The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Other Topics Humor Lawyers...Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lawyers... | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Well, whoopie-ding-phuck.  We're close to the same age.  For most of my life, I was naive like you, and believed that in their own process our legal systems and social systems generally sorted out right and wrong, and after all are there to protect us. I was like you and many, smug a detached, who figured that someone arrested or involved in some legal mess probably deserved it. Only a picture is sufficient to describe what mere words cannot provide. It doesn't always look like this, but this is what it FEELS like:  If something like that ever happens to you, suddenly your lawyer is your best buddy. Sad but true. Here's a link to the word "arrest": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest There are several key segments, and I colored in blue the part most significant to me: "The word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint of a person, or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement." Following arrest: "While an arrest will not necessarily lead to a criminal conviction, it may nonetheless in some jusrisdictions have serious ramifications such as absence from work, social stigma, and in some cases, the legal obligation to disclose an arrest when a person applies for a job, a loan or a professional license. These collateral consequences are more severe in the United States." "A legal action is sometimes filed against the government for wrongful arrest." The last sentence goes back to my earlier post about "Probable Cause". This is why it can happen, and why an average person can do little about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity I'm not about to explain all the details, mostly because of second-guessing and guilt by association, guilty until proven innocent, and just plain meanness of some people. Very short story is that I called the police to diffuse a situation, with unexpected consequenses. A good attorney and $10,000 later, problem solved. Unfortunately that's not the end of it. Some things can't be measured, but in general add another $50,000, and three years dealing with court issues, and it still ain't over. If I knew then what I know now, there would have been a test in court of the legal principle of Probable Cause for arrest, with an attorney or without one. Technically, it may not be too late for that, but it's a case of time deminishes the intensity and urgency. It's something one never forgets though, with many sour and lingering issues needing to be put aside. It's a challange though, having accumulated enough related info and collateral experience to literally write a book (memoir) on the subject of marriage to and divorce from a foriegn bride. Now, the good and positive things in life beckon. My stuff is in the post office from Midway and needs to be picked up. It's not raining, and the range is still snow-free, and I have some load development to do for my cz 270, which I am grateful to be legally entitled to own - thanks to a lawyer. Regards, KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| one of us |
Damn... I'm a simple guy who thought HUMOR was supposed to be funny, witty, situational, maybe a little sarcastic, and usually at someone's expense, who might also see the irony of their situation. So, my first foray over to the HUMOR forum, and I find 22WRF carrying the standard for abused and deprived women, unjustly accused lawyers, and other murdered-and-fed-to-the-hogs-types. I truly feel for Kabluewy, this crap can happen and really screw up your life. I also agree with IS, we can avoid an awful lot of trouble by simply trying, some will still find us, and often we're a little at fault ourselves.(me included) Anyway, I'm off to find some Real Humor, the kind that I can laugh at and relate to, something to lighten the mood! | |||
|
| one of us |
That's quite possibly the most naive thing I've ever read. Back to the humor: A wealthy attorney was traveling in his chauffer driven limousine one day when he noticed a family of four on the side of the road eating grass. Astonished, the counselor told his chauffer to pull over so that he could have a word with the man of the family. "Good Sir, why is your family feeding on grass?" asked the curious litigator. "We're completely without money and my family is starving" replied the poor man. "I can't bear to watch this any longer, please have your enire family board my limo immediately. I'll take you all to my house were I will feed you" said the attorney. "Oh thank you, thank you!" exclaimed the poor man, "How can I ever repay you?" "Good Sir, you will owe me nothing" replied the lawyer, "My grass must be at least a foot high." | |||
|
| one of us |
Now THAT'S funny!!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
It is funny. When we moved to Idaho in 1978 I picked out a small town. I was a hunter/shooter and a Vietnam Veteran. I was also a life member of the NRA and VFW and went to church. It took six months of hanging around gunshops, the local gun club's range (I joined three days after I hit town) and going to church and I had met (socially) over half the PD. I took some college courses, and two of them were with a 21 year old guy who is now our Chief of Police. I still hunt with three or four of the old guard (my age +/- five years). I guess that makes me part of the "Establishment". Funny Story: Eleven years ago my wife and I decided to build a new house at the edge of town. A lady from church came and cleaned our house every week. Her son had been diagnosed with a form of Epilepsy, and she needed to care for him, so she quit her job and started a house cleaning business. She worked hard, and three years later she bought a Mercedes SUV thingie. The first fall in the new house, a guy comes by and wants to know if we need our sprinkler system blown out. We negotiate a price, and every fall and spring he did our service work. He was a shop teacher at the HS. Eight years ago he is disgusted with the change in the city government and runs for Mayor. He is elected. He comes by the house to blow out the sprinklers and lets me know the business has been sold and he has a real, full time job. I laughed out loud. He wanted to know what was funny, and I told him about Robin and her MB. I told him that America had to be the greatest country in the history of the world. Where else could a man have a cleaning lady that drives a Mercedes-Benz and a Mayor that comes around twice a year and blows out his sprinkler system? You can't have bad cops in a small town. Every time they stop somebody, they get asked how their parents are doing, and if their younger sister and her husband have any new babies yet, and if they like the job. By the way, the leo's in the picture look like they are eastern european. regards, Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's just a picture I.S., probably from Eastern Europe, which is besides the point. BTW, the situation I referred to happened in a small town, and I was on good terms with all the leo's there. The arresting officer and I often deer hunted together, and we were buddies of sorts, and fellow employees. We are still in contact by email. Even though he moved south and I live elsewhere now too, we haven't lost touch. He thought he was doing his job, and acting according to training, but that was only the beginning. What happened next, in the courts, is where the real and expensive problem unfolded. I still haven't entirely forgiven him though, mostly because he hasn't asked for forgivness, because he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. It's a difference of opinion, and I see no change in that either way, as long as time matters. I don't mean to be rude, but I really think you are naive in this regard. I never intended to imply that it's all about the cops or leos. That's only a fraction of the issue. The real power to cause suffering and expense, or remedy, is with the courts. Cops are far more likely to be held accountable than Judges. In other words, IMO cops have much less room for discretionary action, compared to Judges, who in many ways can make decisions with impunity, abiding and honoring the law or not. I used to think it was the other way around, but that was before I encountered a woman judge. KB | |||
|
| One of Us |
You will get no argument from me there. Judges usually only consider one opinion seriously; THEIRS! regards, Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why do we sometimes have 5-4 split decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court, or similar split decisions in the State's Highest Courts? Or if not split decisions, numerous concuring opinons? Why do we disagree with some rulings made by judges? Becasue of the human condition. No man and no woman can separate themselves completely from their human experience. And because of that there will always be subjective interpretations of objective rules. Consequently, becasue of these subjective interpretations of objective rules, people are going to oftentimes disagree with judges, and of course our answer to that is to allow people to run the case through at least one and sometimes 2 more courts with different judges to make sure that the first judge followed the law while making that subjective interpretation of the objective rule. The other part is that there is really no "facts" in any court case. That is because the people that make the decisions were usually not involved in the case or weren't at the scene. Thus, there is only the PERCEPTION OF FACT, which ultimately comes down to a PERCEPTION of the quality of the evidence presented and a PERCEPTION of the credibility of the parties. Those perceptions are subjective. So it is not a perfect system. But it is one that has evolved (swayed) over time to be acceptable to the majority, and will probably continue to do so as time goes on. The best thing that any court system can do is to make sure that every voice is heard. That is the closest any court will ever come to true justice. | |||
|
| One of Us |
that's not funny! Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
But, it's kinda interesting. 22 WRF's posts comes as a big revelation to me, because it explains why there seemed to such a disconnect between me and those attorneys I interviewed to represent me. They could have saved a lot of time and misunderstanding if they had just told me to quit confusing them with the facts, and my understanding of the law. I kept thinking it mattered, and of course they knew it didn't all along.  Let's tell some jokes about dentists or nuns or something. Maybe that would be funny. I'll start. What does a nun and a dentist have in common? Answer: Neither believes in the Tooth Fairy. And attorneys get to make up, or listen to, fairy tales each time they appear in court. After a while, everything is a fairy tale. (Subjectivity and Perception run amuck) Once upon a time - judges were not attorneys, and the truth and fact was important, and abiding the words and intent of the law was also important. It seems to me that the authors of the law considered it important, or they wouldn't have so carefully chosen the words to state the intent. But of course, this is a fairy tale, and that's a myth. How is it that in some cases, statutory law and case law appears to diverge? Answer: because the judge and attorneys didn't agree with the legislative intented outcome, and case law is easier to make than political law, and because there is little consequense (to them) if they don't abide the statute exactly. (Subjectivity encouraged by impunity) As it appears to me, it's also because some or perhaps most judges view their role as making law, as contrasted to abiding and interpreting the law. KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| One of Us |
KB A great case in point would be all of the people who have been exhonerated from death row becasue DNA proved they were innocent. Imagine taking a walk to your own execution knowing you didn't commit the crime but everyone else believing as truth that you did. | |||
|
| One of Us |
??ALL?? the people that have been exonerated? Do you have any numbers? Without numbers, I'm of the opinion that the numbers are so small that they don't compute. But it does make good TV fare. That's still no reason for a person convicted of murder, rape, etc to sit on deaths row for 10 or 15 years whilst the taxpayers go broke and the lawyers get rich. 6 months max. One review, one significant appeal, then it all over. No case everturned for the dotting of an eye nor the crossing of a tee. How about tort reform so that the loser pays?? I'll bet that'd clear out a whole bunch of frivilous suits against deep pockets victims where the lawyer is planning on getting a nusiance settlement. Aim for the exit hole | |||
|
| One of Us |
There's cold, then there's COLD. Given different circumstances, we could be discussing the merits of cutting off the right hand or the left, or hanging for Blasphemy. Now, when I read a State Supreme Court decision, I can't help but read between the lines, and wonder what has been left out, which might conflict with a predisposed outcome. I can see far more depth in the conflict and issues, and the probability of injustice. I no longer presume that the actual writeup is factual, and the outcome wouldn't have been different, with different individuals involved, plaintif and defendent, attorneys, as well as the judge(s). I no longer just presume that the decision is fair, legal, or is just. It just is. I know how the facts were distorted, twisted, edited, left out, etc. in my case, because I was there, and I know what the truth really is. I know how it was presented, and know that all was there to actually see the truth, given objectivity. I can see how the judges do it. I now know that it's business as usual. It ain't right, but as 22WRF says, it's what we've got, and better than most. Imperfection is subjective, depending on God's view, or man's view. KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| One of Us |
wasbeeman even 1 person wrongly convicted is too many. You talk big. What if that one person were you. http://www.innocenceproject.or...-BzKUCFce7KgodfVfDmQ | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
There's a line in the movie, O Bro Where Art Thou, said by the sherrif from Hell, I remember but not exactly: "The LAW - what's God have to do with it? The LAW - is a human institution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...r,_Where_Art_Thou%3F Cut and paste from Wikipedia: "Daniel von Bargen as Sheriff Cooley, he pursues the trio for the duration of the film. He eventually captures them after they have been pardoned by the governor himself on the radio; he proposes to hang them regardless of this. He fits Tommy Johnson's description of the devil in that his sunglasses look like "big empty eyes" and he travels with a bloodhound. Most of the times he appears in the film there are flames nearby, usually reflected in his glasses. He further indicates his otherworldliness when, advised that it would be illegal to hang the pardoned fugitives, he scoffs that "the law is a human institution." The fact that he is the constant adversary of Ulysses and his group equates him with Poseidon, who was Odysseus' adversary throughout the epic." We can thank God, that in this country, the law (like politics and government) is a human institution. KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Heck, I'm still trying to understand how the Supreme Court, nine good lawyers; can say abortion is legal but killing a pregnant woman constitutes two murder charges, when some guy can kick a woman in the gut, and cause her to miscarry and face the murder charge. Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
At least try to keep the topic focused on humor or irony, please. Damn, I come home, try to relax after a stressful late evening meeting. I want to read humor, man. To heck with these unspeakable mental images.I'm partially messing with you, because I started it, but damn, my stuff wasn't that bad. At least I tried to not make it too serious, but I see no way to lighten up on the stuff in your post. Except, you made mention of nine good lawyers. Thinking of that as an oxymoron is kinda funny. KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm sorry. Everybody in favor of a kinder, gentler ISS say "Ayyyy" Opposed: ME: "Naaaaaaaaay" motion denied! Carry on. Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rich, I think you mean 4 good lawyers, 4 traitors to this nation, and the one guy in the middle that decides everything. | |||
|
| one of us |
My jurisdiction already has that, as do many US jurisdictions. It's called an ofer of judgment. A party can make a nominal offer to settle the case and if the other party does not accept it the other party must win a jury verdict of at least 100% of the offer or be responsible for the offerer's attorney's fees. Only problem is it is only the defendant who can make an offer of judgment in my jurisdiction. What would be fair is if the plaintiff could make an offer to settle the claim and receive the same treatment. All too often, wealthy corporations make these offers of judgment in an attempt to intimidate the plaintiff into settling their claim for pennies on the dollar. Everyone is a conservative until it's their ass in a sling. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia