EBSB52

he is the worst kind of offender IMO. Dahmer, McVey, Bundy and the rest appreciate you placing someone below them. Come on, he isn't the worst, but a SOB no less.

Weezy, it's the big one!!!! From a judicial standpoint, there is corpus delecti, but no connection to the hubby. There are strange circumstances with the fishing trip, cement and other things, but the bar is lowering by the day in regard to murder convictions. For the record, I do feel he is as guilty as OJ.

So you're saying the death penalty is not a deterrent but just revenge? I agree, which is why I oppose it.

Was this really a fare trial by which he was convicted based on concrete evednece? Yes, the concrete he purchased and tied her too! I know what you;re saying and agree. I do think he is guilty, but I also think the evidence was purely circumstantial. All I can say is this: Hope like hell no one dies around you.

Because the correct punishment was handed down. I am always happy to see scumbag, murdering assholes die. Isn't there a law against referring to our president in that way?

How long with involuntary extensions?

Oh well, that beats actually having to respond.

I don't think the war can be sold to the people on those terms. Many didn't support it when they thought it would be over quickly. The problem lies in the motives for going over. First, we were invading Iraq only as a last resort, if it was determined that Iraq indeed had nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. Then it was about a regime change, which is laughable, considering we installed the Baath Party in Iraq's government. Now it is about installing democracy. Which is also laughable, considering how Shrub got into the Whitehouse. The current adminastration took the greatest amount of goodwill from the international community that the U.S. has seen in many, many years, and squandered it being a bully. The war in Iraq is unlikely to have popular support as long as Shrub is in office, because lied to the people in order to go. This all plays into the Fascist American protocol, so get used to it or leave like I wanna do. There is no changing it from within, maybe from without if some country or other collective countries band together to do it. Look at Fascist Italy and Fascist/nazi Germany; they didn't change from within, it took an heroic 1940's America to do it - greatest generation then... yep.

So you're saying the rate is lower in Iraq than with Viet nam. OK, good point, but the death numbers are still way higher and mounting, with Novemeber 04 being the highest as I recall. I don't consider that a positive attribute that even though the death rate is lower, the death numbers are higher. The constant fact is that we aren't gaining ground and they aren't going to relent, just as VN. Only solution is to leave.

Being called pig, etc is not going to make me lose any sleep at night. I can attest to the fact that they don't all feel that way If you become a good cop then you are doing the state a sevice. A. We need cops B. We need good cops Good luck with it

Yes, he is. I'm the shyster who's listed as such in my profile. My bad, dealt with in PM.

How does that prove causality? It could just as easily be that way due to increased preventative law enforcement... Having grown up in Chicago, I came to a blunt conclusion: let the gangbangers and crackheads kill each other. It's cheaper than rehab or incarceration. Just keep them the hell out of my neighborhood. I think that's Kallend's point; CP has no affect on deterrence either way. I don't think potential 1st degree murderers refrain from killing in the presence of CP, and I don't think they increase their killing in the light of the revocation (temp or perm) of CP. I think all stats are incidental and I think that's what Kallend was saying, not to speak for him.

Lets see, you use a website that could have been created by a 12 year old that uses cool words like "Texecutioner" as proof, but dismiss a speach by a President about a topic. Like I said, your critical thinking skills need work. I see no need to continue this since you would rather put more credit on a kids website than a former President. I never stated or inferred that the site was proof, just thought the term, "Texecutioner" was appropriate. Please, show me where I called any of it proof. There are items on there that are factual, but if you recall, I just posted the site address. As for the speech by Teddy Roosevelt, I dismissed as not being pertinent to another topic about using hyphens in your name, such as, "African-American" or, "Japanese-American." In the article, Teddy Roosevelt stated that it was bad for national unity. If you read my other explanations as to why I think the article has no relevance in the "hyphen" thread you would have discovered the reason is that the time/era (1915) was filled with all kinds of racism and sexism, so a person's opinion of that era, in that era probably won't be contemporarily equittable to today's standards. Do you think it's reasonable to consider a slave owner's position by today's standards? Maybe that slave owner, let's take President Jefferson, had a position that was applicable by his era's standards. Maybe he was a great man for his era, but by today's standards his ideologies would be considered trash. In that era owning slaves was ok, women were chattle that could be beat (read about Rule of Thumb - I can cite if you wish), and only property owners could vote. In 1915 slave owning was illegalized, but women could not vote, we were 40+ years away from blacks and whites sharing restrooms; do you think we can take any person's opinion from that era and apply it to today's standards of acceptable race relations? I don't expect an answer. Hey, the Texecutioner website is just plain funny as far as the play on words, very sad with the message of people being executed at record rates and w/o what I feel is appropriate due process. I didn't endorse it or say it is now my homepage and Bible for living - I just posted it without comment. Like I said, your critical thinking skills need work. Where are the personal attack police when you need them?

No, and good thread. There are good ones out there - just dealt with one the other day. But theis, "blue line" crap condones corruption. It means to cover your cop brothers ass at all costs. there are 3 special relationships that we learned about in school, and I can remember 2 of them. 1. Parent to a child 2. Cop to a citizen in his/her jurisdiction 3. ??? That means there is a duty to act if there is a known violation or danger. Now this would never be enforced, just as many laws are not enfoced that should be in the light of violation. But if a cop knows of another cop that broke the law, both are dirty. BTW, it's not the cops, it's the courts, as they set, "Bright Line" rules for the cops and the bar is low.

You need thicker glasses. I never have nor would I ever refer to lawyers a shysters. I'm done here. What a joke, you just changed it under, "occupation" in your profile. It must be that ole ethics thing huh? Don't worry, I'm soon filing 3 ethics complaints against attorneys, but you would never be one of em.

You guys have nothing there. I have an ex-dirty pig story for you. He killed 2 people in 1 1/2 years, one at gunpoint. He moved into my neighborhood after his first killing, I imagine his neighbors knoew what a POS he is so he moved. So after this, he moved into my neighborhood where was a typical arrogant pig, but didn't bother me. Long story, I'll give ya the Cliff-notes, but on or about Oct 3, 2002 it appears he aided 1 real estae broker in the robbing of my house. 8 days later he shot and killed a mother of 3 with a 1 year old child in the backseat as she was forging a prescription and fled. He claims he was in fear for his life, but she was driving away from him and I attended the trial and watched witnesses testify that he ran after her and drew on the fly. Of course the victim pig said he was in front as she was driving at him, all witness and state reconstructionists refuted that. BTW, she was shot in the back of teh arm where it traveled through her heart then rested in her right chest cavity. His first murder he chased, after being told to back off, a stolen car through an intersection where he killed a 19-year-old college kid. Dad was a doctor and he sued for pursuit policy change. Police Chief Bobby Joe Harris refused, but he ended up resigning by force after his boy (the pig) killed the lady at Walgreen's. RESULT: Chandler paid on the first killing: 1. 1.4 million to the mom 2. 1.4 million to the dad Second killing: 1. 2 million to the family 2. Undisclosed amount from insurance to the family *Chandler's deductable went from 1 million to 2 million after the first killing, where, of course they claimed no wrongdoing. Now, the pig had his chief (who was a POS anyway) fired, was acquited of 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, endangerment of the child, wanted his job back. Chandler said no, he appealed to the city, and the kicker is he is suing everyone for letting him be such a corrupt little piggy. How does that compare to your story? I mean yours is egregious as well, but this is horrific. BTW, the state licensing agency refused to revoke his license, so he could be hired as a pig in any city, state, or county jurisdiction in AZ. I doubt that will happen tho, but Chandler is sort of on the hook to at least let this run its cycle. Murder trial: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2003-015458 Civil trial where he's suing: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-092518 BTW, he's suing several of his fellow cops for testifying against him. The guy is a joke - he got away with murder and that isn't enough. I'd like to see Chandler's premiums and dedctable if they hire him back. http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/1001cr-lovelaceZ6.html http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/19585.php __________________________________ http://www.azpolice.org/news_040715.asp This is how dumb the defense attny is, he writes: "Chandler police officer Dan Lovelace responded to a priority one call, forged prescription in progress, on October 11, 2001 ..." It was Oct 11, 2002. Oh well, little details. "As he did so and was calling in the plate number, and began walking back toward the driver’s side in the empty bay, ..." This is also incorrect according to the testimony of even Pigface (Lovelace) and all witnesses. He was walking in the empty bay toward the window to talk to the pharmacy clerk. But it makes him sound closer to the car and in more damger when the attny claims the pig was closer to the car. "Officer Lovelace ran to the front of the median, i.e., the forward left fender of her car and ordered her to cease this activity." This also contradicts all evidence and testimony. "She then ran into his bike and took a sharp left turn into Officer Lovelace, leaving approximately 29 feet of rubber." With the proximity of the scene, there isno way she could physically have hit him or even turned around - not enough room. "(Officer Lovelace had given a thorough taped interview on the evening of October 11, 2001 and had conducted a taped walk-through with the other officers.)" One where he states, "I screwed up real bad, I'm sorry to the department......." But, as the courts are pig-lovers, they found this inadmissible due to it being an IA report and somehow compulsary. So he could have admitted he meant to kill her and it would be a free ride. "The atmosphere in police shootings is becoming more and more hostile. " Ya, we're a little tired of having our fellow citizens murdered by the pigs that represent our rich folks.

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. The question I have is why does the system allow layers to screw up this country so much? I have the answer: 1. Rich/affluent people make the laws 2. The same are benefited by shyster lawyers 3. Conclusion is obvious The question was not why it costs as much as it does but, thinking like a liberal for a second, why we spend what we do as opposed to spending it on preventative programs. The laws are made by a variety of people on two sides of the political spectrum. I doubt affirmative action and other social programs were designed to benefit the affluent or lawyers. What about Bush's tax proposal? Does that benefit lawyers. BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks. Wrong answer. No, the question by you was: why is it that we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages? My answer was: Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. OK, what's wrong with that? That is the answer, they pay what they have to in order to retain the people. The you replied by saying: The question was not why it costs as much as it does but, ... Right, you asked why we spend more than minimum wage to keep people in cages; isn;t that the same as your question? I guess I need to define what the context of is, is. ...why we spend what we do as opposed to spending it on preventative programs. You didn't state or ask that, and I know you don't feel that way, which is why you prefaced it with, "...thinking like a liberal for a second..." The laws are made by a variety of people on two sides of the political spectrum. Where have you been for the last 24+ years? What laws have been enacted on the side of the left? Also, powers of veto preclude your contention. A representative Democracy is something less liberating than a Monarchy of old. The voters of Maricopa County voted down a staudium tax increase for Bank One Ballpark, the County Board of Supervisors held a midnight session to have a new vote, did so and it was passed against the will of the people. There are examples everywhere that indicate the will of the people via elected representatives is a joke. BTW, by saying the two sides, you are ignoring Independants. I doubt affirmative action and other social programs were designed to benefit the affluent or lawyers. Are you joking or posturing for some forum members not in the know? I'm not in law school in part due to AA. Lawyers are non-white in many cases, so I think they are benefuted from AA. The US Sup Ct just recently upheld that UofM appeal where a white female was denied admission and the admissions rules allowed for great advantage for non-whites. In case you don't know, the current court is very conservative and caters to corps and the rich. As for not helping lawyers, are you saying that lawyers don't hang all over AA in civil cases? Give me a break. What about Bush's tax proposal? Does that benefit lawyers. Which one, all I know are the ones that cut taxes for the rich and send jobs overseas via tax breaks for corps. BTW you really need to read the forum rules about personal attacks. give me a break - you wrote shyster in your profile.

Your original question: How do you figure our what it costs for the state to have a trial? Then your subsequent questions: I mean, the DA's are paid salary, right? They'd be getting paid no matter what the trial. The judge is on salary, he'd be getting paid too. The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people? So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise. A bias toward the notion that DP doesn't have increase costs. This is apparent when you write things like, "...he'd be getting paid too." And, "So all I can see that's left ..." These are statements that make a person believe that you lean toward the notion that DP cases cost no more, but are willing to listen if someone can convince you otherwise. If you would ask about the costs and then debate both sides it would appear objective, but you are being critcal of any information that supports the cost for capital cases. Does all that really add up to a few million? That has skepticism written all over it. So it's not the death penalty cases per se that are costing so much, but the sheer volume of all cases? Right, you're not arguing that DP cases cost more. Because the way I imagine it, is that all those salaried DA's and staff would probably be working on some case somewhere if the death case/appeal was not going on. So then all these cost estimates are based on someone's version of opportunity cost? Right, they would be working anyway, so.... Someone has a version. Right, keep telling yourself you are simply inquiring. If you would ask 1 question, rhetorical or otherwise, where you critique someone denying the costs of the DP, then you would sound so much more convincing in regard to your so-called naivety. I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a death penalty case costs taxpayers X million more than if it were a life-sentence case. Right, it wasn't worded, "I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a life sentence case costs taxpayers X million less than if it were a death penalty case." See, you give yourself away, time after time. To me, it really looks like "soft" numbers, which are more than apt to be inflated from one side or another to prove someone's point. Right, you have at least a soft opinion that the costs are the same. But I definitely want to hear more about it. But are willing to be convinced if someone will do 1,000 hours research, will you would probably dismiss anyway. So the DA's have more work to do, but they're on salary so they'd be getting paid no matter what. Dude, that's an argument against the notion that DP cases cost more. If it is mainly police, they're also on salary and getting paid regardless of the investigation. Ya, and hiring more cops isn't worthy of figuring in? Have you heard of overtime pay for cops? Some cops earn their salary again in overtime pay. Maybe you haven't heard of your hero's (GW Bush) overtime law (took effect last August - I can start a new thread on it if you wish) that revokes overtime for many people, but language is inserted that specifically protects, "first responders" which are cops and firefighters. RN's are highly attacked in the law. It would seem that that kind of thing would happen regardless if it were a death case or not, the gap would just be filled by multiple additional cases. People have supported the notion that DP cases require much more investigation; so to sweep under the carpet the additional costs is to ask for a, "gimmee" in a golf game. I fully understand man hours. I was a consultant in my past life. The same thing applied there too however. I was paid a salary, regardless of how I long I worked on any one project. My employer, because a project went over estimated time, did not incur any more REAL costs except that I was not available for another project. Another fine argument that CP doesn’t cost more. Oh wait, you aren't arguing that, I forgot. You can work DA's only so long and they have to get a cot. Furthermore, you tend to chase people out of the DA's office and into private practice if you overload them, so there are parameters. Also, if you screw up on time statuettes, you can lose a case, so this point is a ridiculous comparison. Many people involved in the process are not salaried exempt. And as far as increasing the goals for more death penalty cases (not that I think that's a great idea), wouldn't that simply lengthen the time it took to get people to trial up until a point where the HAD to hire more DAs? An argument that there is an alternative to fair and speedy trials. I pointed out that defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but you are still looking for any reason possible that CP cases don't cost more. Your example of a DZ doesn't work here since the objective of the court process isn't to make money. Instead, lacking the appropriate staff (which I'm sure is almost always the case with DAs offices) lengthens the wait for trials to see a courtroom. Again, debunked by speedy trial guarantees. Contrary to what you might think, I'm not trying to argue that it's cheaper to kill them... Then show me all of your arguments in this thread that argue it might be more expensive to sentence them to life. But even then, it is impossible to get exact numbers of exactly how that increases costs to taxpayers. Right, you want exact to the penny figures or it's all bullshit. Show me where it was proven that there was/is a disparity of blacks being executed for crimes where white people would be let go or charged with a lesser crime. A great example of that derives from the charges of crack versus powder cocaine. We know which demographic uses which, and the courts have been criticized for disproportionately charging one group over another, but are there volumes of testimony and recorded admissions? Did Ollie North really not recall all X,000 questions? Did Clinton really have sex with Monica, or were the seamen implanted? You can divide hairs until we run out of bandwidth, but the notion that the DP costs at least twice as much as life imprisonment is something that even the most conservative death-lover will concede. I wonder, if defense bills are so high, would it be more economical to have a public defender's office, opposite the DA? Is that even allowed? Now you're looking for ways to make DP more economical, hence rendering a potential solution to what you well know is a fact; DP costs considerably more. You're tipping your hand. the Illinois Capital Punishment Comission found that because the death penalty put additional scrutiny on a case... it was more likely that the accused would be found innocent in appeal. So, in a twisted way, the DP has saved a few lives from wrongful convictions or death. Strange side effect, but it makes sense. Now you're trying to make the DP a martyr. That is the most far out paradox I've ever read. So now the added prosecutorial expense, according to you, is really an expense of the defense in sheepskin. EEEEWWW brother. Then why do we see them often quoted? 800 million. 2.6 million. 1.1 billion. This in response to me asking why you want exact figures. Those are rough numbers. 2.6 million being the smallest number means, $2,6000,000. It could be, $2,547,864.34 and still be rounded up to 2.6. If we get to 1.1 billion we could be at, $1,136,386,073.64, but who's counting? With that figure we are 36 million dollars higher than the 1.1 bill, and it could be 36 mill lower than the 1.1 billion. These aren't exact figures and I wouldn't expect them to be that point. And if the maximum punishment was life in prison, would you be more okay with innocent people being sentenced? I bet there would be plenty of appeals if life without parole was the absolute max. This is a good argument, an argument that CP isn't that bad, but still an argument that I want to address. To be objective this must be entered into the equation. The route of appeals isn't as extensive with life cases and doesn't get the same attention as a DP case, so I argue that the appeals would be inherently cheaper. But it would take real rough numbers to get a handle on the actual costs associated with a system that would hypothetically now sentence to life and not death. It would depend upon how the appellate system viewed life sentences and it would likely change by venue and time. Now, I will be objective. There were 2 times in this thread where it could be argued that you started to concede to the notion that CP costs more than life. These weren't strong arguments/concessions, but I need to cite them. Anyway, good answer. I see that the math may be oversimplified in most cases... but I also see how the number is much higher than a "normal" trial would be. With a disclaimer, but you, kicking and screaming, started to concede. Now this might lead to fewer available resources for other work, that makes sense. You actually see what has been repeated several times. Of course you don't say the obvious; extra people would then be needed and hired, hence more expense. Can you please review all of your posts in this thread and find other statements than the 2 above that imply you argue the other way or even straddle the middle? After all, being objective is a process of discovery and tests of that discovered data. You arguments are like those of, "mnealtx" where he argued to the end that the notion of killing a child must be done when that child still is a child, not 12 years later when the appeals are exhausted. He finally conceded that it's the same thing after pages of discussion. Certain things are so supported, so obvious that they are considered moot. In court you would ask the judge to consider them under, "Judicial Notice" meaning you ask the judge to acknowledge today is Sunday. There are piles of evidence drawn from state sources that indicate the cost for CP is 2-3+ times more than life.

Detention Officers are hard enough to retain, that's why. The question I have is why does the system allow layers to screw up this country so much? I have the answer: 1. Rich/affluent people make the laws 2. The same are benefited by shyster lawyers 3. Conclusion is obvious

Actually we have executed at least 1 minor. It was Ohio in 1897 http://www.ohiodeathrow.com/ http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/capital.htm He was 17 and the first electrocuted in that state. Does this have contemporary application? No. But neither does a cite posted in another thread from a 1915 letter from Teddy Roosevelt, but a few conservatives fought for it and complained when I discounted it based on age relevance. So if that's relevant then so is this - pick a side. This is an example of how egregious America can be, which is why I am posting it. Do I think we will ecer go back to this? No, but with this current conservative swing we could go back to executing people for rape or other types of murder besides 1st degree.

How do you know that? Did you interview him before he commited the crime? Did you talk to him after he died? Actions. If he did give consideration, then he may have wanted to die, because just like Bush with Iraq, he had no apparent exit plan. Put it this way, based on what is obvious with his actions, the presence of execution didn't deter him. Last time I checked Ohio has the DP. http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/capital.htm This refers to another thread with much discussion, but the US used to execute minors. http://www.ohiodeathrow.com/

I never thought of that - let's segue into the DP threads! Great point. There are a lot of compelling facts here: 1. The guy was a kook 2. The cop was a hero 3. The guns had the least to do with this, it was the people 4. The kook gave zero consideration to the thought of spending his life behind bars or dying by lethal injection or by being shot by a cop or anyone else. CONCLUSION: deterrence wasn't represented here. Of course the DP proponents would say you never see the benefits of DP deterrence because they are crimes that are not committed. The retort to that is that they have yet to produce 1 person, let alone bunches of them that claim they decided not to kill, or they moved to a non-CP state to kill due to the deterrence of the DP. Furthermore, DP deterrence, if effective (which I dispute), only has relevance between life w/o parole and death, which is a slim margin. Also, the element of choice must be present with any deterrence, so deterrence, if effective only has a general affect and not specific or special.

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.

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?

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.