One in 31

[petertribo]

Re: One in 31

Laws do have purpose, apparently of which you are ignorant or incapable of understanding.

See my post today regarding the Criminalization of Growing Tomatoes! I'm sure all the Judges are cranking up their gavels to put these farmers and citizens growing vegetables in poverty where they belong. A fine payday for all the "legal" personnel concerned.

I'll leave it to others to decide on your ignorance and incapacities rather than render a decision myself. Sure sounds to me like you've got some $kin in the law scams.

[Rajiv]

Re: One in 31

Fitts' - Dillon Read & Co. Inc. the Aristocracy of Stock Profits is worth a read once again

As it says there

Make a Law, Make a Business - Old New Jersey Street Saying

[c1ue]

Re: One in 31

The problem with the US legal system comes down to an inability or unwillingness to pay attention to the spirit of a law.

This can be at least partly attributed to the adversarial nature of the plaintiff/defendant resolution process - something encouraged by lawyers.

Because of this - everything winds up being nitpicked to death: what are the precedents, what is the exact definition/limit of the law, etc.

Unfortunately one consequence of this over time is the building up of a massive legal code which requires both experience and knowledge to interpret.

This is very handy for lawyers, of course - job security.

Anytime you actually go into court, you should keep in mind the fact that the reality is irrelevant. The letter of the law is what matters.

Understanding what that letter of the law is can absolutely be done in many cases by laymen, but it is a non-trivial undertaking as both the written precedents and the understanding of it require a lot of effort and mental re-orientation.

I'll give you 2 examples of this:

1) One time I was sitting at a traffic light in the left lane. There was a left turn lane next to me, and the traffic light had a left arrow. I discovered the road I had been searching for was in fact the one I was perpendicular to, and that I needed to turn left.

Normally I'd just go straight through, then make a U-ey. But the left turn arrow went green, all the cars went through, then it stayed green as my traffic light turned green.

Checking my rear view mirror, I saw no one incoming to the left turn lane, so I put my signal on and turned left through a green left arrow.

"BREAROW* a CHP who was at least 5 cars behind me and stopped in the same traffic line comes flying through the intersection after me.

After I stop, he informs me that I ran a red light.

Now, I did not even go through a yellow on either the left turn arrow nor straight traffic light. I said - no way, it was green - in a thoroughly respectful manner.

He admits he didn't actually see the light, but wants to write me up anyway. I continue to firmly but politely disagree (my wife was beside me and was corroborating as well).

So he 'relents' and gives me an illegal left turn ticket.

Now I know for a fact I didn't run any red light. I go back the next day and take a video of the light in question. Normally 90% of the time, a left turn arrow has turned red by the time its accompanying straight traffic light has turned green, but I know from my experience that this particular one isn't that way.

I take a video of this, and request a hearing before the judge.

In court, the officer testifies that he stopped me for apparently going through a red light and issued me a ticket for an illegal left turn.

I counter that I have a video showing that the light was not green; that the left turn arrow and straight traffic light can and were green simultaneously.

The judge says: well, you did make a turn from the straight through lane.

Case closed.

My mistake? Accepting the illegal left turn ticket. I should have stuck with the red light one. The judge of course didn't give a rat's a$$ even though the officer testified as to why he stopped me.

2) What to do if you are stopped for DUI

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ty-t30708.html

My police officer friends in SF tell me to do what Antonio Bryant did in the link above: if stopped for DUI and there is ANY chance whatsoever you're over the legal limit (0.08 in California), don't take the test. Any test.

You'll get charged with everything and the state has the right to stick you with all the penalties, but ultimately you can appeal and get off with minimal or no penalties.

Why? Because once you take the test, and a 'positive' result is reached, the test results are discarded and you are left up the creek without a paddle.

If you don't take the test - even in the case where the judge decides to throw the book at you, you can ultimately still appeal and get your license back as well as getting the DUI removed from your record.

Because there is no proof.

Of course I am not an attorney and the above 2 instances should NOT be considered a legal opinion, but both are real life examples of 'justice' or lack thereof.

p.s. Bryant wound up doing some community service and paying a fine despite his unquestionable severe breaking of many laws. For normal people driving 120mph and getting caught is automatic jail time.

[BadJuju]

Re: One in 31

A cousin of mine with severe mental problems and an extremely difficult life was sentenced tens years for committing arson. A few years later, a group of well-off kids the same age as him burned down a slew of barns and other buildings. Not one of them received prison time because they were rich. :mad:

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

See my post today regarding the Criminalization of Growing Tomatoes! I'm sure all the Judges are cranking up their gavels to put these farmers and citizens growing vegetables in poverty where they belong. A fine payday for all the "legal" personnel concerned.

Here's a quick legal lesson for you: a bill is not a law. That will be $250 please. Here is a free civics lesson: you elect your representatives in Congress. Congress makes the laws. Courts enforce the laws. You may hire a lawyer to help you represent your interests.

Wow, this is getting fun. I can see why you would be angry at the legal system though: a domain that requires baseline reasoning skills to perform competently does by its nature exclude the incapable. That you feel more comfortable reading grade-school level analogies between Star Trek and the legal system is to be pitied, not mocked.

Anyway, you probably already know this given the depth of your legal knowledge, but judges are often appalled at the laws they must enforce. Take mandatory crack sentencing guidelines for instance. The bench has been protesting these rules that got jammed through Congress for taking away discretion when it is most needed. This law mandates penalties that often do not fit the crime. Only us insiders know that this resistance is just a dog and pony show - judges actually love sentencing crack offenders to 10 years in prison while cocaine offenders get 6 months.

Sure sounds to me like you've got some $kin in the law scams.

Your powers of deduction truly amaze. Maybe the law game isn't for you, but have you ever thought about being a detective?

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

The problem with the US legal system comes down to an inability or unwillingness to pay attention to the spirit of a law.

This can be at least partly attributed to the adversarial nature of the plaintiff/defendant resolution process - something encouraged by lawyers.

Many jurisdictions have mandatory mediation before a case may proceed to trial. As far as a plaintiff and defendant being adversarial ... well ... yea. Why else have they brought the case? You don't need a lawyer to encourage that. A reputable lawyer will tell the client before any fees are charged that lawsuits get very expensive very quickly, are uncertain, and they should think about pursuing other options. A lawsuit is usually a last resort.

2) What to do if you are stopped for DUI

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ty-t30708.html

My police officer friends in SF tell me to do what Antonio Bryant did in the link above: if stopped for DUI and there is ANY chance whatsoever you're over the legal limit (0.08 in California), don't take the test. Any test.

You'll get charged with everything and the state has the right to stick you with all the penalties, but ultimately you can appeal and get off with minimal or no penalties.

Why? Because once you take the test, and a 'positive' result is reached, the test results are discarded and you are left up the creek without a paddle.

If you don't take the test - even in the case where the judge decides to throw the book at you, you can ultimately still appeal and get your license back as well as getting the DUI removed from your record.

Because there is no proof.

Of course I am not an attorney and the above 2 instances should NOT be considered a legal opinion, but both are real life examples of 'justice' or lack thereof.

p.s. Bryant wound up doing some community service and paying a fine despite his unquestionable severe breaking of many laws. For normal people driving 120mph and getting caught is automatic jail time.

You can do this and may avoid a DUI, but you will lose your license, probably for a few years. A driver's license is considered a privilege granted by the state, and they can revoke the privilege regardless of whether you are convicted of a DUI or not.

[flintlock]

Re: One in 31

There are good and bad Lawyers and Judges, just like any other profession. I am in a trade( residential electrical service ) full of scumbags. Dominated by scumbags as a matter of fact. I don't get offended when people are wary of hiring me, because the reputation is well deserved. Just like lawyers, I have a knowledge base the customer doesn't and it can be very easy to manipulate them into spending money unnecessarily. It boils down to your ethics. Either you have some or you don't . More and more in ALL fields these days don't have them.

Providing legal service is very expensive and most people don't realize why it costs so much. Hell, they don't understand why electrical work costs so much! That's because most people have never run a business and have no idea what things cost. Nor do they appreciate the time and money that went into learning that profession. That said, people should be able to expect honesty and to be treated fairly. I think its a little disingenuous to act insulted because someone criticizes a field that has a well established reputation for not always being on the up and up. Lawyers lie and cheat? Where did you hear such nonsense?
And acting sarcastic and insulting because someone dared criticize your profession is a bit of an overreaction I think.

My sister in law and her husband are both attorneys. They'll both tell you straight up it can be a sleazy business. As a matter of fact my sister in law quit a $200k year job because it was making her sick. All the lying and deception.
I played poker every week for years with a RE closing attorney. He cheated constantly. Over $10 poker pots! We'd catch him red handed. Big church guy too. He said he almost quit playing because we cussed and drank too much. Last year he was convicted in a huge mortgage fraud scandal and is now doing 10 years.

Not saying all lawyers are like this, just that they are not exactly uncommon.

[flintlock]

Re: One in 31

Here's a quick legal lesson for you: a bill is not a law.

I was going to say the same thing.

This would never pass. Congress and their cronies are not that blunt. More likely they'll come out with requirements that you have your tomatoes lab tested and warning stickers applied to each one certifying they passed USDA requirements.

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

There are good and bad Lawyers and Judges, just like any other profession. I am in a trade( residential electrical service ) full of scumbags. Dominated by scumbags as a matter of fact. I don't get offended when people are wary of hiring me, because the reputation is well deserved. Just like lawyers, I have a knowledge base the customer doesn't and it can be very easy to manipulate them into spending money unnecessarily. It boils down to your ethics. Either you have some or you don't . More and more in ALL fields these days don't have them.

If you read my posts I do not assert that all lawyers are great. I likewise did not assert that no lawyers are ethically challenged. When you make stupid statements like "the legal system is a purposeless scam and all lawyers and judges are cheating liars" you can expect to get a reaction. I am not personally offended by such statements, but I feel no compunction in questioning the intelligence of one who makes such assertions. Would you question my reasoning ability and thoughtfulness if I asserted that "electrical work is a complete scam invented only to fleece non-electricians and all electricians are in on it?"

[c1ue]

Re: One in 31

You can do this and may avoid a DUI, but you will lose your license, probably for a few years. A driver's license is considered a privilege granted by the state, and they can revoke the privilege regardless of whether you are convicted of a DUI or not.

Sure, but the other way, you WILL lose your license.

You WILL get a DUI on your record.

Nothing you might suffer by refusing a test is any worse than what you'd get if you test positive. And refusing the test allows the possibility of appeal - otherwise the draconian leaning of the anti drunk driving laws pretty much prevents any such activity.

Again, not a legal opinion, but what examples have shown and what those in the position to possibly know say.

From the adversarial perspective, clearly the test avoidance is the right way to go. Spirit of the law be damned.

If you've ever played with the breathalyzers, you'd no doubt understand just how low 0.08% breath alcohol is.

[petertribo]

Re: One in 31

Are you actually admitting to being a member of the Monopolistic Labor Union of Lawyers licensed by the Government? Those who depend on the Government and its ever continuing flow of laws, regulations, to eke out their living? I would keep that quiet in polite company at least.

A poll by the University Of Texas showed that the Public actually held Politicians in higher regard than Lawyers. Look it up.

"It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour." Thomas Jefferson

Keep at it, Gasbag, and prove that you have the Right Lawyer Stuff. Apparently business must be somewhat slow for you as you have to exercise your "craft" here for free. Maybe head over to Emergency at the Hospital after venting and troll for some clients.

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

Sure, but the other way, you WILL lose your license.

You WILL get a DUI on your record.

Nothing you might suffer by refusing a test is any worse than what you'd get if you test positive. And refusing the test allows the possibility of appeal - otherwise the draconian leaning of the anti drunk driving laws pretty much prevents any such activity.

Again, not a legal opinion, but what examples have shown and what those in the position to possibly know say.

From the adversarial perspective, clearly the test avoidance is the right way to go. Spirit of the law be damned.

If you've ever played with the breathalyzers, you'd no doubt understand just how low 0.08% breath alcohol is.

It really depends on the jurisdiction, but where I practice if you refuse a breathalyzer you are 100% guaranteed to lose you license for 2 years. If you take one and are over the limit there are tactics to get your license back - either through lawyers, diversion etc. Not saying that one is better than the other, but you should know that refusing to take a breathalyzer has consequences.

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

"It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour." Thomas Jefferson

I find your inability to parse "yield" in this context amusing.

[c1ue]

Re: One in 31

It really depends on the jurisdiction, but where I practice if you refuse a breathalyzer you are 100% guaranteed to lose you license for 2 years. If you take one and are over the limit there are tactics to get your license back - either through lawyers, diversion etc. Not saying that one is better than the other, but you should know that refusing to take a breathalyzer has consequences.

Fair enough.

I did state that in CA at least, refusal to take a test means you get subject to the penalties.

However, the important point is this: if you take the test and fail, any and every possible recourse you have is pretty much ruled out.

For example improper advisement of choices, etc etc.

BTW - Boi is not a negative connotation. I myself can be described at Sir Warren - Boi ;)

[Munger]

Re: One in 31

Fair enough.

I did state that in CA at least, refusal to take a test means you get subject to the penalties.

However, the important point is this: if you take the test and fail, any and every possible recourse you have is pretty much ruled out.

For example improper advisement of choices, etc etc.

BTW - Boi is not a negative connotation. I myself can be described at Sir Warren - Boi ;)

These laws are very state specific. If you do refuse the breathalyzer, and I am not giving this to you as legal advice and I am not your lawyer, I would suggest stating that it is because it should be plainly obvious that you are not drunk, that you find it unreasonable that you should take the breathalyzer, that you passed the field sobriety tests, etc. Avoid swearing as well, as that will come up and make you look bad. Be polite. And good luck, because regardless of what you say, it's a reasonable inference as to why anyone would refuse the breathalyzer.

Arguments can be made though to refute the breathalyzer, including: continued rising BAC (your BAC was not over the level when you were driving, but rose to that level after they pulled you over because BAC is known to rise well after alcohol has been ingested), residual alcohol in your mouth, etc. This is just word on the street stuff - I have never done DUI work. Your mileage may vary.