The Random, Meaningless Political post thread

[Estro Felino]

I thought it was irrelevant.

The real story....
The day before, OJ's son asked....
"Hey, can I borrow the car?"
OJ responded, "Go ax your mother."
He did.

Honestly the only thing I remember is the look, the desperate gaze of Ron Goldman's father and sister, while listening "not guilty".
It was heartbreaking.

 

[Stevicus]

Thus it pays to be certain that one isn't imposing unjust
costs on the defendant. After all, a prevailing defendant
is the one in the right....did nothing wrong. Why should
the innocent party endure expenses caused unjustly by
another?

It wasn't that they were innocent, but the judge set certain standards for proof of guilt that they were unable to meet, so the case against one of the corporations was dismissed. However, in the end, the plaintiff gave all his evidence and data to the EPA, who then brought their own legal action against the corporation. It ended the movie on a somewhat positive note, though it made it appear that the Federal government was riding in on a white horse to finally bring justice to this town.

There is a middle ground, ie, an evidentiary hearing
to examine the risks & merits of a plaintiff's case.
There are cases wherein both the defendant &
plaintiff have merit. Mediation can be useful.
But beware...I've been thru that process, & it too is
riddled with incompetent lawyers who pass judgement.

That might be useful, but I think what they really need is a heavy dose of common sense. Like with concepts like qualified immunity. What the heck? What kind of minds formulate the thought that something like this is okay and should be accepted?

I've also learned early on that concepts of "legal" and "illegal" don't always coincide with concepts of "right" and "wrong."

 

[Stevicus]

In my opinion the laws in the US are your lawyer. You must know the law. Never let your guard down when communicating with your lawyer. I put communication with those bums in writing putting responsibility on them for advice or information given to me. They don't like defensive clients. Every lawyer I've used performed terribly. One was a well known head of a Philadelphia law firm. The last time I spoke to him he wanted me to sign a form stating I would not sue him or his family in the future....He sure earned my confidence....lol

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't that they were innocent, but the judge set certain standards for proof of guilt that they were unable to meet, so the case against one of the corporations was dismissed.

Mere quibbling.
The defendant won because the plaintiff's case failed.
Why should the defendant bear that expense, when
the plaintiff caused it?
Or do you believe that all defendants are corporations,
& deserve to bear the costs of being sued frivolously?

However, in the end, the plaintiff gave all his evidence and data to the EPA, who then brought their own legal action against the corporation. It ended the movie on a somewhat positive note, though it made it appear that the Federal government was riding in on a white horse to finally bring justice to this town.

I'm addressing the real world,
not movie scripts.

That might be useful, but I think what they really need is a heavy dose of common sense. Like with concepts like qualified immunity. What the heck? What kind of minds formulate the thought that something like this is okay and should be accepted?

I've also learned early on that concepts of "legal" and "illegal" don't always coincide with concepts of "right" and "wrong."

Cops love the idea that when they act illegally,
they're doing so for the right reasons. You
aren't supporting this, are you?

 

[Stevicus]

I'm addressing the real world,
not movie scripts.

It was based on a true story.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was based on a true story.

Like the new Netflix movie about Cleopatra, eh.
Your argument suggests that it's OK for one person
to file a meritless suit against another, causing great
financial burden, all without risk...all because you
dislike corporations. So it seems. If you disagree,
you could spell out how you think suits in tort
should work.
I also think that when prosecutors fail to convict
a defendant, they should pay the defendant's legal
costs.

 

[Stevicus]

Like the new Netflix movie about Cleopatra, eh.
Your argument suggests that it's OK for one person
to file a meritless suit against another, causing great
financial burden, all without risk...all because you
dislike corporations. So it seems. If you disagree,
you could spell out how you think suits in tort
should work.
I also think that when prosecutors fail to convict
a defendant, they should pay the defendant's legal
costs.

I'm just saying there has to be a way of equalizing the system, so that when the little guy goes up against a big corporation, he's not hornswoggled or railroaded by the system. If it's just a little guy vs. little guy, then they can just have some kind of mediation where neither party would have any cost, since it would be a service provided by the government.

 

[Estro Felino]

Like the new Netflix movie about Cleopatra, eh.
Your argument suggests that it's OK for one person
to file a meritless suit against another, causing great
financial burden, all without risk...all because you
dislike corporations. So it seems. If you disagree,
you could spell out how you think suits in tort
should work.
I also think that when prosecutors fail to convict
a defendant, they should pay the defendant's legal
costs.

Honestly...this guaranteest speech actually seems a bit contradictory to me, considering your stance on Carroll's case.
Considering how sure you are that the outstanding, sublime, flawless jurors are infallible and unbiased, so Trump is guilty.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just saying there has to be a way of equalizing the system, so that when the little guy goes up against a big corporation, he's not hornswoggled or railroaded by the system. If it's just a little guy vs. little guy, then they can just have some kind of mediation where neither party would have any cost, since it would be a service provided by the government.

If the little guy has a strong case, lawyers
can take it on a contingency basis, ie, they
get paid only if they win.
If they can't find a lawyer willing to take it
on that basis, then it's a case unworthy.

Should big corporations be forced to pay
big legal bills when a plaintiff brings a
meritless case....just because they're big
corporations?
Guess who that cost gets passed on to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Honestly...this guaranteest speech actually seems a bit contradictory to me, considering your stance on Carroll's case.

"Guaranteest"?
It seems contradictory to you only because you misunderstand.

Considering how sure you are that the outstanding, sublime, flawless jurors are infallible and unbiased, so Trump is guilty.

That is a specious misrepresentation of my views on juries.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you consider those NY jurors infallible?

Did I ever say they are?
No.
Humans are all fallible.
However, judgment must be rendered,
& the jury system is what we have.
Who else should judge....you?
Pbbbbtttttttt!!

 

[Estro Felino]

Did I ever say they are?
No.
Humans are all fallible.

Indeed. They are all fallible.
We both say the same thing.
There is the chance they made a mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed. They are all fallible.
We both say the same thing.
There is the chance they made a mistake.

What's your point....juries shouldn't decide cases?
Or only judges (who are also fallible) should?
Or simply that Trump is innocent?

 

[Estro Felino]

What's your point....juries shouldn't decide cases?
Or only judges (who are also fallible) should?
Or simply that Trump is innocent?

My point is that whenever the evidence is insufficient, one must acquit the defendant.

Period.
Otherwise the verdict is biased.

So...the chance they made a mistake is pretty high.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is that whenever the evidence is insufficient, one must acquit the defendant.

Tell me what you know of the evidence that was presented.

 

[Estro Felino]

Tell me what you know of the evidence that was presented.

Here we go again.
Listen...I deeply respect your point... You believe he did it. I believe he didn't because I haven't seen the evidence.

If you want to convince me, show me the evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

....I haven't seen the evidence.

That says it all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I also think that when prosecutors fail to convict
a defendant, they should pay the defendant's legal
costs.

An interesting idea.

 

[Stevicus]

If the little guy has a strong case, lawyers
can take it on a contingency basis, ie, they
get paid only if they win.
If they can't find a lawyer willing to take it
on that basis, then it's a case unworthy.

Should big corporations be forced to pay
big legal bills when a plaintiff brings a
meritless case....just because they're big
corporations?
Guess who that cost gets passed on to.

If the lawyers and the corporations are corrupt, then who else can the little guy turn to? The government is the only choice left.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the lawyers and the corporations are corrupt, then who else can the little guy turn to? The government is the only choice left.

Lawyers aren't a cohesive group.
There are a great many of them.
If there's money to be made, they'd
push their own mother down stairs
to beat other sharks to the case.

When government is the party going
after the little guy, you want them
to also be the defense? Oh, how could
that possibly go wrong.
Strong your faith in government is!