rides in his Stearman biplane so he can take it as a tax deduction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #174 December 12, 2004 QuoteI can show you cases that I've filed pro per that dismissed w/o consideration, so stick to your jurisdiction's knowledge. Appellate courts have the right to decide they aren't worth looking at and pitch them w/o reason. Yes, the appellate courts have the right to decide that the law is so well settled that the decision of the lower court is affirmed per curiam. Making the decision that your appeal lacked any merit is not the same as refusing to consider it. The law is far from the way things ought to be especially to pro se Plaintiffs. QuoteRight, they will avoid sticky issues; been there done that. I had an employer that repeatedly paid me with NSF checks, 4 of 9, the AAC's (Arizona Administrative Code) specifically stated that an employee can quit under good cause if an employer repeatedly pays them with NSF checks. I quit and fought it for a year to the State Court of Appeals, where they summarily ignored it and dismissed it. Before you say that was administartive so it doesn't count, it sent to the State Court of Appeals. Also, I have other issues that were appealed with similar results. All of the judges were like your (Florida's) appellate courts and refused to answer the relevant issues, er, how is you say that ..."but not decide more than is necessary to render that opinion." Right, another way of saying they find a crack and run-and-hide in it. No, they make their decision only based on the facts at hand. The purpose is because sweeping opinions make bad law. Even the narrowest decisions can be overread. QuoteThe way it is now is the way they do normal business; exonerate pigs for murders, execute some innocent people, jail many innocent people for years and make them sign waivers promising not to sue in exchange for their release. Do you have a better system that our adversrial one? QuoteYa, but shysters like you become the dispensers of justice so you like it. You think I'm the only one that feels this way? The system works in your favor so you like it. If you can't make an intelligent argument without resorting to name calling perhaps you should not post here. If you don't like the system, work to change it, stop whining and calling BOTH sides shysters. You understand that because you have not been trained in the law, you are limited in your opinions. Why do you think you have the training to represent yourself as well as a professional? I can fly a plane; I can change the oil in my car. Does that mean I should work on the engine of my own plane? BTW I don't do criminal law, though I worked for the prosecutor in law school -- putting people away in court. I met defense attorneys both private and public that were not very good. Having practiced for about seven years, I can tell you there are a lot of subpar lawyers making a lot of good money in spite of themselves and it is disturbing. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #175 December 12, 2004 QuoteYeah, for all kinds of things. I noted that the punishment got worse as the bad deed got worse, too. YUp and if the punishment doesn't deter, than it isn't much of a punishment. But that concept seems to be a tad too diffucult for some people here to understand. JP, if you go a couple of posts up you will see that I refered to a general consensus to the definition of punishment. I knew you would have been able to find a definition of punishment without the deterence factor, but the majority do have it written in. Try and think about why society came up with punishment.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
